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.

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

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

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. 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- drop positions (Stage 2), and, finally, full-service staffed counters (Stage 3). Although Figure 6-3 shows a single entry point, it is anticipated that this approach would be replicated at each SSCP. This concept would not typically be adaptable to most existing terminal facilities because of the building depth required. However, this concept has a number of advantages. Advantages/Disadvantages The three-stage check-in concept is an intuitive system, with passengers progressing forward and only deviating 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- service positions that would essentially be provided as a last resort. The disadvantages of this concept, as previously mentioned, would be the need for much greater building depth than is commonly available; also, the baggage system costs required for the flow-through positions would be higher. Directional Check-In This concept (see Figure 6-4) is a variation of the island check-in system commonly found in many European air- ports. In this concept, passengers would select the least con- gested entry point and, once inside, would encounter SSDs to obtain boarding passes only, with immediately adjacent self-service check-in with bag-drop positions. The full-service positions would be located behind the self-service positions; however, they would be clearly identified as passengers enter the departures hall. This concept is compatible with many existing check-in halls; however, it would often require relo- cation of the support area typically located behind the ticket counter. Advantages/Disadvantages The advantages of this concept are that services would be presented to passengers in a logical manner and that the lay- out would also effectively guide passengers in the direction in which they need to proceed. The baggage system would pro- vide economies in that the self-service and full-service positions would share the same baggage take-away belt. 58 Figure 6-3. Three-stage check-in.

Summary of Departures Hall Concepts Each departures hall concept has unique physical and oper- ational characteristics. Some of the concepts, such as the main street check-in, may be more suitable for implementation during a minor renovation while others, such as the three- stage check-in, may only be feasible where new terminals are being constructed. Other characteristics, such as the baggage- screening system and terminal configuration, are major factors when considering one or more of the departures hall concepts. Table 6-1 presents a comparison of the concepts based on several terminal characteristics. Arrivals Facilities Historically, the domestic arrivals facilities at many air- ports have not received the same attention as the departures hall from either a functional or aesthetic standpoint. Baggage- claim halls commonly have lower ceilings and are generally interior spaces with no natural light. This reduced sense of place for passengers has been exacerbated since meeters- and-greeters are no longer able to meet passengers at the gate and passengers are left to wonder where they might meet their waiting parties once they emerge from the secure area. Generally, few, if any, concession amenities are provided in 59 Figure 6-4. Directional check-in. Main Street Check-in Three-lane Check-in Three-stage Check-in Directional Check-in — — — Single-level terminal — Multi-level terminal Adjacent airline support space — Re-use of existing baggage system — Centralized in-line baggage screening — — — — — — Concept is highly relevant Concept is relevant but not optimal — Concept is not a consideration † Departures hall depth is the depth of the space availabe for circulation and check-in functions New construction Key Considerations Major renovation Single-carrier terminal Multi-carrier terminal Departures hall depth† (< 50 ft) Departures hall depth† (50 ft > 85 ft) Departures hall depth† (> 85 ft) Table 6-1. Departures hall concepts comparison.

domestic arrivals facilities. Once passengers have claimed their bags, the myriad ground transportation offerings are often confusing; once outside the terminal building, pas- sengers must wait to be picked up or wait for a ground transportation service in areas that provide some protection from the elements, such as a canopy, but are generally open on the sides. Consolidated Domestic Arrivals Hall The concept illustrated in Figure 6-5 is idealized: all do- mestic arrivals at a particular terminal would emerge through a well-defined exit into a meeters-and-greeters area similar to that generally provided for international arrivals. Amenities such as concessions would be available immediately adjacent to the meeters-and-greeters area, with improved commercial viability resulting from the funneling of all arrivals through a single point. From the meeters-and-greeters area, passengers would be able to choose either a direct exit from the terminal building if they are not claiming baggage or access into the bag-claim hall where baggage carts would be readily available prior to the claim devices. The devices would be adequately spaced (approximately 60 ft on center) to allow seating be- tween them for elderly and disabled passengers. The claim devices would be flat-plate, whether directly or remotely fed, to facilitate the process for the elderly and disabled pas- sengers who have difficulty lifting baggage over the sill of standard slope-plate devices. High-capacity flow-through elevators would be available as a primary option for passen- gers proceeding to the garage or other levels of the terminal. Escalators would supplement the elevators, as appropriate. Arrivals lounges, as described below, would be available to enhance the experience of passengers using CVs to exit the airport. It is not anticipated that this entire arrangement could be adapted to an existing terminal, but rather that individual components could be incorporated as part of general improve- ments for domestic arrivals. 60 Figure 6-5. Consolidated domestic arrivals hall.

Arrivals Lounge The arrivals lounge concept (see Figure 6-6) would provide the same types of amenities for passengers waiting for ground transportation services as those amenities departing passen- gers experience in gate holdrooms while waiting to board an aircraft. Arrivals lounges would address the issues associated with arriving passengers waiting at the curbside for CVs, which include waiting for an indeterminate length of time in less-than-ideal weather conditions and with some safety concerns, especially at night. In the arrivals lounge concept, passengers who plan to use ground transportation services, after claiming their bag- gage, would proceed to a seating area designated for the mode of ground transportation desired such as hotel shut- tle, rental car shuttle, inter-terminal shuttle, or other modes. Passengers would check in at an SSD for the specific service desired (e.g., a particular hotel shuttle). This process would activate a curbside indicator ensuring that the required vehicle would stop outside the arrivals lounge. Passengers would then wait in the lounge where shuttle sta- tus information would be displayed in minutes to arrival, activated by a global positioning system (GPS) device in each vehicle. Audible and visual announcements would be made when the shuttle arrives. The benefits of this concept would include reduced passenger stress, improved passenger safety and security, and greatly improved passenger com- fort. A disadvantage would be the cost of providing the space required if such space were not already available in some other use in the terminal. This concept would also re- quire the cooperation and support of the various ground transportation providers. 61 Figure 6-6. Arrivals lounge.