National Academies Press: OpenBook

Airport Terminal Facility Activation Techniques (2010)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Phased Versus Consolidated Openings

« Previous: Chapter Two - New Airport Terminal Facilities Where Activation Fits in
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Phased Versus Consolidated Openings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Terminal Facility Activation Techniques. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14394.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Phased Versus Consolidated Openings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Terminal Facility Activation Techniques. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14394.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Phased Versus Consolidated Openings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Terminal Facility Activation Techniques. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14394.
×
Page 10

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.

9Interview responses revealed that phased openings are gen- erally less risky than consolidated openings. The reason for this is that each phase of a phased opening is smaller, less public, and easier to rollback if problems arise than with a consolidated opening. When all phases are considered, phased openings are also more expensive than consolidated openings. They require operating two facilities simultane- ously and often compromise the passenger transfer experi- ence owing to extended travel times between old and new facilities. Decisions regarding consolidated versus phased open- ings require collaborative input from the airport authority, airlines, and other stakeholders. Owing to logistics and an inability of the new and old airport facilities to operate simultaneously, it is sometimes necessary to move the entire operation to the new facility at one time (consolidated opening), which can be risky as evidenced by the opening of Chek Lap Kok in Hong Kong. However, consolidated open- ings can also be successful, as evidenced by the opening of Denver International Airport in Colorado, the new Athens International Airport in Greece and new terminal facilities at Southwest Florida International Airport, Dulles Airport, and the Seattle Tacoma International Airport (SeaTac). Although each of these airports had activation programs, in Hong Kong the time period allowed for activation was compressed as a result of construction delays and a fixed opening date. The result was that the activation program was not adequately executed and operations at the new air- port were adversely affected owing to equipment that did not function as planned, a lack of staff familiarity with the new facility, and inadequate training. At the Denver, Athens, and Florida airports there was adequate time to complete the activation programs and the new airport facilities opened without surprises. Indeed, because the opening date for Denver was postponed several times as a result of prob- lems with the baggage handling system, the airport, airport authority, and all stakeholders had much more time than originally planned to become familiar with and activate the new airport. Today, the Hong Kong Airport Authority uses the same activation program as that used for Chek Lap Kok; however, there is more transparency regarding reporting on the status of construction and the readiness of stakeholders. In addition, opening day is not fixed until the last responsible moment. Before announcing a fixed date for opening, the authority makes sure that construction and commissioning is (or will be) complete, and that the airport authority, airlines, and other stakeholders are (or will be) familiar with new facilities and have (or will have) the training and tools needed to seamlessly operate the new facility. This approach helps to keep con- struction projects behind the scenes and mitigate surprises at an opening. At other times, when risks were assessed, a decision was made that the risks outweighed the costs, and airport proj- ects that were initially planned as consolidated openings were changed to phased openings. • At London Heathrow Terminal 5, the initial plan was to open the entire 5-million-square-foot, 47-gate, 30-million-passenger facility at one time. However, approximately one year before the opening a decision was then made to open the terminal in two phases. When the opening day was less than successful, a deci- sion was made to rollback some of the flights that were transitioned to the new terminal, increase the number of phases, and extend the durations between phases. It took approximately 2 months to complete the opening process. • At Dubai T3/C2, the initial plan was to open the entire 10.5-million-square-foot, 26-gate, 23-million-passenger facility at one time. However, approximately one year before the opening a decision was made to quietly open the facility in phases by initially transferring several flights to the new facility and then opening in phases over a 6-week period. The initial opening went so well a decision was made to accelerate the process and the entire facility was opened in just 2 weeks. Although phased openings are often adopted to mitigate risks, consolidated openings can also be successful. • Detroit successfully opened 24 of the 26 gates of the 850,000-square-foot North Terminal at one time. The remaining two gates were successfully opened 12 months later. • Indianapolis successfully opened the 1.2-million-square- foot, 40-gate terminal at one time. • jetBlue successfully transferred the entire operation at JFK to a new 26-gate, 20-million-passenger, 700,000- square-foot facility at one time. CHAPTER THREE PHASED VERSUS CONSOLIDATED OPENINGS

• Greater Toronto Airport Authority successfully used a consolidated approach to open the 2-million-square-foot Phase 1 of Terminal 1 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport without surprises and 21⁄2 years later repeated the feat with the opening of the 1.5-million-square-foot Phase 2. • Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority used a consolidated approach to successfully open a concourse extension at Dulles. • Sea-Tac Airport successfully opened the South Ter- minal Expansion Project by using a phased approach to open an operationally independent ticket counter first and then open the entire concourse and screening facilities for domestic airlines in a single consolidated phase. 10 Table 1 summarizes which of the airports discussed by survey participants used a phased approach and which a consolidated approach. Determining whether to use a phased or consolidated approach to an opening is critical. The following decision matrix (Table 2) is based on a matrix provided by Danilo Simich from Parsons. It identifies some of the issues that could be considered when deciding whether to use a consol- idated or a phased approach to opening new airport terminal facilities. This matrix or another tool can be used to rigorously evalu- ate the unique characteristics of a project to determine whether a consolidated or a phased approach to opening is appropriate. Airport Consolidated or Phased Comments Athens International Airport in Greece Consolidated Due to airspace issues could not operate both old and new airport concurrently. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Phased 9 foreign flag carriers moved before BHS was fully tested and commissioned. Then, after BHS was fully tested and commissioned, hub carrier moved. Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County International Airport Consolidated Phase 1—Consolidated opening of terminal and 24 gates Phase 2—Consolidated opening of two gates one year later Dubai Airports Corporation Dubai Phased 4 phases—40 flights (15%), then 99 flights (37%), then 168 flights (60%), then 268 flights (100%) Hong Kong International Airport— Chek Lap Kok (CLK), Terminal 2, and other new facilities. Both (CLK was consolidated subsequent projects were phased) Issues with initial terminal opening were worked out in a couple of days. It took ~2 months to complete transition of cargo. Since opening of CLK, phased openings have been used whenever possible. Indianapolis International Airport Consolidated Overnight move jetBlue Airways Terminal 5 at JFK in New York Consolidated Overnight move Larnaka International Airport in Cyprus Phased Phase 1—Two airlines (34%) Phase 2—One week later (100%) London Heathrow Terminal 5 Phased Original plan consolidated move over 3 days Actual was multiple moves over ~2 months Pafos International Airport in Cyprus Phased Arrivals in Phase 1 Departures 4 days later in Phase 2 Port Authority Southwest Florida International Airport Consolidated Overnight move San Francisco Phased Airlines transitioned to new terminal over a few days Seattle Tacoma International Airport Phased Phase 1—International ticket counters Phase 2—14 gate concourse Toronto Pearson International Airport Consolidated Phase 1—Overnight move to new 2-million-sq.- ft. terminal Phase 2—2 years later overnight move to another 1.5 million sq. ft. Washington Metropolitan Airports (Dulles) Consolidated BHS = baggage handling service. TABLE 1 PHASED VERSUS CONSOLIDATED OPENINGS

11 Factors: Political considerations Date debt service obligations begin Airline capacity—need for new facility Capital expenditures by tenants Concession revenues Processing capacity: In-line bag system processing capacity Passenger screening capacity Program soft costs (program manager daily burn rate x number of days extended) Construction overhead costs Insurance costs Consolidated Opening Phased Opening Pros Cons Pros Cons Commence revenue generation Potential increased risk of delays, diversions, and cancellations. Opportunity for staff to gradually initiate operations in portions of the new facility Delays, stalls revenue generation Reduces need to operate out of two facilities Less public visibility of opening Increase cost due to need to operate out of two facilities for prolonged period of time Source: Danilo Simich, Parsons (2009). TABLE 2 PHASED VERSUS CONSOLIDATED DECISION MATRIX

Next: Chapter Four - Soft Versus Hard Date and Schedule for Airport Terminal Facility Opening Day »
Airport Terminal Facility Activation Techniques Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Synthesis 20: Airport Terminal Facility Activation Techniques explores lessons learned during terminal activations at 13 domestic and international airport facilities. The report is designed to help identify effective airport terminal facility activation practices.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!