Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3This chapter presents the objectives of this research project on new concepts for airport terminal landside facilities and the need for such new concepts, lists the chapters included in the report, presents definitions of the terminology used to ensure a consistent understanding, and discusses the assump- tions underlying the development and refinement of the in- novative concepts for airport terminal landside facilities. The intended audience includes airport management; other airport stakeholders, such as airlines and ground transporta- tion operators; and airport terminal and landside facility planning and design consultants. Research Objectives The objectives of this research project were to identify in- novations and develop innovative terminal landside facility concepts that can be implemented at airports of various sizes to improve the experience of passengers as they travel between the airport entrance or remote airport facility and the secure portions of the passenger terminal. The innovations were then incorporated into landside and terminal facility concepts intended to stimulate innovative design solutions to address the issues commonly faced by passengers on the terminal landside. Particular focus was given to the needs of the aging population. The identified innovations and the concepts incorporating the innovations developed as part of this research effort focus on large- and medium-hub airports (at least 1.00% and be- tween 0.25% and 0.99% of total U.S. passenger boardings, respectively), as designated by the FAA, with the intent that they could be implemented within the next 5 to 10 years. The innovations rely primarily on proven technologies, common processes, and current regulatory conditions in effect throughout the world, but may not be widely implemented within the United States or may even be currently prohibited by U.S. regulations. The intent of examining opportunities not currently implemented within the United States is to stimulate movement toward more forward-thinking practices and policies. Need for Innovation In May 2007, Airports Council International–North America (ACI-NA) estimated that airport operators will spend approx- imately $17.5 billion per year, or $87.4 billion total, in 2007 through 2011 just to keep up with the FAA’s forecast of airline traffic growth (1). Large- and medium-hub airports are ex- pected to account for approximately 73% of the total planned investments, with terminal and landside projects represent- ing 65.2% and 71.1%, respectively, of the development costs at large- and medium-hub airports (1). With construction costs increasing faster than inflation (1), the need to identify cost-effective solutions to improving the level of service that passengers experience at airport terminal landside facilities is more crucial than ever. Report Organization This report is organized into the following chapters: • Chapter 1: Background • Chapter 2: Research Findings • Chapter 3: Approach to Developing New Concepts • Chapter 4: Innovations • Chapter 5: Landside Concepts • Chapter 6: Terminal Concepts • Chapter 7: Conclusions Chapter 1 establishes the objectives of the research effort and the need for innovation, presents the basic definitions of terms used throughout this document, and outlines the key assumptions used to develop the innovative concepts and the intended goals for those concepts. The definitions of terms are provided to minimize confusion regarding the meaning C H A P T E R 1 Background

of the terminology used throughout the report compared with the way the same terms may be more loosely used in practice. The key assumptions are central to the viability of the innovative concepts and, therefore, are also identified in this chapter presenting the background for this research project. Chapter 2 summarizes the findings of the research con- ducted for this project, which included a published document review, interviews with airport industry representatives, and airport site visits. The relevant research yielded the basis for establishing the key processes that passengers experience between the airport entrance and the secure portions of the terminal and for identifying the critical issues that commonly affect passenger level of service. Examples of recent innova- tions at several airports are presented as the foundation for developing and evaluating the innovative concepts in this research project. Chapter 3 describes the research approach to developing new concepts including the identification of passenger processes, issues that passengers commonly face, innovations that could address those issues, and concepts incorporating the identi- fied innovations; the evaluation process is also described. The concepts are grouped into landside and terminal concepts. Chapter 4 describes the innovations in detail and provides in-depth examination of the drivers and assumptions or pre- requisites for each innovation as well as an evaluation of their advantages and disadvantages. Potential challenges to imple- mentation are also discussed. Chapters 5 and 6 examine how the innovations can be incorporated into concepts that apply to both landside (Chapter 5) and terminal (Chapter 6) facilities. The compat- ibility of the concepts with existing landside or terminal facil- ities or paradigms (i.e., single-level terminal with a single-level roadway, two-level terminal with a two-level roadway, etc.) and the advantages and disadvantages of each concept are examined. Potential challenges to implementation are also discussed. Chapter 7 presents the conclusions of this research project by examining the potential benefits of the results as well as their applicability to airport practice. Suggestions for further research, related to the innovations and concepts presented in this report, are also provided. An appendix presents the computer simulation analysis results, which estimated facility requirements for a process- based departures hall concept and a landside bag-check plaza concept. Definitions Terms used in the aviation industry often have several definitions and can be used in a variety of ways depending on the point of view and background of the person using the terms. To provide clarity, definitions of the key terms used in this report are provided below. • Automated people mover (APM): fully automated, grade-separated, fixed-guideway transit system that pro- vides passenger transfer between key components of the airport. • Bag drop: a staffed or non-staffed position where passengers use a self-service device to acquire tags for their check bag- gage and the baggage is input into the baggage-handling system. • Baggage make-up: facilities in the secure area of the ter- minal where the airlines consolidate checked baggage for loading onto the aircraft. • Check-in: using an e-ticket (via a kiosk, the Internet, or an airline agent) to acquire a boarding pass or deposit check baggage. • Check baggage: passenger baggage that is surrendered at the point of check-in, subject to explosives detection system (EDS) screening, transported in the belly compartment of the aircraft, and retrieved in the baggage claim hall. • Commercial vehicle (CV): generally includes taxicabs, town cars, prearranged limousines, courtesy vehicles, chartered vans and buses, shared-ride door-to-door vans, and sched- uled buses. • Common-use: the sharing of facilities (ticket counters, kiosks, baggage-claim devices, etc.) among multiple airlines based on demand rather than exclusive-use provisions. • Common-use self-service (CUSS): the sharing of facili- ties, such as kiosks, offering check-in by the passenger (potentially including baggage check) while allowing mul- tiple airlines to maintain branding and functionality. • Concept: graphic illustration of a potential opportunity to integrate one or more innovations with real-world situa- tions at airport landside or terminal facilities. • Curbside: that portion of the terminal area roadway used to drop off or pick up passengers. • Bag-check plaza: drive-through facility that offers self- service check-in and baggage check within proximity of the passenger’s vehicle. • Forecourt: an area that includes various vehicle and pedes- trian processing functions that is separated from the termi- nal building by a courtyard or other pedestrian-only plaza. • Full-service: use of an airline or airport agent to buy a ticket, modify a reservation, obtain a boarding pass, and deposit check baggage. • Innovation: something newly introduced, such as a new idea, method, or device. • Landside: public (nonsecure) portion of the airport from the airport entrance(s) up to the face of the terminal build- ing(s) that facilitate both vehicular and pedestrian move- ments and may include check-in functions. 4

• Nonsecure area: public areas of the terminal that departing passengers access before entering the security screening checkpoint (SSCP) and that arriving passengers access after leaving the secure area. • Passenger assistance parking area: a parking area that provides for vehicles to be left unattended briefly while passengers are being assisted to or from the terminal. • Passenger processing facility: facility located on the air- port landside that combines some or all of the functions typically found in a passenger terminal with those found in other facilities, such as a parking garage or consolidated rental car facility (CRCF). • Privately owned vehicle (POV): includes private vehicles and rental cars. • Regional transit: fixed-route service via CV or rail that connects the airport with regional or urban transportation networks. • Secure area: public areas to which passenger and other public access is controlled by an SSCP. • Self-service check-in: use of a self-service device or the In- ternet to obtain a boarding pass or surrender check baggage without personal contact with an airline or airport agent. • Self-service device (SSD): a kiosk used by passengers to obtain a boarding pass and in some cases a baggage tag. • Terminal: public facilities located on the airport that are used for processing departing and arriving passengers. The terminal typically includes the following functions: ticketing/ check-in (full-service and self-service), SSCPs, concessions, restrooms, baggage screening, baggage make-up, aircraft boarding gates, holdrooms, baggage claim, and a meters- and-greeters area. (Note: many terminals also include in- ternational arrivals facilities, which are not components of this research effort.) Assumptions Development and refinement of the innovative concepts— which range from holistic “blue sky” concepts that would involve a major reorganization of key passenger processing components to “immediately applicable” concepts—were based on the following assumptions, which are anticipated to materialize within the next 5 to 10 years: 1. Common-use self-service kiosks will become more widely implemented, especially at airports in the United States. 2. Passengers will be able to tag their own check baggage. 3. Approximately 80% of the traveling public will obtain boarding passes or check their baggage via SSDs or the Internet; the remainder will use full-service check-in functions at the airport. 4. Airport operators will take advantage of the flexibility to tailor their security programs to avoid the “300-ft rule,” which bans any unauthorized vehicles from parking within 300 ft of the terminal when DHS has elevated the threat level to “orange.” Each of these assumptions is discussed in detail below. Expanded Implementation of Common-Use Self-Service Kiosks Today, only one airport in the United States, McCarran In- ternational Airport in Las Vegas, has 100% CUSS kiosks (2); however, several other airports such as San Francisco, Dallas/ Fort Worth, Southwest Florida, and Pittsburgh international airports use CUSS kiosks to some extent (3). The Interna- tional Air Transport Association (IATA) estimates that at the end of 2007, 85 airports worldwide offered CUSS facilities and anticipates that number growing to 130 airports by the end of 2008 (3). One reason for the optimistic outlook for CUSS imple- mentation becoming more widespread, particularly in the United States, is that it provides real financial benefit. IATA estimates that CUSS can generate an average cost savings of $2.50 per check-in and that a 40% market penetration of CUSS kiosks would save $1 billion per year (3). With fuel prices increasing and impacting the financial performance of many airlines, it is not unreasonable to expect that any oppor- tunity to save operating costs will be strongly considered. In addition, airport operators are seeking ways to create more flexibility to accommodate the changes in airline service and to improve passenger throughput to avoid costly infrastruc- ture development. CUSS offers opportunities to address both of these concerns. Based on discussions with airline representatives, however, there is some opposition to CUSS that cannot be overlooked. First, the loss of branding and proprietary functions, such as passport scanning capability, is a concern. Some airlines provide functionality through their proprietary kiosks that other airlines do not offer. Some airlines prefer to have their own agents support the self-service kiosks so that they can be sure to offer the same level of service to all of their customers. Another concern is that multiple vendors provide CUSS infrastructure and that the airlines now have to support the integration of this infrastructure with their own systems in addition to the proprietary self-service kiosks that they main- tain at non-CUSS airports. While these concerns should not be ignored, the intent of this research is to examine the true potential that CUSS can provide from a passenger processing standpoint. In particular, this research is intended to determine how the needs of pas- sengers can be better served with CUSS and what other oper- ational benefits (such as increased capacity or reduced staffing) 5

result from the use of CUSS. The true net cost implications of the CUSS kiosks are beyond the scope of this research proj- ect, but are a subject of ACRP Project 10-05, “Understanding Common-use Approaches at Airports.” Based on the in- formation presented above, the assumption that CUSS will become more widely implemented at U.S. airports is not only realistic, but also likely to occur sooner rather than later be- cause of the potential benefits. Self-Tagging of Check Baggage Passengers are already able to tag their own check baggage in several European countries (e.g., Austria and Germany) and self-tagging for United States–bound travelers is being tested in at least one North American airport, Montreal– Trudeau International Airport. According to a recent magazine article (4): Some 60% of Air Canada passengers currently check-in using a Common Use Self-Service kiosk, which also offers self-tagging of bags . . . today, there are 47 CUSS kiosks. In parallel, the air- port ran a pilot project with Air Canada and US Airways offering six kiosks in the transborder (Canada-US flights) sector with baggage self-tagging. The pilot project resulted in an 86% favorable rating. In 2007, 30% of passengers who obtained boarding passes from a CUSS kiosk also used the self-tagging option (4). Self-tagging of check baggage is currently prohibited in the United States. The Transportation Security Administra- tion’s (TSA’s) Aircraft Operator Standard Security Program (AOSSP) currently requires that baggage destination tags will only be placed on check baggage at the point of acceptance and only by a direct airline employee or an authorized airline representative. AOSSP also requires that at the initial point of contact with each passenger checking baggage, the airline representative must request that the passenger present valid identification (ID). However, since 100% EDS screening of checked baggage is a TSA mandate and as long as the airline controls the loading of baggage into the aircraft after screen- ing, the primary apprehension related to self-tagging of check baggage is of low anti-terrorist security concern. The bigger concern may be the potential loss or damage liability that the airlines assume by allowing passengers to place tagged bags onto the bag conveyor belt. Self-tagging of check baggage offers a number of potential benefits. First, it is the logical next step in allowing passengers to serve themselves. In today’s two-step system, after obtaining a boarding pass either at a kiosk or via the Internet, passen- gers would be able to go to a designated self-service bag-drop location, obtain bag tags, self-tag their check baggage, and de- posit the check baggage into the baggage system. In a one-step system, passengers would be able to obtain their boarding passes, self-tag their check baggage, and deposit their baggage into the baggage system, all at a single kiosk. At Vienna In- ternational Airport in Austria, where a one-step process at a single kiosk has been implemented for the printing of a boarding pass and the self-tagging of check baggage, roving agents, positioned on the same side of the counter as the passenger and serving six positions or more, can generally process 150 to 180 passengers per hour per agent (5), about three to four times the rate normally associated with the con- ventional one-step process implemented in the United States where self-tagging is currently prohibited. In discussions with airport and airline representatives re- garding passengers self-tagging their check baggage, most agreed that self-tagging presents substantial benefits and will most likely be offered in the United States in the near future. In today’s environment, 100% EDS screening of checked baggage—which is a TSA mandate—reduces the need for positive ID verification prior to allowing passengers to insert their check baggage into the baggage system. Therefore, the assumption that self-tagging of check baggage will be allowed in the United States in the near future appears to be reasonable and is a major component of the innovations discussed in Chapter 4 and the concepts illustrated in Chapters 5 and 6. Increased Use of Self-Service Check-In The extent to which passengers currently use self-service check-in features—whether via kiosk at the airport, some other location, or the Internet—varies by location and by airline. According to a recent online article from Revenue Management Forum, 47% of travelers in the United States use self-service check-in compared with 42% of travelers in Europe, 40% in the Middle East, and 30% in the Asia Pacific region (6). The article further indicates that the percentage of passengers using self-service check-in in the future is expected to con- tinue growing because passengers want the speed, conven- ience, and control that self service offers and airlines want to use the technology to offer these options and improve cus- tomer service while cutting costs (6). The cost savings to the airlines in providing the self-service features that passengers want would be significant. It is estimated that it costs airlines approximately $3.00 to process a passenger using an agent, but only $0.14 to $0.32 per passenger for self-service (7). Many airlines have been able to reach much higher self- service check-in rates at their hubs or focus airports. More than 70% of Alaska Airlines’ customers at Seattle–Tacoma International Airport use self-service check-in kiosks or the Internet (7). At Northwest Airlines’ Minneapolis-St. Paul Inter- national Airport hub, more than 70% of its passengers check in either via the Internet or the airline’s kiosks (8). British Air- ways processes about 56% of its passengers via self-service check-in and is planning to achieve an approximately 80 to 90% 6

share of travelers checking-in via self-service kiosks at its new state of art Terminal 5 at London’s Heathrow Airport (9). From discussions with representatives of low-cost and legacy carriers, airport technology providers, and airport executives, it was determined that the assumption that self-service check-in use will increase to—and most likely exceed—80% of the traveling public in the near future is very realistic. As the airport operators and airlines seek to provide cost-efficient improvements in customer service, the use of self-service check-in should also continue to increase at non- hub airports. Flexibility to Avoid the 300-ft Rule 49 CFR §1542.101, Airport Security General Requirements, requires that every airport must have a security program in place, which, among other things, must include a contingency plan (§1542.301) that addresses local, airport-specific meas- ures for blast mitigation during elevated threat conditions. In December 2002, the TSA Under Secretary for Aviation Operations reviewed the agency’s list of “unnecessary rules” and removed the 300-ft rule requirement in contingency plans, also known as “Special-Category-Airport-3” (SCA-3). The rule was essentially a systemwide formulaic ban on any unknown vehicle parking within 300 ft of the terminal building at designated airports. In its place, the TSA instituted a series of operating procedures called the Bomb Incident Prevention Plan (BIPP), intended to provide relief from the SCA-3 approach by adding flexibility when tailoring an in- dividual airport’s security program. Each BIPP was required to be based on an approved blast analysis performed by a certified engineering firm, which would be instituted when the DHS threat level was elevated to “orange.” With- out such an analysis, the 300-ft rule remains in effect at larger airports. The TSA-approved contingency measures for threat level “orange” in all airport security programs allow for alternative procedures, subject to approval by the TSA’s Office of the Assistant Administrator for Aviation Operations, to be im- plemented in lieu of restricting parking within 300 ft of the terminal. These alternative procedures should be appropriate to the unique building design, local physical and operational constraints, and the perceived level of threat and may include such things as remote vehicle screening or the inclusion of blast mitigating components into the design of new or reno- vated terminal and close-in parking facilities. While the alternatives for avoiding the 300-ft rule may be expensive to implement from an operations or capital cost standpoint, some airport operators have elected to accept these circumstances rather than constructing parking facili- ties beyond 300 feet of the terminal building. Airport repre- sentatives contacted during this research effort also indicated their willingness to seek alternative solutions or to accept the temporary ramifications, such as reduced parking capacity, rather than separating the terminal building and the parking structure by 300 ft. 7