Click for next page ( 57

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 56
56 CHAPTER 6 Terminal Concepts A number of passenger processes are grouped under termi- enable services for special populations to be location focused nal concepts, including those processes that typically occur at and, therefore, more readily available. Following are four de- or within a terminal building such as checking in with or partures hall concepts based on the process-based departures without baggage, domestic arrivals, bag claim, and the inter- hall innovation. face with ground transportation services. The relationship of these functions with the dropping off and picking up of Main Street Check-In passengers is also considered. The innovative concepts de- scribed in this chapter include one or more of the innovations This concept (see Figure 6-1) demonstrates a layout in described in Chapter 4. which passengers approaching the curbside are offered two choices for entering the building. The first choice would be for prechecked passengers who obtained their boarding passes Departures Hall remotely and who either have no check bags or have previously Traditionally at airports with terminals that serve multiple checked their bags at a bag-check plaza. This point of entry airlines, the departures hall is generally, but not always, di- leads directly to the SSCP, completely bypassing the departures vided by airline in approximate proportion to the number of hall. This option could account for as many as 60% to 80% of flights each airline provides and the number of passengers all passengers, depending on whether bag check is available each airline serves. Each airline's space is then subdivided prior to the departures hall. The second point of entry would between that space serving first-class and premium passen- be for all other passengers. Once inside the terminal building, gers and that space serving all other passengers, both of which passengers would be offered three optional services as they are served by airline staff. More recently, with the introduction proceed in the general direction of the SSCP. The first option of SSDs for obtaining boarding passes, a further subdivision would be SSDs, where a boarding pass may be obtained; the has developed (see Figure 4-3). The situation in the depar- second option would be self-service check-in with bag drop; tures hall is mirrored at the adjoining curbside where passen- and the third option would be full-service staffed positions. gers are directed to be dropped off and possibly check their bags immediately in front of the relevant airline. These com- Advantages/Disadvantages bined circumstances create a number of problems, including periodic overcrowding in the departures hall; the need for This concept would be very adaptable in an existing de- passengers, after checking in, to pass by several other airline partures hall as conventional baggage take-away belts could counters on their way to the SSCP; and curbside congestion. be used and additional building depth would not be required. With the use of CUSS instead of the airlines' proprietary The further advantages of this concept are that it would enable SSDs, the paradigm changes significantly. Rather than each clear and effective curbside separation and a fast-track route airline providing differentiated services, services could be dif- for business travelers and that the full-service positions would ferentiated for passengers regardless of airline (i.e., a process- act as a backup for those who may have difficulty with the based departures hall). This change not only means improved SSDs if a help point is not provided. space and staff utilization, but also enables passengers to One disadvantage of this concept would be that passengers select their entry point into the building in relation to the who need to obtain a boarding pass and have no check bag- services they require. The expanded use of CUSS would also gage would have the longest walk. Also, since the self-service

OCR for page 56
57 Figure 6-1. Main street check-in. and full-service positions would not be flow-through, queues These passengers would proceed directly to the SSCP after could back up into the circulation area. The only major obtaining a boarding pass, if needed, at an SSD. A help point impediment to implementing this concept would be the use would be provided for passengers having difficulty using the of common-use equipment. SSD. The second entry point would be for passengers with check bags. This entry point would lead to an SSD where passengers could check and tag their own bags. The third Three-Lane Check-In entry point would be for passengers who want or need full- In this concept (see Figure 6-2), the terminal entry points service at a staffed position. In this concept, the full-service would be distributed along the curbside frontage according and self-service bag-check positions would generally be flow- to three passenger categories. The first entry point or "lane" through (i.e., passengers would be able to continue in the would be for passengers without check bags. This category same direction of travel rather than turning 90-degrees), would include passengers who obtained their boarding passes which would reduce cross-traffic at the counters; however, remotely or who only need to obtain a boarding pass or who this concept could also be developed using a conventional may have checked their bags prior to the departures hall. baggage take-away system. Figure 6-2. Three-lane check-in.

OCR for page 56
58 This concept would also be adaptable to most existing terminal buildings, particularly if the conventional baggage take-away system were used. The flow-through option would require more building depth and would also be a more expensive installation not only for the baggage system, but also for multiple floor penetrations. Advantages/Disadvantages The advantages of this concept are that it would further separate passengers according to their service requirements, enabling an even greater breakdown of curbside space. This concept would also provide a fast-track route for those pas- sengers requiring little or no service, thus providing the highest level of convenience for the largest share of passengers. The disadvantages of this concept are that agents at the full-service counters would not back up the other positions, thereby requiring a separate help point to deal with passen- ger problems. Also, in the flow-through configuration, the support area for the agents would be remote from their workstations, which could be considered a negative factor by the airlines. Three-Stage Check-In This concept (see Figure 6-3) presents a different approach by providing a centralized entry point for all passengers. Figure 6-3. Three-stage check-in. Once inside the terminal building, passengers would proceed down a central mall with service offerings on either side, beginning with the minimal service provided by SSDs for boarding passes (Stage 1) to self-service check-in with bag- Directional Check-In drop positions (Stage 2), and, finally, full-service staffed This concept (see Figure 6-4) is a variation of the island counters (Stage 3). Although Figure 6-3 shows a single entry check-in system commonly found in many European air- point, it is anticipated that this approach would be replicated ports. In this concept, passengers would select the least con- at each SSCP. This concept would not typically be adaptable gested entry point and, once inside, would encounter SSDs to most existing terminal facilities because of the building to obtain boarding passes only, with immediately adjacent depth required. However, this concept has a number of self-service check-in with bag-drop positions. The full-service advantages. positions would be located behind the self-service positions; however, they would be clearly identified as passengers enter Advantages/Disadvantages the departures hall. This concept is compatible with many existing check-in halls; however, it would often require relo- The three-stage check-in concept is an intuitive system, cation of the support area typically located behind the ticket with passengers progressing forward and only deviating counter. to avail themselves of a required service. The self-service positions would be prominent, which would encourage their use rather than the more costly-to-operate, full- Advantages/Disadvantages service positions that would essentially be provided as a The advantages of this concept are that services would be last resort. The disadvantages of this concept, as previously presented to passengers in a logical manner and that the lay- mentioned, would be the need for much greater building out would also effectively guide passengers in the direction in depth than is commonly available; also, the baggage system which they need to proceed. The baggage system would pro- costs required for the flow-through positions would be vide economies in that the self-service and full-service positions higher. would share the same baggage take-away belt.