Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction (2014)

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.

17 This chapter describes some of the basic planning and design considerations that have a significant influence on increasing revenue generation and customer satisfaction when configur- ing new or renovating existing airport terminal facilities. 3.1 Terminal Environment The first factor to consider when planning an airport terminal environment is the users of the airport terminal: passengers, visitors and employees. They are the primary drivers of purchases of concession products and services. The airport users and their flow patterns through the terminal environment have a direct correlation on the productivity of the concession program and on the satisfaction of the customer. As a general rule, concession products and services are primarily purchased by departing pas- sengers (either an originating or connecting passenger) because their dwell times in the airport are typically longer than those of arriving passengers who have reached their final destination and are typically in a hurry to claim their luggage and find their ground transportation. Departing passengers are therefore most likely to spend time in concessions. Connecting passengers typically have a shorter dwell time due to the limited amount of time in their schedule to get to their connecting flight, which may be a distance away from their arrival gate and often in a different terminal; in some cases, this means they do not have time to visit concessions. Conversely, arriving domestic and international passengers are typically unwilling to dwell for any length of time in the terminal once they have reached their final destination. These passengers are focused on moving on to their local destination rather than spending any more time in the airport. Other airport users, such as visitors and employees, also visit concessions. Visitors on the landside of the terminal seek out concessions as they wait to meet a passenger or after the passenger departs the airport. In the case of employees, they frequent concessions as they break for a meal or shop after their shift. Concession planners may too often overlook these examples of non-flier users of concessions. From a terminal planning perspective, the flow of departing passengers through various depar- ture processing functions and spaces (such as check-in, security screening, and holdrooms) and the requirement to appropriately park aircraft influence the configuration of the terminal building and its concourses. When designing a new terminal, the arrangement of passenger processing functions and flows are not limited by pre-existing conditions (such as structural columns, heating and ventilating ducts, restrooms, and other difficult to relocate functions), thereby allowing designers the freedom to consider various ways to maximize the concession program. For an existing terminal facility, there are more physical limitations and often little flexibility to change the path of passengers processing through the terminal and concourses. C H A P T E R 3 Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations

18 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction This constraint also applies to the specific locations where concessions may be placed, due to pre-existing impediments inherent from the original design. To focus the user of this Handbook on the most important aspects in the planning and design of a terminal’s concession program, the remainder of this chapter is organized into six primary sections. Section 3.2 describes the various passenger, visitor, and employee types and flows. Section 3.3 presents the generic types of terminal configurations. Section 3.4 summarizes aircraft and passenger considerations. Section 3.5 discusses planning for concessions in the terminal environment; Section 3.6 covers trends in passenger processing, and Section 3.7 highlights con- cession needs in the terminal environment. 3.2 Passenger, Visitor, and Employee Types and Flows This section describes the main types of airport users and their patterns of usage as they relate to concessions. By identifying how, when, and where these users interact with the airport terminal facilities, the planner or designer can begin to identify their behaviors and carefully position airport concessions to best meet their needs. This strategy increases not only customer satisfaction but also overall profitability and patronage of airport concessions. The goal of this section is to explain in detail the characteristics of the three primary airport users associated with the concession program—passengers, visitors, and employees—and how they interact with the airport terminal facilities. This knowledge allows the planner or designer to identify the opportunities and limitations regarding the marketing and placement of concession offerings and advertisements. Among these users, passengers are clearly the main focus of the concession program. The basic passenger flows as well as the related processes involved for enplaning and deplaning passengers have changed significantly with regard to concession planning since the advent of commercial air travel. One of the most significant of those changes occurred in late 1972 when, in response to a series of aircraft hijackings, the FAA required that all airlines begin screening passengers and subsequently, by January 5, 1973, also their carry-on baggage (1). Visitors can no longer escort air travelers to their aircraft, which has significantly affected concession planning. The addition of the security screening for passengers and their carry-on luggage formed a line of demarcation that separated the airport terminal into very distinct air- side and landside components. Because most passengers do not wish to go through the rigors of security screening more than necessary, passengers do not venture from the airside back to the landside unless absolutely essential. Since departing passengers are the primary buyers of concession goods and services, the 1973 security mandate relocated the majority of concession goods and services to airside of passenger security screening. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Transportation Security Admin- istration (TSA) implemented more stringent security screening processes, such as physical pat-downs and, more recently, advanced imaging technology (AIT) devices commonly referred to as “whole-body scanners.” The most noticeable effect of these more advanced security screening techniques has been the increase in processing time at the security checkpoint, requiring passen- gers to arrive at the airport much earlier than prior to September 11, 2001. As previously mentioned, visitors are not permitted to pass beyond the Security Screening Checkpoint (SSCP) unless accompanied by badged airport personnel. Allowing visitors beyond the SSCP would increase the number of individuals that would need to be screened during peak periods, which in turn would require additional TSA staffing. In the future, TSA policy may change allowing non-fliers beyond the SSCP, but as of 2013 this appears unlikely since cur- rent federal budget constraints limit the TSA’s ability to provide additional TSA staffing. Such

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 19 a change would allow airports to market and capitalize on additional shoppers in the secure, airside areas of the terminal, much as they had prior to September 11, 2001. A more likely scenario is that non-fliers enrolled in known traveler programs, such as TSA Pre✓™ or CLEAR with their faster SSCP processing rates, would be allowed to pass through expedited lanes into secure areas of the terminal. The SSCP is the most time-consuming and stressful part of the airport experience for departing passengers. The often unpredictable nature of the SSCP has resulted in passengers waiting until after they have been processed to visit airport concessions. It is for this reason that consideration of SSCP is an important aspect of concession planning. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show simplified generic passenger flows and processing functions for U.S. domestic and international arrival and departure passengers. The figures show the primary pro- cesses as passengers flow to and from landside, terminal, and airside components of the terminal complex. Figure 3.1 illustrates U.S. domestic arrivals and departures, while Figure 3.2 shows U.S. international arrivals and departures. Each figure shows the location of the SSCP in relation to these types of passenger processing functions and demarks the separation between the non-secure Figure 3.1. Passenger flow diagram for U.S. domestic arrivals and departures.

20 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction landside and secure airside area of the terminal (each with its own distinct ramifications to the types, number, size, and location of concessions). 3.2.1 Passengers 3.2.1.1 Domestic Departing Passengers Domestic departing passengers are among the most likely to purchase concession goods due to their extended dwell time within a terminal facility. These passengers often arrive at an airport check-in area as much as two hours before their scheduled departure flight. Most passengers complete the check-in process as quickly as possible, and then proceed to security screening. Typically, passengers do not dwell in the non-secure areas of the terminal; this reduces the need and effectiveness of non-secure concession programs. In some circumstances, the time required to process through ticketing and security screening is less than anticipated. The additional time resulting from shorter processing times is often spent in concessions rather than waiting idly in holdroom spaces. This additional dwell time in the secure side of the terminal can result in additional concession sales. Therefore, any planning, design, or technological innovations that Figure 3.2. U.S. international arriving and departing passenger flows.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 21 can speed passengers through the SSCP process and/or reduce passengers’ stress levels are beneficial to the concession program. 3.2.1.2 Domestic Arriving Passengers The domestic arriving passenger is in many cases not a major target for concession operators, because these passengers have reached their destination and have no reason to dwell within the airport terminal. Arriving passengers disembark their aircraft and navigate toward the exit doors into the non-secure departures hall or baggage claim areas. While these passengers may be willing to purchase grab-and-go or convenience items on their way out, they typically will not spend time shopping or dining at the airport. Concessions targeted toward arriving passengers should be situated alongside those targeted toward other passenger types, such as departing passengers. The concessions located in the secure concourses along the exiting path of arriving passengers allow the concession operators to benefit from multiple passenger types with different habits rather than depending only on arrival passengers. 3.2.1.3 International Departing Passengers Airports yield high concession revenues from international departing passengers, perhaps even more so than they do from their domestic counterparts on a per passenger basis. Airlines typically require that international departing passengers arrive up to three hours prior to their scheduled departure time. Depending on processing times at check-in and security screening, this may result in additional idle time that may be spent shopping at airport concessions. In addition, unlike domestic departing passengers, international departing passengers are eligible to purchase goods at duty-free stores. At many international airports, duty-free concessions are a major source of revenue. 3.2.1.4 International Arriving Passengers As with domestic arriving passengers, international arriving passengers are typically focused on exiting the airport rather than spending additional time in concessions. In most U.S. airports, arriving international passengers typically exit from Federal Inspection Services (FIS) at a single point after processing through immigration and custom procedures required by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). These exit points are an opportunity to centralize concessions around a concentrated flow of international arriving passengers. These concessions should focus on services that are needed by arriving international passengers such as currency exchange or tourism information. Since these spaces may also serve as a meeting area for visitors (typically referred to as the meeter/greeter area), having basic food and beverage concessions available for those waiting for arriving passengers or for a meal or beverage after arrival is an important aspect from a customer service perspective. 3.2.1.5 Connecting Passengers Connecting passengers are those who have single or multiple airport stops between their origin and destination. In most cases, they must exit their aircraft and board a different plane to continue on to their final destination. In the majority of U.S. airports, these passengers remain on the secure side of the terminal. Due to the terminal configuration or location of the connecting flight, some connecting passengers may have to exit into the non-secure areas of the airport. In this scenario, these transferring passengers must be re-screened to reach their connecting gate. In most cases, due to short layover times, there is little if any extra time to spend in concessions. To target grab-and-go products at connecting passengers, it is criti- cal that the concessions be located conveniently on the pathway between the arriving and departing gates.

22 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction 3.2.2 Visitors As previously mentioned, visitors are not typically the primary purchasers at airports, but they should be taken into consideration when developing the concession program in the terminal to ensure customer satisfaction. Airport visitors can be separated into two primary categories: meeter/greeters and well-wishers. Meeter/greeters are visitors meeting an arriving passenger. In some cases, there are dedicated areas with seating and other amenities for these visitors. Well-wishers accompany a departing passenger to the airport and visit until reaching the SSCP. These areas for visitor waiting are important locations to allow for some degree of concession services, such as food and beverage or specialty products such as flowers, even if such services are only available through a vending machine. 3.2.3 Employees Airport employees are often overlooked during the concession planning process. Employees working in both the secure and non-secure portions of the airport should be considered when determining the types and locations of concessions. These employees can be a significant source of revenue in the food and beverage and retail sectors. Because of limited availability of food and beverage opportunities typically surrounding many airports, employees may find it more convenient to either dine or make grab-and-go purchases at their place of employment—the airport. During the concession planning process, airport management, planners, and designers should consider ways to capture concession revenue from airport employees. Additionally, airport employees (who have daily exposure to the concession program) may also be a good source for feedback regarding the service, quality, and product selection of the shops they patronize on a daily basis. 3.3 Terminal Configuration The physical configuration of the passengers’ route through the various passenger pro- cessing functions to the gates during initial planning is one of the primary contributing factors to increasing revenue generation and achieving customer satisfaction. The initial decisions that airport management and their consultants make with regard to the terminal configuration of a new greenfield terminal has an enormous effect on the ability to maximize revenue and influence the users’ perception of satisfaction in the terminal. Development of a greenfield terminal has the advantage of allowing designers to maximize the effectiveness of the concession program. During new terminal projects, concession planning should be introduced during the initial design stages rather than waiting until the terminal shape, size, and interior spaces have already been determined. In many cases, planners do not have the opportunity to design a “new” terminal; rather, the task involves increasing the revenue and effectiveness of an existing concession program within the constraints of an existing terminal configuration. Airport management and their technical consultants are more limited in their ability to con- trol all of the key factors that influence revenue generation and customer satisfaction when reconfiguring an existing terminal facility. This section of the Handbook will address factors associated with the physical layout of the terminal environment, many of which are more appli- cable from the viewpoint of planning and designing new terminal facilities. Some of the Guiding Principles and factors mentioned apply to both new and renovated facilities, with the latter being more restricted by the legacy of the planning, design, and operating decisions made when the terminal and its concourses were originally designed and constructed.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 23 3.3.1 Single versus Multiple Terminals The first stage of planning a new terminal at a high-passenger-volume airport is deciding whether all of the future passenger traffic will be accommodated in a single processing building or if it will be decentralized into multiple processing buildings. These buildings are typically referred to as “unit” terminals. There are many factors that influence this decision. Two deter minates in this decision process are (1) the scale of the passenger volume anticipated in the terminal’s foreseeable future and (2) the type of airlines anticipated to use the facility. When making this determination, it is important to understand the impact on concessions. Subsequent Section 3.3.4, Centralized and Decentralized Terminal Facilities, will discuss in greater detail examples of single verses multiple terminals and the respective impacts on concession functionality and effectiveness. 3.3.2 Size and Complexity of the Airport’s Passenger Operations The magnitude of an airport’s concession program is typically based on the number and type of passengers using the terminal facilities, among other factors. The number of passengers enplaning at the airport is typically how the size of the airport is determined and typically referenced. The FAA uses several classifications for public use airports that serve civil aviation. For the purposes of ACRP Project 07-08, only the primary commercial service classification of an airport having more than 10,000 passenger boardings each year was included in the research. More specifically, as described in the Chapter 1, only large, medium, and small hub commercial airports were considered. These airport hub-type classifications are determined by calculating individual airport passenger volumes as a percentage of the annual passenger boardings in the United States. These hub classifications are defined as follows: • Large hub: 1 percent or more • Medium hub: At least 0.25 percent, but less than 1 percent • Small hub: At least 0.05 percent, but less than 0.25 percent When classifying an airport terminal in relation to passenger volumes, not only its hub size, but also the characteristics of its passenger mix are considered. While the sheer number of pas- sengers using the terminal drives the overall size of the terminal’s facilities, the departing passengers are the principal consumers of goods and services. While connecting passengers typically do not process through the front door of the terminal, they do enplane from the airside contact gates and remote aircraft parking positions. Departing passengers include all of the originating passengers from the airport’s locale and all of the connecting passengers using the airport as a transfer point. The volume of departing passengers from the terminal is referred to as “enplanements,” which equates to the total number of revenue passengers boarding the aircraft. Therefore, the most commonly used and best metric when assessing concession program performance is sales per enplaned passenger. For general planning purposes, annual passenger enplanements typically equate to one-half of the total MAP at an airport. There are diverse opinions in the industry and among the traveling public as to how large a single, consolidated terminal processor can be before it is perceived as being too big and complex for passengers to process through conveniently or without anxiety and confusion. How passengers orient themselves in physical space and navigate from place to place is commonly referred to as “wayfinding.” Along with a passenger’s comprehension of the amount of time needed to reach their gate, wayfinding affects a user’s perception of the level of service being provided by airport management and their impression of the physical design of the facility. If not addressed with clarity during the planning and design process, the negative aspects of complicated passenger wayfinding, extensive walking distances, and the uncertainty of processing time through the terminal can result in customer dissatisfaction.

24 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction As Table 3.1 indicates, most of the top 10 large hub airports contain multiple terminals, with the exception of Denver International Airport (DEN) which has a single terminal for both domestic and international passengers, including three midfield concourses. Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) has one domestic and one international terminal, including four midfield concourses connected by a single APM system (for all intents and purposes, this terminal configuration operates as a single consolidated airport facility). Las Vegas International Airport (LAS) has just recently opened its new Terminal 3 (primarily for international passengers) and demolished its 20-year-old Terminal 2. The remaining Terminal 1 and Terminal 3 are now connected by an underground APM. Terminal 1’s gates effectively serve as a satellite concourse, thereby integrating the complex into a single consolidated operation. ATL opened in 1980, DEN opened in 1995, and LAS Terminal 3 opened in June of 2012. Therefore, within the time continuum of large U.S. hub airports, DEN, ATL, and LAS are considered newer airport terminal/concourse complexes, built after deregulation of the airline industry in 1978. When compared to the planning alternative of multiple separate unit terminals, these consolidated terminal complexes are driven by the operational efficiencies gained through the more simplistic movement of passengers and baggage between fewer locations and the benefits of staff efficiencies for both passenger security screening and airline personnel. From a concession program perspective, these types of consolidated terminal planning concepts tend to focus major concentrations of origin and destination (O&D) passengers through centralized terminal processors and additionally concentrate connecting passenger volumes through the APM Rank ID Code City Airport Name CY 2011 Enplanements Number of Terminals Date of Newest Terminal 1 ATL Atlanta Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International 44,414,121 1 International 1 Domestici 2012 2 ORD Chicago Chicago O'Hare International 31,892,301 1 International 3 Domestic 1993 3 LAX Los Angeles Los Angeles International 30,528,737 1 International 8 Domesticii 1984 4 DFW Fort Worth Dallas/Fort Worth International 27,518,358 1 Internationaliii 4 Domestic and/or Transborder 2005 5 DEN Denver Denver International 25,667,499 1 Terminaliv 1995 6 JFK New York John F. Kennedy International 23,664,832 7 Terminals v 2008 7 SFO San Francisco San Francisco International 20,056,568 1 International 3 Domestic 2000 8 LAS Las Vegas McCarran International 19,872,617 1 International 1 Domestic 2012 9 PHX Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International 19,750,306 3 Domestic vi 1990 10 IAH Houston George Bush Intercontinental/ Houston 19,306,660 3 Domestic 1 International 2002 Source: FAA’s Air Carrier Activity Information System 9/27/2012. i Includes north and south side domestic processing. ii Several of LAX domestic terminals also contain FIS arrivals facilities. iii Includes five terminals and one FIS arrivals facility; Terminal D/FIS—international (foreign flag carriers), Terminal E/FIS—domestic and international (United). iv Includes FIS and east and west domestic processing. v Several JFK terminals also include FIS arrivals facilities. vi Terminal 4 includes FIS arrivals facilities. Table 3.1. Top 10 hub airports, 2011.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 25 connection at the centroid of satellite concourses. As such, the location of the APM station becomes a primary location for concessions and services. There seems to be a recent trend, particularly in large hub airports, toward more consolidated terminal complexes with either a single, large passenger processing unit or with a single domestic processor combined with a single international processor. It is believed that this is primarily a result of the previously mentioned passenger, baggage, security, and airline efficiencies. This trend is most likely further supported by the ability to achieve a superior concession program with increased exposure to passenger flows for retail and food and beverage concessions. Table 3.1 depicts the current top 10 hub airports in the U.S. based on 2011 passenger statistics. This hypothesis is further supported by the wave of recently constructed overseas mega-terminals at large passenger activity airports built since the turn of the century, shown in Table 3.2. 3.3.3 Airline Mission of the Airport An airport’s role in the national and regional system of air traffic and the specific airlines serving the airport and their business strategies for routing flights into and out of a particular airport influence both the size and configuration of an airport’s airfield, terminal, and landside facilities. An airport’s mission is typically dependent on the size of the community it serves and its geographical location within the United States. Airports situated on U.S. coasts in large metro- politan areas, such as the JFK in New York and LAX in California, are in an advantageous geographic position to provide air service as international gateway airports to the United States. To a large extent, these gateways are influenced by the stage length capabilities of aircraft to reach distant overseas destinations across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. As aircraft technologies have improved over time, the stage lengths of new generations of aircraft have increased the distances that they can fly, which in turn has increased the potential for more international activity at major metropolitan airports located internally in the United States [for example, at Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD)]. Airport terminals with any type of international passenger activity must have CBP arrivals facilities for primary, secondary, and customs inspections that must comply with CBP Airport Technical Design Standards. It is important that passengers have direct pathways to and from ID Code City Airport Name Terminal Sq. Ft. Year Initially Opened DXB Dubai, United Arab Emirates Dubai International T3 21,300,000 i 2008 PEK Beijing, China Beijing Capital International T3 10,610,000 ii 2008 MAD Madrid, Spain Madrid-Barajas T4 8,180,600iii 2006 HKG Hong Kong, SAR China Hong Kong International Airport T1/T2 6,135,000iv 1,507,000 1998/2007 ICN Incheon, South Korea Incheon International Main Terminal 5,340,000 v 2001 LHR London, England London Heathrow T5 4,442,000 vi 2008 i http://www.dubaiairport.com/en/media-centre/facts-figures/Pages/factsheets-reports-statistics.aspx ii http://www.airports-china.com/beijing-zbaa-pek.htm iii http://www.madrid-airport.info/facilities.html iv http://www.hongkongairport.com/eng/business/about-the-airport/facts-figures/facts-sheets.html v http://www.airport.kr/iiacms/pageWork.iia?_scode=C3002020000 vi http://www.richardrogers.co.uk/Asp/uploadedFiles/Image/1065_t5/RSHP_A_JS_1065_L_E_GB.pdf Table 3.2. Large, non-U.S. airport mega-terminals.

26 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction these international facilities to their domestic flights that minimize the connection times for both passengers and their baggage. These arriving and connecting passenger pathways have a significant impact on a passenger’s dwell time and route of travel, which affects the location and type of concessions in the terminal facilities. The flight network established at each airport by the primary airline(s) is a factor influencing the mission of the airport and terminal facilities. The majority of the U.S. passenger airlines use a “hub-and-spoke” network to route their flights to and from the various cities they serve. A “hub” is a central airport location through which many of the airlines’ flights are routed. In the United States, ATL is an example of a large connecting domestic hub terminal for Delta Airlines with a separate U.S. CBP international arrivals terminal. A “spoke” is typically a smaller metropolitan city that has fewer, if any, connecting flights and consists primarily of O&D passenger traffic. An example of a spoke airport is one of the case study airports, SAV, which consists primarily of O&D passenger activity. The U.S. government’s policy to deregulate the airline industry in 1978 greatly increased the use of the hub-and-spoke system. Prior to deregulation, airlines were required to have direct flights between small city pairs. Typical point-to-point service prior to deregulation more often than not produced low passenger loads on these government-mandated routes, resulting in lower revenues for airlines on these flights. Both the scale and mission of the airport terminal greatly influence the magnitude and type of concession offerings that can realistically be included in an airport terminal. One of the most significant factors that influences the ability of the concession program to yield its maximum potential is whether passenger flows are concentrated to expose all potential customers to as many concession offerings as possible. Consequently, for a new terminal facility, an initial decision is whether to consolidate all airport passengers into a single terminal or divide passenger volumes into multiple unit terminals. There are two primary configuration factors to consider. The first factor addresses the organization of terminal passenger processing into either a centralized or decentralized airport terminal complex and is discussed in Section 3.3.4, Centralized and Decentralized Terminal Facilities. The second configuration factor involves organizing the terminal facility into one of four generally recognized concept types of terminal/concourse configurations which are depicted in Section 3.3.5, Generic Terminal/Concourse Concepts. 3.3.4 Centralized and Decentralized Terminal Facilities One of the most important decisions initially facing planners and designers is whether the terminal complex should have one centralized processing terminal or whether the mission of the airport warrants multiple, decentralized passenger processing unit terminals. Many factors enter into the decision of a single versus multiple unit terminal planning approach. Some of these factors include the magnitude of passenger and aircraft activity, the specific mission of the terminal facility, and whether the project is starting with a clean slate (such as a greenfield site) or supplementing an existing terminal infrastructure (whereby a new single terminal project becomes part of a series of existing unit terminals). These overarching, large-scale, strategic planning decisions have a long-lasting impact on the viability of the airport’s concession revenue generation potential. 3.3.4.1 Centralized Terminal Facilities As the name implies, the underlying premise of a centralized terminal is that all passengers and baggage at an airport are processed through a single primary facility complex. There are

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 27 many examples of centralized, single terminal processing facilities in the small and medium hub airport categories. Among the case study airports examined in this project, SAV, BUD, PIT, and PDX fall within this category. There are even some very large passenger volume facilities that fall into this category. Two examples are DEN and the Hong Kong International (HKG) airports that utilize a single terminal facility and concentrate passengers through a single terminal build- ing and a single APM system spine that routes passengers to and from gates. While HKG has a second terminal, Terminal 2, it is a check-in–only facility and supplements the consolidated terminal complex along a central spine of passenger flows through a single APM system. There is also the beginnings of a trend to consolidate previously built unit terminals such as at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) where three unit terminals have been consolidated into one facility, Terminal 3. Similar consolidations of multiple unit terminals into a larger concentration of passenger flows through a single, larger terminal are currently being planned in Kansas City International Airport (MCI) and contemplated at JFK in New York. In general, the simpler and more concentrated passenger volumes tend to promote a stronger concession program. While small hub passenger volumes typically do not warrant the need for more than a single centralized terminal building, airports with medium to large hub passenger volumes are some- times faced with the decision of expanding an existing terminal/concourse configuration, build- ing a new consolidated single replacement terminal, or building a second unit terminal to handle the airport’s future growth. It is during this strategic planning decision that the potential influ- ences of the non-aviation revenue generated from the concession program needs to be one of the key factors to consider. There are many other advantages to a centralized, single consolidated terminal facility configu- ration and operating strategy. This strategy can take the form of a single mega-terminal like DEN or dual headhouse processors like ATL’s domestic and international terminals that still utilize a single, concentrated flow of passengers along its APM spine. Some of these advantages have a direct impact on concession revenues and customer satisfaction, while others are more focused on operating efficiency: • Maximizes concession revenue opportunities: In a centralized facility, it is possible to achieve the maximum exposure of the departing passengers to a central concession core, which boosts sales and revenue while eliminating the need to duplicate concessions, as is sometimes required with a multiple unit terminal strategy. • Maximizes the use of facilities and staffing: A single consolidated terminal facility configuration and operating strategy: – Maximizes passenger processing capacity and often eliminates unnecessary facility duplication. – Minimizes staffing requirements for certain passenger processing, such as areas for SSCPs. This approach can have a direct effect on customer satisfaction since a correctly sized and staffed single centralized SSCP area has the capability to better absorb passenger peaks than smaller distributed SSCP areas. – Provides a better opportunity to operate as a common-use facility by utilizing common-use terminal equipment and common-use passenger processing systems technologies to share gates and airline-related passenger processing facilities. • Minimizes interline and intraline connections: Since all airlines are operating within a single consolidated terminal facility, the connections of passengers and baggage between airlines are typically closer and less complex than the connections between unit terminals. Efficient, uncomplicated passenger connections tend to increase customer satisfaction at an airport.

28 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction • Simplifies wayfinding resulting in higher customer satisfaction: – From a macro-wayfinding perspective on the landside, there is only one location at which passengers arrive and depart, which typically simplifies the ground access infrastructure and decision making on approaching or departing the airport and terminal complex. There is less opportunity for passengers to show up at the wrong terminal since there is only one centralized terminal destination, resulting in fewer missed flights. – From a micro-wayfinding perspective inside the terminal, single centralized terminals tend to simplify decision making by involving fewer decision points. • Minimizes duplication of landside facilities: A single consolidated terminal strategy allows mass transit (such as a single bus or rail transit station) to serve all passengers, thereby simplifying wayfinding and minimizing the duplication of facilities and the need for connecting services within a multiple unit terminal complex. • Adapts to airline flexibility: A single consolidated terminal provides adaptability to meet the changing needs of the airlines, such as minimizing relocations from one unit terminal to another due to airlines changing code-share alliances and partnership mergers. • Increases gate flexibility and utilization: A single consolidated terminal that is appropriately designed to process both international and domestic arriving and departing aircraft and pas- sengers through the use of swing gates eliminates the need to taxi or tow an internationally arriving aircraft to a different domestic departing gate. • Provides comparable LOS: Operating from the same terminal building typically provides a comparable set of facilities and LOS for the dominant carrier(s) and other competing airlines. This consolidation also results in all airlines having a more similar quality of concession pro- gram than if major and minor airlines are operating out of separate unit terminals. 3.3.4.2 Decentralized Terminal Facilities Several unit terminals create different needs from those of a single consolidated terminal. Multiple unit terminals represent the most decentralized concept. This multiple terminal con- figuration is most often associated with larger passenger volume airports and airports with more than one major airline, such as LAX and JFK, one of the case study airports. In these examples, each terminal operates independently of the other terminals and duplicates most facilities, such as concessions, restrooms, building services, vertical circulation, mass transit interfaces, and related structures. Most airports with multiple terminals do not evenly split activity, so each unit terminal must be capable of responding to individual peaks. Decentralized terminals sometimes require con- cessionaires to duplicate certain concession offerings in multiple terminals where the volume of airport passengers may be sufficient in one unit terminal and insufficient in the other unit terminal to support such concessions. This approach can result in significant quality and profitability differences between the concessions in each terminal. An airport also may have different types of airline service that require different types of terminals. A domestic terminal, or one targeted at low-cost carriers, has different needs and characteristics than a large international terminal. Each of these characteristics should be considered when deciding on the specific allocation of types of concession offerings. At a certain point, as traffic increases, a single terminal may expand piecemeal and develop multiple passenger processing locations within a single centralized terminal. For example, to keep walking distances within desired maximums for O&D passengers, a terminal may require multiple SSCPs that, in turn, produce multiple passenger paths and vertical circulation cores. These multiple paths may then require duplication of concessions and other services to make them accessible to all passengers. The concession core can also be a “centralized” node of concessions

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 29 accessed from multiple points of entry from the landside as illustrated by MSP. Thus, a single terminal can sometimes have similar operational characteristics to a decentralized terminal within a single structure. 3.3.5 Generic Terminal/Concourse Concepts Once a decision has been reached about whether the terminal complex will take a centralized or decentralized processing approach, an initial investigation of concepts can begin by exploring any of four basic concept types and variations on their principal mode of operation. These generic concepts differ in the way passengers are processed from the main terminal to the aircraft gate and, in particular, the configuration of the aircraft parking positions at the terminal and/or concourse. Each concept has a slightly different effect on the concession program requirements and location placement. Although at many airports, the overall airport terminal complex often combines ele- ments of several of these types. For clarity, these generic concepts are presented and discussed separately in the following paragraphs. Historically, four generic terminal/concourse concept types have been recognized by the industry at large: linear, pier, satellite, and transporter. These concept types are referenced in various publications, including The Apron-Terminal Complex (2), which was prepared for the FAA, and in the FAA planning document, The Apron & Terminal Building Planning Manual (3). These terminal concept types are based on a specific relationship between the aircraft and the passenger processing and boarding areas. The transporter concept, which involves a unique type of transport vehicle called a mobile lounge that moves passengers from the terminal processing building directly to an aircraft’s boarding door, has proven to be very limited in its application and will not be addressed in this Handbook. 3.3.5.1 Linear Terminal Concept The linear terminal concept consists of a single terminal processor with an integrated, single- sided linear gate arrangement that can be configured in a straight or curvilinear configuration. The typical internal arrangement of functions in a linear terminal is as follows: • Passenger ticketing along the front side of the landside portion of the building • Single or multiple SSCPs along the center of the building • Holdroom area and corresponding aircraft positions along the back or apron-side of the building Figure 3.3 depicts an example of a simple linear terminal. The linear concept works effectively in lower passenger activity situations and can be arranged into a series of individual linear unit terminals in order to accommodate larger passenger volumes. In general, the primary advantage of the simple linear configuration is that there is a direct relationship between curbside and the aircraft, and walking distances for passengers are generally relatively short. A linear concourse may be located parallel to, or integrated with, the terminal. Shown in Figure 3.4, BUD, one of this project’s case study airports, is a classic example of a linear terminal that centralizes terminal passenger flows so that maximum footfall is achieved with sightlines to the majority of the airport’s concessions in its centralized Skycourt. Variations of the linear terminal concept include the “drive-to-gate” terminals at MCI and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW). These examples utilize a curvilinear form and narrow depth, which originally made them convenient and efficient with short walking distances to and from the aircraft to ground transportation. The MCI and DFW configurations have decentralized passenger processing areas, making it difficult to centralize passenger footfall past concession locations and sometimes hindering the ability to generate higher sales and maximize concession revenues.

30 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction Source: “Considerations for Selecting a Terminal Configuration,” David A. Daileda, FAIA, FAA White Paper. Figure 3.3. Linear terminal concept. Figure 3.4. Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 31 3.3.5.2 Pier Terminal Concept The pier concept consists of a single centralized passenger processing building with either a single concourse or multiple double-loaded concourses attached to the terminal. In this configuration, aircraft are parked on either side along the spine of the concourse or concourses. Circulation in the pier concept is linear; passengers enter from the front of the building, passing through ticketing, security, and then into the secure concourse(s) extending out from the terminal. Located on either side of the concourse are holdrooms, concessions, and other passenger amenities. This double-loaded configuration shortens passenger walk times and allows for concession nodes at the beginning as well as the midpoint of the concourse. This configuration concentrates a large percentage of O&D passengers into the concession nodes, providing greater visibility and increased revenue. As a pier airport expands, the length of the initial pier may be extended, branching into a “Y” shape, or additional piers may be developed parallel to the original pier. New parallel piers are spaced according to the size of aircraft, utilizing the inner gate positions. As the single-pier concept expands into multiple piers, passenger walking distances increase. Examples of pier concepts are found at LaGuardia Airport (LGA) in New York, Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) in Virginia, and Miami International Airport (MIA) in Florida. Figure 3.5 depicts an example of a single-pier terminal concept. Source: “Considerations for Selecting a Terminal Configuration,” David A. Daileda, FAIA, FAA White Paper. Figure 3.5. Single-pier concourse concept.

32 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction A classic example of a single-pier terminal is one of the case study airports, SAV, shown in Figure 3.6. The terminal processing functions are organized in a straightforward manner with passengers first going to ticketing and check-in, then going to security, and then out to the secured concourse holdrooms. However, a unique aspect of SAV is the design feature of the Savannah Square concession node located landside of the SSCP. Savannah Square is reminiscent of one of Savannah’s iconic open green space public squares that are part of the city’s historic planning heritage. Figure 3.7 depicts a multi-pier terminal concept. From the airport case study research, an example of a multi-pier concourse configuration is shown in Figure 3.8. Some multi-pier terminal airport examples include large passenger activity airports, such as ORD, MIA, and Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport (FLL). Overseas airports include HKG, Frankfurt Airport (FRA), and Amsterdam Schiphol Airport (AMS). 3.3.5.3 Satellite Terminal Concept The satellite terminal concept consists of a separate airside building that accommodates all of the aircraft gates and is linked to the main passenger processing building (often referred to Figure 3.6. Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 33 Source: “Considerations for Selecting a Terminal Configuration,” David A. Daileda, FAIA, FAA White Paper. Figure 3.7. Multi-pier terminal concept. Figure 3.8. Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport.

34 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction Source: “Considerations for Selecting a Terminal Configuration,” David A. Daileda, FAIA, FAA White Paper. Figure 3.9. Satellite terminal concept. as a headhouse terminal) via an APM or moving walkways either in an underground tunnel or elevated as a bridge to allow aircraft taxiing. The satellite building contains all airside components, including holdrooms and aircraft gates, and is typically surrounded on all sides by aircraft. The main advantage of the satellite terminal concept is improved maneuverability on the airside. Another advantage is that the terminal processor and satellite concourse(s) can expand or be remodeled independently without affecting one another’s operations. This independence allows additional satellites or additional passenger processing areas to be constructed with minimal impact to existing operations. Additionally, the satellite configuration allows aircraft to use the full linear frontage of the structure because there are no attached landside structures. Figure 3.9 depicts an example of a satellite terminal concept. This configuration lends itself to the development of concession nodes at the APM or tunnel connections along each satellite concourse. The central APM nodes correspond with the flow of the majority of the passengers passing through the terminal(s), maximizing the number of passengers moving into and through the concession areas. For concession operators, this increase in passenger footfall typically translates to increases in sales, which ultimately results in higher revenue to the airport operator. Examples of satellite concepts include Orlando International (MCO), ATL, DEN, Terminal 1 at ORD, and Terminal 3 at CVG. From the airport case study research, PIT, shown in Figure 3.10, is an example of a satellite concourse configuration.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 35 Figure 3.10. Pittsburgh International Airport.

36 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction 3.4 Aircraft and Passenger Considerations It is important that non-aviation revenues from concessions be taken into consideration from the outset when developing a new terminal or renovating an existing terminal. However, for a new greenfield terminal, some primary aspects of airport terminal planning must occur prior to planning for in-terminal concessions. Any new terminal planning effort must initially identify the best location for the terminal in relationship to the airport’s airfield configuration and landside access system. In particular, the taxiways and taxilanes that serve the terminal apron and the configuration of an efficient aircraft parking plan set the beginning framework for the terminal project. An appropriate time to consider the placement of in-terminal concessions begins when the most viable terminal aircraft parking plans have been determined, and when the most logical location has been identified for where arriving passengers depart the airport by various modes of ground transportation. With the general location of the private and commercial vehicle curbs, and parking and transit system station locations identified, planners and designers can begin to depict the primary paths of travel between the various modes of ground transportation and the aircraft gates at the terminal. While concession placement may not be the primary criterion in determining the selection of a preferred terminal configuration, it should be a major consideration even at this very early stage. 3.4.1 Aircraft Apron and Taxiway/Taxilane Factors A major step in determining the size and configuration of a new terminal begins with an understanding of the number of passengers and aircraft that are forecast. The number of aircraft gates and the size of the terminal facilities are based on these demand forecast parameters. Annual and peak-hour passenger and aircraft operations forecasts for the 10- and 20-year horizons are typically needed to determine the number and size of aircraft likely to serve the airport at peak times in the terminal’s future. As the terminal’s aircraft parking plan begins to take shape, the groupings of aircraft and their passenger capacities associated with a particular configuration will begin to set the quantitative and spatial requirements for the primary pedestrian corridors and other critical airside-related functional spaces, such as passenger holdrooms, restrooms, and just as importantly, the size and locations of concession offerings to satisfy airport customers. It is usually the aircraft parking plan that begins to define the boundaries and configuration of the terminal and its concourses. Due to the limited maneuverability of commercial aircraft and the required FAA dimensional criteria for airfield taxiways and taxilanes and their relationship to the airport’s runways, the development of the aircraft parking plan is most often one of the first steps taken once the runway system and its associated taxiways are identified. Various aircraft terminal parking plans are usually explored in coordination with developing the supporting terminal curbs, access roadways and transit rails that connect to the regional transportation network. In some cases, the location of an existing transit or roadway system greatly affects the configuration of a new terminal complex, but typically the airside requirement dictates the most feasible terminal configuration that works effectively with the airport’s runway system. It is during this stage of terminal concept planning that the rough planning of concession sizes and locations should initially be considered. 3.4.2 Passenger Movement Considerations The pathway that departing passengers take through the terminal is one of the key determinants in the success or under-performance of a concession program. Passenger footfall on pathways that lead through (as is the case in some flow-through duty-free shops) or in front of a concession

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 37 offering is one of the key terminal plan and design attributes that can increase concession revenue. Concurrently, there are critical passenger satisfaction and convenience factors that must be con- sidered. These LOS factors include minimizing passenger walking distances; avoiding, wherever possible, transitioning levels particularly where passengers are still in possession of their bags; providing adequate wayfinding and navigation aids; and minimizing wait times. There is also an advantage to the concession program that passengers can lighten their load by checking their bags so that they are less burdened when they go to shop or dine. Even at the early stages of planning a new terminal facility, there are significant differences between where concessions can be located within the basic, generic terminal concepts that are typically considered when exploring a new terminal development. Additionally, when generic terminal concepts are developed to reflect the specific demand-driven facility requirements to work with site-specific geometry, passenger LOS factors affecting customer satisfaction, such as passenger volumes, circulation, walking distances and wayfinding, need to be considered. 3.4.2.1 Passenger Circulation and Volumes From the outset of determining the appropriate airside and landside configuration for a new terminal development, there are inherent attributes of the generic terminal concept types— linear, pier, and satellite—and their relationship to concession revenue generation. As described previously, the size of the passenger operation and mission of the airlines serving the airport assists in identifying which of the generic terminal types is the appropriate place to begin plan- ning a new terminal development. Once the aircraft gate requirements have been identified in relationship to the passenger volumes in the peak hour along with the mission of the airlines serving the airport, a decision can be made about how aircraft gates and passenger activity can best be accommodated within the framework of a single terminal or a multiple unit terminal planning strategy. From a concession revenue perspective, it is usually preferable to try to process all of the departing passenger traffic through one facility rather than dividing the traffic between terminals, since this approach consolidates 100 percent of the departing passengers into a single facility. The consolidated approach has the advantage of exposing the entirety of the departing passenger footfall past the concession offerings without duplicating concession spaces, as is the case with a decentralized approach with multiple unit terminals. There are certainly many other factors that come into play, such as the airlines’ missions and the sheer volume of passengers processed through a single terminal. Many of today’s single mega-terminals can accommodate upwards of 50 to 60 MAP depending on the mix of O&D and connecting passengers. These LOS factors include the potential of the perception of longer wait times, additional anxiety from seeing larger security screening queues regardless of how quickly the line may move, and potentially longer walking distances associated with the larger scale of a single mega-terminal complex aircraft gate layout. Many of the operational challenges from a large-scale single terminal can be overcome by careful planning and design that simulates smaller components within a large-scale facility. For example, using shorter, multiple concourses verses a long, single pier and the incorporation of people mover devices such as APMs and moving walkways can assist in reducing walking distances. By subdividing the security screening process into smaller queues rather than a single SSCP large queue, passengers’ perceptions and perceived wait time can be improved, reducing anxiety. A long queue results in increased perception of wait time regardless of how quickly the queue may actually be processed, so subdivided queues counterbalance this. All of these potential solutions to the scale of the facility are valid approaches in maintaining a goal of 100 percent passenger footfall for the concession program accomplished by maintaining a

38 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction single-terminal approach. However, it should be understood that the decision regarding the type of terminal concept brings with it certain innate performance characteristics relative to passenger volumes, enplaning passenger splits, and walking distances that are presented in the following section. 3.4.2.2 Passenger Circulation and Volume Characteristics of Generic Terminal Concepts When planning and designing new terminals, the initial decision of which generic type of terminal concept is the most appropriate to use carries with it certain facility operating and performance characteristics related to the concession program. This result can best be illustrated by showing simplistic terminal planning examples of three generic concepts: linear, pier, and satellite. These examples assume theoretical baseline parameters as well as lessons learned from the case study airports and other existing terminal facility examples. To understand the inherent passenger circulation and volume characteristics associated with the linear, pier, and satellite generic terminal concepts, the principles are depicted in Figure 3.11 by using a simple example of a small, 10-gate pier terminal. For purposes of this and subsequent examples, all aircraft are assumed to carry the same seating capacities and load Figure 3.11. Single-pier, 10-gate terminal example.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 39 factors of a typical narrow-bodied aircraft, a Boeing 737-800. This example shows five primary inherent characteristics: • Single footfall path: There is a single passenger corridor for departures in a single path direction. • Wayfinding decision points: This single-pier concept represents the simplest of passenger wayfinding options since enplaning passengers have only one pathway to follow in a straight- ahead direction in order to reach their departing aircraft. • 100 percent footfall through a major concession node: With a single, consolidated path of travel, 100 percent of the O&D passengers processed through a single SSCP are exposed to a major node of concession offerings prior to reaching the initial aircraft gate on the pier concourse. • Diminishing exposure to concession offerings: As enplaning O&D passengers head out to the holdrooms for the aircraft gates of the double-loaded pier, there is a continuous diminishing of the volume of passengers along this footfall path until passengers reach the last aircraft parking positions. A typical concession location strategy is having a major concession node with the opportunity for concession offerings to be viewed by 100 percent of the O&D traffic and then positioning a minor node(s) of concessions that will be exposed to some percentage of the O&D passengers. • Finite capacity and walking distance characteristics: This single, 10-gate pier example has a maximum passenger walking distance to its farthest gate of over 820 feet with an average walking distance of nearly 520 feet. At an 85 percent load factor with an average of 1.5 turns per gate and an assumed average seating capacity per aircraft of 165, a generic peak-hour enplanement capacity of this single, generic pier concept is approximately 2,100 passengers. To gain an understanding of how the three generic terminal types—linear, pier, and satellite— compare to these inherent characteristics when examining a slightly larger scale of operation, the following examples focus on a 20-gate terminal. Each generic example assumes identical baseline parameters, including using the Boeing 737-800 seating capacity; each example also assumes an 85 percent load factor. Further assuming an average of 1.5 turns per gate and an average seating capacity per aircraft of 165, the peak-hour enplanement capacity for all examples is approximately 2,100 passengers. Another baseline parameter is that each generic configuration uses wingtip-to- wingtip clearances of 25 feet and allows for a concourse width sufficient for passenger circulation in both directions. Similar to the previous 10-gate pier example, Figures 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14 show the three generic terminal concepts and the effects on passenger circulation, wayfinding, footfall, and capacity based on these 20-gate aircraft parking configurations and a typical approach of developing major and minor concession nodes. 20-Gate Linear Terminal Concept. This example shows the inherent operational and perfor- mance characteristics of a 20-gate, linear terminal concept. Two separate pathways are created just beyond the SSCP, so that an enplaning passenger is immediately confronted with a wayfinding deci- sion to move either right or left. This arrangement allows a major concession node to be developed that has 100 percent of the O&D passengers coming through its concession offerings immediately past the single SSCP. As enplaning O&D passengers head out to the holdrooms for the aircraft gates of the single-loaded concourses, there is a continuous diminishing volume of passengers along this footfall path to the end aircraft parking positions. Additionally, there are opportunities for minor concession nodes at the corners of the two concourses, maintaining a line-of-sight connection to the farthest gates. These additional nodes capture passengers who may bypass the major concession node or those passengers waiting in nearby holdrooms. This configuration allows passengers to visit concessions while maintaining a visual connection to their holdrooms, reducing passengers’ concerns that important boarding announcements or procedures might be missed. A typical concession location strategy is based on having a major concession node with an opportunity to be viewed by 100 percent of the O&D traffic and then positioning minor nodes of concessions to be exposed to some percentage of O&D passengers. This 20-gate linear terminal

40 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction Figure 3.13. 20-gate, dual-pier terminal example. Figure 3.12. 20-gate linear terminal example.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 41 concept has a maximum passenger walking distance to its farthest gate of almost 1,320 feet with an average walking distance of 755 feet. 20-Gate, Dual-Pier Terminal Concept. Figure 3.13 shows several inherent operational and performance characteristics of a 20-gate, dual-pier terminal concept. As previously mentioned, this example assumes that all 20 aircraft carry the same seating capacities and passenger load factors. A dual-pier configuration is illustrated since the accommodation of 20 gates in a single pier would result in long walking distances for passengers. Separate pathways are created just beyond the SSCP, requiring an immediate decision from the enplaning passenger to move either right or left. This dual-pier configuration allows a major concession node to be developed that 100 percent of the O&D passengers pass through just past the SSCP. While similar to the linear concept in the way the passenger traffic is divided, the arrangement of gates is slightly different because pas- sengers would need to walk a bit farther before reaching the nearest gate. As enplaning O&D pas- sengers head out to the holdrooms for the aircraft gates of the double-loaded concourses, there is a continuous diminishing volume of passengers along this footfall path to the end aircraft park- ing positions. Additionally, there are opportunities for minor concession nodes at the corners and midpoints of the two pier concourses, maintaining a line-of-sight connection to the farthest gates. These additional nodes capture passengers who may bypass the major central concession node or those passengers waiting in nearby holdrooms. This configuration allows passengers to visit concessions while maintaining a visual connection to their holdroom, reducing passenger concerns that important boarding announcements or procedures might be missed. The concession location strategy for this particular concept has a major concession node with an opportunity to be viewed by 100 percent of the O&D traffic and then smaller minor nodes of Figure 3.14. 20-gate headhouse terminal with satellite example.

42 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction concessions that will each be exposed to some percentage of O&D passengers. This 20-gate, dual- pier terminal concept has a maximum passenger walking distance to its farthest gate of just over 1,300 feet, with an average walking distance of 1,000 feet. 20-Gate Satellite Terminal Concept. Figure 3.14 shows several inherent operational and performance characteristics of a 20-gate satellite terminal concept. There are no aircraft gates at the main terminal headhouse building. While some minor landside concessions can be provided at the landside terminal, the majority of the concession program will be situated airside. The satellite terminal concept requires some type of people mover device, either an APM or moving walkways, in order to maintain a reasonable LOS since the walking distances are longer in this concept unless an APM is utilized. The wayfinding in the satellite terminal concept is fairly straightforward with enplaning pas- sengers traveling in a single straight-ahead direction from the terminal, but once passengers arrive at the satellite concourse they must decide to head right or left to reach their gate. This arrange- ment does allow a major concession node to be developed at the APM transit point at the center of the satellite concourse that is exposed to 100 percent of the O&D passengers destined for that concourse. Similar to other generic terminal types, as enplaning passengers head out to the holdrooms for the aircraft gates on the double-loaded satellite concourse, there is a continuously diminishing volume of passengers along this footfall path to the end aircraft parking positions. The concession location strategy for this particular concept has a major concession node with an opportunity to be viewed by 100 percent of the O&D traffic and minor nodes that are exposed to some percentage of the enplaning passengers. This 20-gate satellite concourse terminal concept has a maximum passenger walking distance to its farthest gate of 688 feet, with an average walking distance of 890 feet. A comparison of the inherent characteristics relative to passenger satisfaction and concession node opportunities based on a 20-gate capacity for the three different generic terminal concepts—linear, dual pier, and satellite—is shown in Table 3.3. While there can be variations on the physical geometries that are developed during the planning and design of such concepts, in general some conclusions can be summarized. Within the context of a greenfield development at a 20-gate capacity, the linear concept yields the shortest minimum and average walking distances and times along with similar concession node opportunities when compared to the other two generic options of the dual pier and satellite without an APM system. If capital cost is not the driving fac- tor, a satellite concept with an APM significantly cuts down walking distances and travel times, but does add two vertical transitions down and up from an underground APM tunnel. The com- parison shows that even when deciding which generic terminal concept to address an airport’s demand forecast and mission, there are inherent characteristics significant to the opportunities to maximize concession revenues and increase customer satisfaction. These characteristics affect the operational and capital costs as well as the non-aeronautical revenue potential of the planned and designed terminal facility. 3.4.3 Variation on Generic Types From a concessions revenue perspective, having a single terminal processing building that consolidates passenger footfall into a concentrated flow that passes by or through the majority of an airport’s concession offerings should be considered as the first option whenever practical. Conversely, concentrating all passenger activities can be perceived by some passengers as adding undesired walking distances and larger volumes of passengers in security screening lines. The lessons learned from MCI illustrate the differences in concessions revenue and SSCP staffing between a single terminal processor and multiple unit terminals. In Kansas City in 1972, an innovative approach to terminal processing, the “Drive to Your Gate” concept, placed

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 43 aircraft gates only 75 feet from the arrivals and departures curbs of a single-level terminal facility, depicted in Figure 3.15, and consisted of three separate and virtually identical unit terminals. When the FAA mandated the security screening of all departing passengers in 1973, this design concept became functionally flawed right after the facilities opened. The inflexibility of the limited 75-foot depth between the aircraft gates of the poured-in-place concrete terminal and the roadway curbs bordered by close-in parking garages made installation of SSCPs and basic customer services such as restrooms and concessions on the airside of security problematic. This limited depth and the linear configuration of the gates necessitated installing 14 different SSCP locations with multiple passenger screening devices associated with no more than two or three gates distributed throughout the three unit terminals as shown in Figure 3.16. The operational impacts of this distributed security screening are significant. The staffing of the three unit terminal SSCPs at MCI exceeds the staffing required at all three Port Authority of New York & New Jersey airports—JFK, Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), and LGA— combined. This staffing level requires an enormous ongoing operational cost from the airport operator. From a concession revenue perspective, the three unit terminals have limited oppor- tunities. These limitations are due to the decentralized concessions caused by the limited post- security airside depth and dispersed gate locations. This terminal layout results in the duplication of many concessions and provides limited passenger footfall, resulting in very poor sales per pas- senger and reduced revenue to the airport operator for an airport of MCI’s traffic volume. As a result, passenger services are virtually non-existent downstream of the SSCP in the gate areas. In some gate locations, no or undersized restrooms are available. To reach retail shops, restaurants, newsstands, ATMs and other passenger services not readily available in these secured holdroom areas, passengers must exit these secure areas and be re-screened upon re-entering the holdroom. Forty years after construction, MCI is a medium hub airport serving 5.1 million annual enplanements in 2012 with 7.2 million annual enplanements projected in 2030. The three existing unit terminals are currently being evaluated and a single new terminal complex is being considered Performance Factors Linear Dual Pier Satellite With APM Without APM Passenger Satisfaction Walking Distances (ft) Minimum 265 700 175 720 Maximum 1,315 1,305 790 1,340 Average 755 1,000 530 1,075 Time to Reach Gate (min) Minimum 1.2 3.2 1.0 3.3 Maximum 6.1 6.0 3.9 6.2 Average 3.5 4.6 2.6 5.0 Vertical Transitions 0 0 2 2 Concession Nodes Major Nodes (pax %) 3 (100%, 40%, 40%) 3 (100%, 50%, 50%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) Minor Nodes (pax %) 2 (15%, 15%) 2 (20%, 20%) 3 (100%, 25%, 25%) 3 (100%, 25%, 25%) Cost Factors Footprint Size (sq ft) 159,000 151,000 169,000 169,000 Requires APM No No Yes No Escalators/Elevators No No Yes Yes Table 3.3. Comparison of 20-gate generic terminal concepts.

44 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction as a replacement. A single unit terminal concept is being considered because it could help reduce airport operating costs, increase concessions revenues and enhance customer satisfaction by increasing the number of concession offerings to a larger, concentrated flow of passengers through a single, consolidated terminal facility. A recent industry planning study identified as a potential replacement a hybrid terminal concept consisting of a double-loaded pier configuration that mimics the “X” shape of PIT combined with a linear terminal with frontal gates. This hybrid, shown in Security Checkpoint Concessions Source: Courtesy of Kansas City Aviation Department Figure 3.16. Kansas City International Airport unit terminals and SSCP. Source: Courtesy of Kansas City Aviation Department Figure 3.15. Kansas City International Airport terminal floor plan.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 45 Figure 3.17, would consolidate the passenger and aircraft operations from the existing three unit terminals into a single replacement terminal to be built on the current location of Terminal A. 3.4.4 Customer LOS Factors The most critical LOS factors include passenger walking distance, number of level transitions, quality of wayfinding and navigation aids, and amount of wait times. The least important LOS factor is passenger density within the terminal. As discussed in Section 3.4.4.5, studies have shown that passengers rarely mention passenger density as a significant factor in overall LOS when compared to other critical LOS factors. 3.4.4.1 Walking Distances Long walking distances are often a negative influence on passenger LOS. The relationship between long walking distances and poor LOS is due to passenger anxiety, fatigue, and wayfinding challenges. From passengers’ perspective, as walking distances increase, there is an associated concern that they will not be able to find or reach their gate in time for their flight’s departure. In addition, some passengers may find it too physically demanding to walk extended distances without assistance. Existing airports may install moving walks or APM systems to reduce the impact of long distances between passenger processing and aircraft gates. APMs and moving walkways are used by airports to reduce passenger walking distances and to reduce overall transit times, typically between passenger security screening and aircraft holdrooms. When implementing these systems, it is important to understand how the location affects conces- sion revenue. When positioning moving walkways, planners should ensure that concessions are strategically located in between the end of one moving walk and the beginning of the next moving walk. This configuration ensures that passengers have an opportunity to stop at concessions while Source: Kansas City Aviation Department and Landrum & Brown Figure 3.17. Proposed terminal for Kansas City International Airport.

46 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction fully utilizing the moving walkways. If concessions are placed adjacent to moving walkways, passengers may decide to bypass these concessions entirely, reducing concession sales and revenue. APM systems typically link unit terminals or link a passenger headhouse to satellite concourses. Concession nodes can be strategically placed around the APM stations. This positioning allows concessions to capitalize on the concentrated passenger volumes entering and exiting the APM system. An example of this positioning is PIT, where a major concession node located within the center of the satellite concourse is positioned near the APM system that links the satellite concourse to the terminal headhouse. 3.4.4.2 Level Changes One of the key factors in providing a higher overall LOS is the reduction in passengers’ ver- tical transitions from one level to another. By minimizing the number of vertical transitions, passengers are relieved of having to walk up or down stairs or transition to and from an elevator or escalator. Minimizing vertical transitions also eliminates major wayfinding decision points about whether to change levels or not. Minimizing vertical transitions is especially important when planning the placement of concessions. In some airports, due to constrained spaces, concessions are forced onto mezzanine levels above the regular passenger circulation level, requiring vertical circulation to access the concessions. Mezzanine-level concessions are less accessible and less visible to passengers, typically reducing potential sales when compared to concessions located on the same level as passenger circulation. The implication of this issue is demonstrated at one of the case study airports, BUD, where extra signage on the glass railings of the mezzanine levels is used in an attempt to entice passengers from the departures level to the upper-level food court. 3.4.4.3 Wayfinding and Navigation Airport operators can reduce passenger stress levels by providing adequate wayfinding and nav- igation aids. This provision may include maps, help desks, adequate signage, and clearly marked gates and other passenger areas. Proper wayfinding allows passengers to reach their destination easily, resulting in an overall improvement in passenger mood and confidence. This improve- ment in passenger mood ultimately translates to a higher overall LOS when passengers are able to navigate through the terminal environment without worry of getting lost or missing their flight. 3.4.4.4 Wait Time ACRP Report 55: Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals found that passenger LOS is most impacted by wait times, particularly in ticketing, security screening, and baggage claim. Wait times that were 25 minutes or less were generally accepted by passengers and did not necessarily have a major impact on their overall perception of LOS. 3.4.4.5 Passenger Density versus Other LOS Factors The traditional approach to planning airport terminals revolves around the concept of LOS. LOS was originally derived from John J. Fruin, Ph.D., in his book Pedestrian Planning and Design (the revised edition published in 1987, and then adapted for use in terminal planning by the International Air Transport Association [IATA] in its Airport Development Reference Manual, the 9th Edition effective January 2004). LOS determines how much space is needed per passenger to achieve a perceived threshold of comfort based purely on the personal space remaining around a passenger under varying degrees of crowd density. The IATA LOS standards are broken down into multiple levels, A, B, C, D and E. In the majority of planning studies in the United States, a LOS of C as defined by IATA is generally the accepted minimum standard. While the use of

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 47 spatial LOS is generally a universally accepted standard for terminal design, IATA-based LOS has many limitations. It does not consider passenger wait time, passenger stress levels, amenities, or wayfinding. The main limitation of the spatial LOS measurement is that it only considers passenger density to determine passenger satisfaction or comfort. Due to this limitation, researchers have studied other ways by which to measure, improve, and plan for increasing passenger satisfaction for factors that are unrelated to density. ACRP Report 55: Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals examines ways to measure LOS and to develop LOS guidelines based on real-world passenger experiences. The ACRP Report 55 research team conducted passenger observations, surveys, and in-person interviews, which allowed them to determine specific passenger stress level and discomfort triggers. ACRP Report 55 research found that passengers do not actually recognize density as a primary factor in their overall recognition of LOS. This finding contradicts the industry belief that there is a direct correlation between a passenger’s perception of LOS and the physical space that the individual occupies. This perceived correlation has been the underpinnings of the IATA LOS methodology, which only uses a single factor—passenger density. ACRP Report 55 research found that factors such as walking distance, signage/wayfinding, and flight information played a significant role in LOS. Terminal facilities with short walk times and better signage generally resulted in a higher LOS (4). ACRP Report 55 found that other amenities were also important to passengers, such as Wi-Fi access, electrical outlets, and the availability of concessions. Interviews helped determine an important finding in the study: passengers who feel more in control of their experience at the airport rate that experience as a higher LOS. This finding implies that if passengers are able to confidently predict wait times, walk times, and other passenger processes, then they are generally more comfortable and experience lower levels of stress. This result shows that minimizing passenger wait times and developing intuitive wayfinding signage results in a higher level of customer satisfaction, while simultaneously increasing the time available for passengers to engage in the concession program (4). ACRP Report 55 is not the only evidence that space is not the primary driver of a passenger’s LOS. In 1991, a study published by Seneviratne and Martel, titled “Variables Influencing Performance of Air Terminal Buildings,” also determined that space was not the primary factor in passenger LOS. Based on passenger interviews and surveys, Seneviratne and Martel determined that information, number of available seats, and wait time were the most important factors affecting a passenger’s LOS. This finding lends additional evidence that availability of space is not the sole determinate of LOS. In fact, overall spatial density was a factor for less than 10 percent of passengers (5). ACRP Report 55 concludes that passenger density is not a primary factor in LOS and that designing beyond LOS C based on IATA standards is not as beneficial as previously considered by the industry at large. Planning and designing to reduce wait time, improve passenger awareness, better wayfinding, and providing amenities are the real keys to increase passenger LOS and hence overall passenger satisfaction. 3.5 Planning for Concessions in the Terminal Environment As described in Section 3.4, Aircraft and Passenger Considerations, the primary drivers of the configuration for the terminal processor and concourses are a function of an efficient aircraft park- ing plan and convenient access to and from aircraft gates by passengers. It is so early in the planning phase of the aircraft and passenger framework that the concession program must be considered and integrated to maximize the opportunity to generate sales and revenue while simultaneously achieving a high level of passenger convenience and overall customer satisfaction. This process of integrating the location and size of concession offerings into the passenger flow network is both science and art. As discussed in Chapter 4, Human Engineering Considerations,

48 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction much of the science involved in integrating a concession program into the plan and architecture of the building focuses on the “consumption behavior” of the customer. In most cases, this focus is on the departing airport passengers and their movement through the spatial configuration of the terminal/concourse facilities. 3.5.1 Consumption Behavior The fundamental factors leading up to the purchase of goods and services is known as “consumption behavior.” S. Roland Hall first coined this term in 1920. Hall was an American economist who first described the five steps involved in consumption behavior: attention, interest, desire, memory, and action, also known by the acronym, AIDMA. First, consumers become aware of a product or service through advertisements or from other consumers (attention); depending on what they see, they may become interested (interest), then consumers decide if they need or want the service (desire). Next, consumers memorize the particular product or service (memory), and finally, they decide to purchase the good or service (action) (6). AIDMA highlights the importance of marketing to consumers within the terminal environment. Without adequate and effective marketing, consumers either do not notice the goods or services for sale, or they forget about them entirely. As is often the case in an airport, passengers have many priorities more important than shopping. It is for this reason that effective marketing must be one of the top strategies for concession operators. For airport planners designing new terminals and concession spaces, there should be a focus on providing sufficient opportunities to place effective advertisements. Concessionaires within existing terminal facilities must find creative opportunities to communicate their products to consumers. These ideas and concepts are discussed in Section 3.7, Concession Needs. 3.5.2 Correlation between Passengers, Sales, and Line-of-Sight Passengers using an airport terminal rely heavily on their field of vision to orient themselves, allowing them to move toward their desired destination inside the terminal. It can be assumed that a passenger’s vision is typically accounting for over 80 percent of the knowledge being absorbed as compared to the passenger’s other senses of hearing, touching, smelling and tasting (7). It is important when planning the location of concessions that a passenger’s field of vision be taken into account. Figure 3.18 indicates the cone of vision associated in both the vertical and horizontal axes. It is advantageous for a potential consumer of airport concession goods and services to make direct visual contact with the concession offering in order to gain an awareness of the product or service that can then potentially evoke the desire to purchase the concession offering. Therefore, it is a combina- tion of a passenger’s primary path of travel and field of vision that becomes paramount in determining what information a passenger takes in that can affect the passenger’s mindset about a potential purchase. Clearly, other fac- tors such as the time available before the departure of the passenger’s flight and in-terminal advertising can and do affect a passenger’s decision. First and foremost, however, it is a passenger’s ability to see the concession offering that ranks as the highest consideration in the location of the concession. Therefore, passengers’ ability to visually make contact with a particular concession offer- ing is dependent upon their ability to have direct sight lines within the spatial context of the volume of space that is directly associated with their path of travel. Source: Accessibility for the Disabled: A Design Manual for a Barrier Free Environment, Ministry of Social Affairs, National Committee for the Disabled; United Nations, Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (2003). Figure 3.18. Field of vision.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 49 It is possible to determine from any given point within a specific volume of space what can be seen by the human eye. This single volume of space is defined as an isovist. By its very nature, an isovist is three-dimensional, but analysis is usually limited to only two dimensions due to the consistent elevation spacing of isovist subjects and field of vision. This principle can best be understood by visualizing the isovist as the area or volume of space illuminated by a single source of radiant light. For example, if this single point of radiant light is situated inside of a sphere, then the isovist is the same shape of the sphere from any single location within the sphere. Conversely, and as a two-dimensional example, if this single point is located at one end of an L-shaped room, then there will be multiple isovists, each with a plan volume limited to something less than the full area of the room. Analysis in plan view or as a vertical cross section is common (8). Figure 3.19 shows a two-dimensional example of this principle. 3.5.3 Correlation between Space, Passengers, and Sales Industry research performed by Eun M. Kong and Young Ook Kim rela- tive to the shopping mall industry, as recent as 2012, has indicated that there is a clear correlation between sales, pedestrian movement, and spatial configuration. Figure 3.20 diagrammatically illustrates this relationship. In a short report prepared by Kong and Kim at Sejong University, Department of Architecture in the Republic of Korea, research indicates a high correlation factor between sales and pedes- trian traffic, postulating that it is theoretically possible to forecast the value of a store location in a shopping mall based on pedestrian movements and spatial configuration. While the research conducted on airport concessions was not pointed at the revenue generation of a single location, drawing a parallel to airport concessions highlights the relationship between passengers and the spatial arrangement of concessions based on isovists from points along the path of the departing passenger. This is known as the theory of visual recognition hierarchy (8). The theory of visual recognition hierarchy suggests there is a strong connection between conces- sion sales, movement of passengers, and the configuration of concession spaces. This theory states that when the visibility of concession space improves, there is a resulting and measurable increase in sales. This principle applies to those passengers whose shopping tendencies are more impul- sive rather than planned. Passengers who have already planned their purchases tend to seek those concession outlets they have already identified, regardless of visibility. This theory was developed with data collected from isovist spatial modeling. Isovist modeling utilizes spatial information from a floor plan or a built environment to develop line-of-sight projections based on predictions of passenger movements. These projections can help determine the potential value of a storefront by correlating line-of-sight information to real-world sales data. Information from the model has allowed researchers to estimate sales based on visibility and passenger movement. Figure 3.21 shows the output of an isovist model, and the shaded areas represent line-of-sight to the storefront identified in the model, while the colored areas in the background represent the most likely pas- senger movement areas. The outputs from the isovist model show how the configuration of visual obstacles and open space may have an impact on visibility and the propensity to shop. The theory of visual recognition hierarchy may have direct applications to concession planning in the terminal environment. By modeling spaces using an isovist model, planners can adjust their designs to maximize visual connections to as many storefronts as possible. Additionally, the isovist model may assist in determining passenger flow patterns, allowing concession planners to strategically locate pop-up retail concessions or retail merchandising units. Pop-up retail refers to a short-term concession, typically with a six-month to one-year lease, that is often developed Source: Ben Doherty [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons Figure 3.19. Example of a point isovist. Source: Kong and Kim (8). Sales Spatial Configuration Pedestrian Movement Figure 3.20. Relation of sales, pedestrian movement, and spatial configuration.

50 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction to fill a temporary unit, capture sales from an event (Olympics, Super Bowl, etc.), or generate seasonal sales. Designing concession spaces to maximize the visibility of storefronts and take advantage of areas with heavy passenger flow may result in an increase of spontaneous shoppers as well as increasing overall concession sales and revenue. This method strengthens the notion that concession planning should be involved from the very beginning of the terminal planning and design process. Applying isovist modeling in the initial phases of terminal design holds the potential to allow planners and designers to quantitatively maximize revenue generation from a terminal’s concession program. 3.5.4 Casino Effect All of the case study airports have central concession marketplaces. The majority of the designs for these marketplaces generally do not provide views to the airfield or outside. While there may be clerestories or skylights letting natural light into the space, as shown in Figure 3.22, the only windows tend to be remote from the shopping area (if at all)—in a common seating zone, for example. This lack of outside views creates a type of “casino effect” in the terminals. Rather than detracting from the customer experience, it actually seems to enhance it, as customers are highly satisfied at these airports and they are spending more in the concessions. As shown in Table 3.4, the case study airports that have a “casino effect” in their main concession area(s) perform well and maintain high satisfaction ratings. Minimizing views to the airplanes and airfield may decrease the passengers’ levels of anxiety, helping them to forget for a short while that they are at an airport. Instead, they are shopping, dining, and enjoying their experience as they would in any downtown or shopping center environment. 3.6 Trends in Passenger Processing Technology continues to hold the promise of providing improvements to passenger process- ing, particularly its ability to empower passengers through self-check-in, self–bag tagging and self-boarding at their gates. Advances in remote check-in and the use of self-service kiosks are Source: Kong and Kim (8). Figure 3.21. Example of an isovist model.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 51 allowing passengers to avoid longer queue times associated with full-service ticket counters. Separate remote bag drops are also assisting passengers to reach SSCPs. Additionally, there are efforts being launched by the TSA to further advance the use of Pre✓™, which will assist in mov- ing more passengers through the passenger and hand-carried bags screening process. All of these advancements have the potential of saving passengers time in the overall journey through airport terminals. These reductions in passenger processing times are viewed as a means to potentially increase passenger dwell times in the terminal, thereby increasing the opportunity for more concession sales. It is, however, unclear as to whether passengers will instead elect to simply show up later at the airport for their flights instead of spending this “found” time at the airport. Source: AirProjects, Inc., 2013 John F. Kennedy International Airport, Terminal 5 Portland International Airport, Oregon Market Figure 3.22. Casino effect. Airport (Terminal) Sales/ Enplanement Sales/ Sq. Ft. Customer Satisfaction John F. Kennedy International Airport (Terminal 5) $14.27 $1,527 Close to 60% of passengers are highly satisfied with the food service and retail concessions. London Heathrow Airport (Terminal 5) $16.56 (approx. concession revenue per enplanement- all terminals) Not available Skytrax: Best airport shopping worldwide—2010, 2011, 2012. Skytrax: Best airport terminal worldwide—T5, 2012. FAB awards: Best airport food & beverage worldwide (overall)—2012. Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (Terminal 1) $9.30 (not including Concourse G) $938 Passenger ratings for food service and retail concessions averaged 4.1 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 4 equals very good and 5 equals excellent. Pittsburgh International Airport $12.02 $677 N.A. Portland International Airport $10.75 $923 Over 60% of the passengers are very satisfied with the food service and retail concessions. Savannah International Airport $9.72 $310 N.A. Table 3.4. Concession and satisfaction results at airports with a “casino effect.”

52 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction The following sections provide additional insights into each of these key passenger processing trends and their influence on concession revenue generation and customer satisfaction. 3.6.1 Check-in Trends The process of passengers checking into an airport in order to obtain a boarding pass has changed significantly over the last several years, as new technologies have assisted in shortening the time passengers spend at check-in at an airport. Initial advances included the ability to check in remotely via computer and printing a boarding pass. This process was followed by technology that allows passengers to remotely obtain their boarding pass electronically on their handheld devices such as a cell phone or iPad that can then be scanned by document checkers prior to entering into the security screening queue. The following sections briefly review both the recent technological developments that have been widely implemented as well as the new trends in passenger check-in (some of which hold promise, but still need to be tested through widespread use in the airport environment in order to be accepted fully on a worldwide basis). The industry has demonstrated that ticketing and check-in queues can be reduced by increasing the availability of self-service kiosks and self-service bag-drop systems. While self-service bag drops are new to the United States, they are already in full operation in numerous airports overseas. These automated functions reduce the reliance on staffed agent positions, allowing passengers to bypass the potentially long queues typically associated with the traditional agent-staffed ticket counters. Providing clear signage, instructions, and staff to assist self-service kiosks improves the effectiveness and efficiency of these facilities, further reducing passenger time in queue. However, encouraging passengers to obtain their boarding passes (either as a printed document or electronically on their handheld devices) online or at home is currently the optimal solution, allowing passengers to bypass the ticket counter or kiosk and proceed directly to a bag drop (if they have bags to check) or to proceed directly to security screening. 3.6.1.1 Near Field Communication and Touch Points Near field communication (NFC) chip technologies are upcoming advancements in the check-in process that allow passengers with bags to use new self–bag-tagging kiosks, reducing time spent in passenger check-in queues. As of the writing of this Handbook, Air New Zealand is the primary user of NFC technologies that are included in their passengers’ check-in process. The NFC system integrates passenger information into smartphone devices and then wirelessly transmits this information to nearby airport devices. NFC allows passengers to “tap” their phone to access ticketing kiosks, airline lounges, and boarding gates. This system reduces the amount of time passengers spend entering in personal information, searching for membership cards, and interacting with agents. The future of NFC may be that smartphones continually feed passenger information into the airport system, allowing passengers to walk through ticketing, security, and airport boarding seamlessly. 3.6.1.2 Self–Bag-Tagging and Bag-Drop Systems Self–bag tagging allows passengers to print bag tags and boarding passes in one location. This one-step process reduces demand on check-in agents compared to the existing two-step process. This system is currently in use at a number of overseas airports including Vienna, Munich, Paris–Charles de Gaulle, and London Heathrow and numerous Canadian airports including Edmonton, Calgary, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto Pearson, Vancouver, and Winnipeg. Currently, these systems still require passengers to drop off tagged bags at agent-staffed positions. Self–bag tagging has the added benefit of potentially allowing for remote bag drop and check-in in parking garages or transit stations.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 53 Several equipment vendors are considering combining self–bag tagging with self-induction of the tagged bag into the baggage handling conveyor system. One such manufacturer is Bag-Drop Systems, which has developed a one-step check-in module that allows passengers to check in, print boarding passes, self–bag tag, and drop off checked baggage at a single module. Bag-Drop units are in use at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport and Bologna Airport. Such systems reduce staffing needs, improve convenience, and potentially offer remote parking garage check-in and bag drop. 3.6.2 Security Screening Trends The SSCP is another critical area where passenger queue times could be improved. Long queues at the SSCP are the result of either too few SSCP lanes or inadequate staffing of available SSCP lanes. One other factor includes the amount of carry-on baggage that must be screened. Addition- ally, airline checked baggage fees have resulted in an increase in carry-on items, further increasing SSCP wait times. Reducing the fees associated with checking baggage could potentially reduce SSCP screening requirements and improve passenger wait time. However, there are other more effective opportunities to improve wait times, such as Pre✓™ and technology enhancements to the SSCP equipment and processes (for example, IATA’s Checkpoint of the Future). 3.6.2.1 Pre✓™ and the IATA Checkpoint of the Future Pre✓™ is a TSA sponsored and operated program that allows passengers to sign up and become a known passenger. Available at just under 100 U.S. airports at the time of this research project, the Pre✓™ program allows enrolled passengers to enter a dedicated SSCP lane that has reduced screening requirements. According to the TSA, Pre✓™ passengers have wait times no greater than five minutes. Airports operating Pre✓™ lanes have the opportunity to greatly reduce time in queue for passengers. Future SSCP innovations may greatly reduce passenger queuing and wait times. The Checkpoint of the Future, developed by the IATA, is envisioned to completely renovate the entire SSCP process. This new system will screen passengers based on risk level, rather than subjecting all passengers to the same level of scrutiny. Passengers will be categorized into three groups: known, normal, and elevated risk travelers. IATA anticipates that the Checkpoint of the Future will be fully functional sometime after 2020 with incremental steps in 2014 and 2017. As technology and processing functions improve, IATA will begin to implement various risk-based security screening solutions. In place of traditional x-rays, magnetometers, and body scanners, the Checkpoint of the Future, sometime after 2020, will utilize technology with stand-off identity management, biometrics, and real-time risk score analysis embedded into the screening equipment, allowing passengers to move through with minimal interruption. Due to the enhanced technologies in passenger screening, the Checkpoint of the Future will not require the removal of shoes, clothing, or items from carry-on baggage. With each stage of implementation and improvements in passenger risk assessment, it is anticipated that passenger queue lengths will become shorter and expedite the security screening process for the majority of passengers. 3.6.2.2 Facial Recognition Queue Measurement and Process Monitoring Airport process monitoring systems that continually monitor passenger activity are gaining momentum among major international airports. This type of monitoring allows the airport to deploy staff before problems or congestion arises. One of these systems is facial recognition,

54 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction which uses cameras to photograph and identify individuals in the queue, periodically recording their progress; this allows the system to predict anticipated time in the queue. Other systems apply the same principal, using Bluetooth signals from passenger phones to determine location in the queue and then providing displays with an anticipated wait time. Other systems apply the same principle using different technology, such as thermal imaging counters, closed circuit television cameras, and infrared beam break. These real-time systems can then be accessed by a central system that monitors the entire airport. This real-time dashboard is currently in use at Dubai International Airport. This system notifies the controller when and where a problem is occurring. These systems can improve an airport’s ability to deploy staff, increasing staffing efficiency and passenger LOS. While these systems are currently focused on deploying airport staff, there may be potential for concessions to benefit. As these systems anticipate major passenger volumes entering or exiting the airport, concessions operators may be able to increase staffing levels and provide incoming passengers with a better LOS. 3.6.3 Holdrooms Holdrooms, in their current form, are unique within the realm of transportation facilities. This is due to the function, size, and frequency of the mode of transportation they support. Holdrooms have evolved over the course of history in commercial aviation. In the beginning of large-scale commercial flight, whole terminals acted as the holdrooms for flights, much like the train stations they were fashioned after at the time. All functions were conglomerated into a single structure, allowing for dynamic use of these facilities. As commercial flight became more common, the train-like terminal design of these facilities became too chaotic to manage the passenger volume. Segmenting the facilities into more distinct parts permitted a more procedural flow through. This type of terminal scheme became more and more prevalent until the beginning of the jet age, becoming the de-facto standard for terminal design. The flow-through design allots each major task its own space, culminating the last steps of the process in the holdrooms and gates. The holdroom is self-explanatory; it is a place to hold air travelers until their aircraft is ready to depart. This space in its purest form is a temporary holding pen and a place to pull passengers out of the way of the free flow of other processes. Concessions rely on the constant flow of passengers in front of and through their spaces. A boarding gate area, if not strategically designed to work in concert with concessions spaces, acts as an area where passengers remain rather than becoming potential concession customers. 3.6.3.1 Holdroom Types and Size The current common design of holdrooms comprises dedicated space strictly used for passenger consolidation before departing flights, boarding/deplaning facilities, and some associated circu- lation and passenger services space. This area usually falls under exclusive or common-use lease agreements with airlines, thereby prohibiting using this space for other functions such as con- cessions. The size of a holdroom is typically determined by a LOS ratio based on the maximum size of aircraft associated with using the gate; spatial allowances for passengers waiting in the queue, sitting, and/or standing; and a boarding agent podium, which allows for little else to be contained in the space. These spaces are usually delineated by demising walls on three sides and lower ceilings to minimize costs. Some international departure lounges may have two levels for jet bridges and/or sterile boundaries for limited access. Visual perspectives and passenger movement within both domestic and international holdrooms are limited by such barriers, inhibiting visual coordination with surrounding service and concession spaces. Figure 3.23 is a layout of Chicago O’Hare’s Concourse H, typical of this type of holdroom design.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 55 More recently, there has been an effort to maximize the use of expensive terminal and concourse space by allowing for multiple uses throughout the passenger journey. To justify the high cost of conditioned holdroom space, their utilization capabilities need to be maximized. Holdrooms for shared and multiple aircraft ramp system (MARS) gates are becoming more prevalent at overseas airports. Many of the traditional processes have been modified or usurped by distributed technologies, such as remote check-in, location-based services, and other web-based services, allowing for these traditional functional spaces to be cross-utilized. The “open holdroom” design follows this methodology by marrying several functions within a combined space. Open holdrooms have several functions that would traditionally adjoin the holdroom area such as circulation, passenger services, concessions, etc. and combines them into one larger open space. By minimizing the boundaries between holdrooms and concessions, higher passenger exposure to concessions can be reached. Sizing these holdrooms still follows a LOS ratio but combines several distinct processes and intermingles their programmed space. As seen in Figure 3.24, San Francisco International Airport, Terminal 2, has followed these principals for the open holdroom design. The open holdroom design is as much evolution of the passenger space as it is a conscious design form. Between the increased separation of secure/non-secure areas and increased fre- quency of airline operations, traditional holdrooms have become destination points as well as areas of movement. Major changes in the profile of passengers have forced airports to adapt. With the advent of low-cost carriers, turnover rates at contact gates can be as fast as 25 minutes per flight and can result in shorter dwell time for transfer passengers, particularly for intraline connections. Con- versely, post–9/11 security measures have forced passengers to arrive earlier, increasing terminal dwell time for originating passengers. The dichotomy of the originating versus connecting pas- senger profiles has widened to the point that the traditional holdroom space tends to inhibit the effective buying potential of both groups. Freer flow with less visual/physical impediments and different options for rest points within the open holdroom design keep the short- and long-dwell passengers engaged with the space. Integration of concession options is critical to that interaction, allowing for greater choice and novel engagement of the passenger population. 3.6.3.2 Holdroom Operations Integration of concession space with holdroom processes is another means for the airport operator to maximize passenger exposure and experience, as well as maximizing revenue and Source: Chicago Department of Aviation Figure 3.23. Typical holdroom configuration, Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Concourse H.

56 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction Source: Courtesy Gensler Architects Figure 3.24. Open holdroom configuration, San Francisco International Airport, Terminal 2. sales potential. Dedicated spaces need to work in conjunction to enhance the passenger expe- rience as well as not hinder the spaces’ main functions: stationary holding (sitting, standing), movement holding (browsing, queuing, use of nearby holding spaces), and movement (ingress, egress, process shifting). Better integration of concession spaces with holdroom operations must involve more than just strictly adjacency; spaces need to be an integral part of the plan. The primary role of the holdroom is to give space for passengers to wait or rest before or after a flight while allowing for other adjacent functions to move smoothly without undue hindrances. Figure 3.24 shows the mixture of holding areas and concessions, such that seating is clustered around gating areas and concessions as required, but easily flow from one process to the next. Seating areas act as boundaries for the main corridors to and from the gates with discernible ingress/egress flows without the visual obstacles of demising walls. Furniture, signage, and con- tiguous obstacle-free zones define wayfinding. As the passenger goes to or from the gate, they pass through an open area sidelined with the standard options available for the traveling passenger: seating space, passenger services desks, restrooms, and concessions. There are some non-standard alternatives as well: stand- ing tables and counter-height stools, coffee table group seating, and grouped lounge style chairs. The choice of any holding arrangement throughout the boarding areas, as well as concession spaces, allows passengers to visually access and interact with the concession spaces. The obstacle-free areas still allow for the passenger to flow freely without the chaos of random seating arrangements.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 57 3.6.3.3 Call-to-Gate Holdroom Procedures Another style of boarding procedure and holdroom configuration that has seen increased popularity at European airports is call-to-gate. In this operational concept, a large area of common public seating and the overall concessions areas of retail and food and beverage act as a common space for holding passengers until they are called to their gate. From a terminal planning standpoint, facility requirements are somewhat lower due to the higher utilization factors of holding areas, common-use gates, and non-exclusive–use facilities. Since this operating procedure concentrates holding areas into one contiguous area, there is typically little to no dedicated seating needed adjacent to the gate. From a concessions viewpoint, the entire passenger population is somewhat captured for interaction with the concession offerings. The Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport utilizes the call-to-gate procedures combined with a strong concession-centric layout. Schengen and non-Schengen passengers flow from ticket- ing, through security, and into the central mall, an open space lined with shops and services. All departing passengers flow through this center Skycourt, capturing all prospective customers first before they head to their respective holding areas. From the Skycourt, departing passengers flow into one of two “central” hold spaces known as Terminal 2A and 2B. The terminal is split to allow processing of non-Schengen international arrival passengers in 2A, while Schengen and domes- tic arrivals that do not need security processing flow into the gate level in 2B. The centrally located Skycourt between the two holding areas is the focal point for passenger wayfinding and has visual sight lines to the majority of the concessions program. This arrangement is illustrated in Figure 3.25. Holdrooms, within this context, are still passenger holding areas, yet they allow maximum potential for concessions under the constraints of multi-level passenger travel. No walls, other than building edge and security, disrupt interaction of holding passengers and concession spaces. While passengers are not physically constrained from proceeding to their gates, they are not informed of the specific location of their departing flight until typically between 40 and 50 minutes prior to departure. Passengers are “called” with visual and verbal cues for the correct gate and proper loading time. An example of the visual cues relating to the call-to-gate procedure is illustrated by the FIDS in Figure 3.26 at BUD. The call-to-gate procedure tends to control the movement of passengers to have them remain in closer proximity to concession offerings for longer periods of time. There is evidence from the BUD case study that the call-to-gate procedure does have a positive impact to concession sales and revenue for the airport operator. Initially BUD operated as airports typically operate in the Source: Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport Figure 3.25. Skycourt and call-to-gate configuration, Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport.

58 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction United States, with passengers being informed about what gate number their aircraft is departing from many hours before departure. Once management moved to late gate announcements of just 40 to 50 minutes prior to flight departure, the airport’s mezzanine-level food and beverage sales improved some 5 to 10 percent. London Heathrow Airport’s Terminal 5, shown in Figure 3.27, also utilizes similar call-to-gate holdroom procedures. Heathrow is designed to be as free flowing and open as possible within the constraints of today’s air travel security demands. Departure passengers flow from a combined upper ticketing and security area to an open gating level. Domestic transfer passengers also move from the contact gates into the holding room at this level. Non-domestic–origin international transfer passengers must proceed through the lower level, pass through security and customs, and elevate to the open gating level with the other waiting travelers. Most major services for the terminal are in the terminal’s gating level, which consists of circulation to/from gates and satellites, passenger services, passenger-related spaces, holding areas, and concessions. Concessions and services line the edges of the seating space that is also open to a balcony lined with various goods and services—all visible from the combined holdroom area. In large facilities such as Heathrow, a single focus point is an excellent way to minimize wayfinding problems inherent in international terminals. 3.6.3.4 Self-Boarding Self-boarding systems, currently under testing at some U.S. airports, are in use at Vienna International Airport. Passengers self-board by utilizing new electronic self-scanning systems. With this system, Vienna International Airport no longer requires an agent to scan each individual passenger. Self-boarding systems allow agents to focus on other passenger needs, ultimately providing a better LOS. Source: Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport Figure 3.26. Call-to-gate FIDS at the Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 59 Source: London Heathrow Airport Figure 3.27. Call-to-gate seating arrangement with movement areas and circulation, London Heathrow Airport. 3.7 Concession Needs The need for concession space at an airport is paramount as airport operators continue to focus on non-aeronautical revenue generation. Determining the appropriate amount and proper placement of such concession space requires specific and careful planning to deliver the maximum revenue and customer satisfaction. This section discusses the research findings from the airport case studies regarding types of concessions, adjacency considerations, and methods to determine the appropriate amount of concession space, optimal locations for different types of concessions, signage, and sustainability efforts. 3.7.1 Types of Concessions Required There are different types of airport concessions. Some are designed to provide food service to passengers, while others are tailored to provide retail merchandise or consumer services.

60 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction Within the broad food service and retail categories are subcategories that further delineate the type of product being sold or the manner in which it is sold (i.e., duty-free retail, specialty retail, convenience retail). ACRP Report 54: Resource Manual for In-Terminal Concessions provides an overview of the most common classifications used for airport concessions. It should be noted that at most of the case study airports, international passengers account for a very small percentage of total passengers. As a result, duty-free concessions account for a smaller percentage of the concession programs at most of the case study airports (excluding London Heathrow Airport and Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport). In cases where international passengers account for a larger portion of the passenger base, a greater proportion of concession space is typically allocated to duty-free concessions. The case study airports had many common characteristics among the concessions clas- sifications. All of the case study airports differentiated food service concessions from retail concessions on their websites and/or survey responses. Table 3.5 presents the general break- down of total concession program size for each of the case study airports by food service and retail concessions. On average, 54 percent of concession space was allocated to food service, 36 percent was allocated to non–duty-free retail, and 10 percent was allocated to duty-free retail. Four of the seven airports had more concession space allocated to food service rather than retail concessions, with PIT, BUD, and LHR’s Terminal 5 serving as the exceptions to this practice. All of the case study airports further diversified their food service programs through classifica- tions that describe the manner in which the food is served. The most common food service classifications used among the case study airports are as follows: • Quick service • Coffee • Bar (with food) • Casual/sit-down restaurant A brief discussion regarding these four main classifications of food service concessions is provided in the following paragraphs. Additional detail can be found in ACRP Report 54. Quick-service concessions primarily serve food over a counter, with customers ordering and waiting for their food at the counter. The food can be made-to-order or pre-made. This category of food service may also include concessions where orders are taken at a counter and then the food is delivered to tables by concession staff (also referred to as “fast casual”). Quick-service concessions often include “grab and go” options for customers who are in an even greater hurry. The quick-service category includes a variety of concession types that may encompass traditional “fast-food” food court units (e.g., hamburgers, chicken, pizza, Mexican, Asian) as well as inline units with or without seating. Examples of quick-service concessions from the case study airports are provided in Figure 3.28. Concession Type JFK T5 MSP T1 PDX PIT SAV BUD LHR T5 Average Food Service 73% 66% 64% 42% 61% 36% 33% 54% Retail (Non–Duty-Free) 25% 32% 36% 58% 39% 19% 44% 36% Duty Free 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 45% 23% 10% Compiled by AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Table 3.5. Concessions by type, as percentage of total program size.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 61 Coffee concession operators focus on providing premium, freshly brewed coffee and espresso- based drinks. Their menu often includes teas, juices, pastries, and pre-packaged salads, sandwiches, and snacks. Figure 3.29 presents an example of a coffee concession from one of the case study airports. The operators of bars with food primarily focus on providing beverages, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic. They often feature a limited food menu to complement the beverages offered. Bars in airports are often operated under proprietary names or may be themed for local landmarks or other local symbols, such as sports teams. Additionally, wine bars that specialize or solely focus on wines and complementary food are gaining in popularity. Figure 3.30 presents examples of bars with food at two of the case study airports. Casual/sit-down restaurants have menus offering made-to-order meals, snacks, and full bar service within a table-service environment. Meals are typically consumed in the restaurant (rather than taken to go), and the average transactions at these restaurants tend to be the highest among all food service categories as a result of the alcohol sales and generally higher price points for full-service hospitality and more extensive menu offerings. Casual dining restaurants also tend (a) (b) Source: AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Figure 3.28. Quick-service concessions: (a) Flying Elephants Deli, Portland International Airport; (b) Panopolis, Budapest Liszt Ferenc International Airport. Source: AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Figure 3.29. Caribou Coffee, Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport.

62 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction to occupy the largest amount of concession space among the food service operations and require full kitchens and larger seating areas. Figure 3.31 presents two U.S. airport casual dining restaurants. The case study airports not only used similar food service classifications/naming nomenclature, but also had similar unit allocations to the food service categories. Table 3.6 provides the allocation of food service concession units by type as a percentage of total food service units. Generally all of the case study airports had approximately one-half of their food service units allocated to the quick-service subcategory. This heavy focus on quick food service caters to the limited amount of time that many passengers have to dine while in an airport. The second highest space allocations were for casual dining and coffee units that each averaged 19 percent of the total food service units among the case study airports. While coffee units fulfill a necessary need within the airport market, a significant portion of their business tends to focus on the morning departures. Bars with food averaged 14 percent of the total food service units among the case study airports. The case study airports differed somewhat in the amount of space (measured by square footage) allocated to the different types of food service. Among the case study airports, an average of 43 percent of the total food service space was allocated to casual dining, as seen in Source: AirProjects, Inc., 2013 (a) (b) Figure 3.30. Bars with food: (a) Leroy Bistro, Budapest Liszt Ferenc International Airport; (b) Dewar’s Clubhouse, Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport. Source: AirProjects, Inc., 2013 (a) (b) Figure 3.31. Casual dining restaurants: (a) Aeronuova/5ive Steak/Piquillo, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Terminal 5; (b) Mill City Tavern, Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 63 Table 3.7. This higher space allocation is required to accommodate the larger footprints that casual dining restaurants need for kitchens, seating, and bars. The second largest allocation of space was to quick service, which averaged 34 percent of the food service space among the case study airports. All of the case study airports diversified their retail programs through classifications that describe the type of merchandise sold. The most common retail classifications used among the case study airports are the following: • Specialty • Convenience • Duty Free A brief discussion regarding these three main classifications of retail concessions is provided in the following paragraphs. Additional detail can be found in ACRP Report 54. Specialty retail concessions offer targeted lines of merchandise such as jewelry, leather goods, electronics, personal care products, apparel, toys, and souvenirs. Many specialty retail concessions are branded through local, national, or international brands. Specialty retail concessions are considered to fulfill passengers “wants” rather than “needs” in many cases. Many specialty retail locations are intended to stimulate impulse purchases. For this reason, specialty retail positioning, storefronts, and displays are extremely important since they must attract customers and draw them into the shop to purchase merchandise they may not have planned to purchase. Examples of specialty retail concessions from the case study airports are provided in Figure 3.32. Specialty retail can also include automated retail machines that sell a targeted variety of mer- chandise. Figure 3.33 shows an automated retail machine at Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport that features electronics and gadgets. Convenience retail concessions traditionally provide merchandise that is in high demand by the traveling public. The product mix typically includes reading materials (newspapers, periodicals, and books), candy and mints, pre-packaged snacks, health and beauty aids, and often local souvenirs. With passenger demand, behavior, and time constraints evolving, Concession Type JFK T5 MSP T1 PDX PIT SAV BUD LHR T5 Average Quick Service 47% 55% 47% 61% 45% 53% 33% 48% Coffee 13% 16% 28% 9% 22% 23% 24% 19% Bar with Food 20% 5% n/a 13% 22% 6% 19% 14% Casual Dining 20% 24% 25% 17% 11% 18% 24% 19% Compiled by AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Table 3.6. Allocation of food service concessions, as a percentage of total of food service units. Concession Type JFK T5 MSP T1 PDX PIT SAV BUD LHR T5 Average Quick Service 42% 36% 29% 44% n/a n/a 19% 34% Coffee 6% 5% 13% 4% n/a n/a 23% 10% Bar with Food 9% 3% 0% 15% n/a n/a 13% 8% Casual Dining 36% 43% 58% 32% n/a n/a 44% 43% Compiled by AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Table 3.7. Allocation of food service concession space, as a percentage of total food service square feet.

64 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction convenience retail concessions may also now incorporate a limited amount of food service, such as freshly brewed coffee, pre-packaged sandwiches and salads, and snacks. Figure 3.34 presents examples of convenience retail concessions from the case study airports. Duty-free retail concessions offer merchandise for passen- gers traveling outside of their departure country that is free from certain taxes or “duties.” Typical merchandise sold in duty-free concessions includes liquor, fragrances, cosmet- ics, jewelry, accessories, and tobacco products. Due to the reduced prices, passengers are generally highly motivated to seek out duty-free shopping opportunities. Figure 3.35 shows the interior of a duty-free retail concession at one of the case study airports. The allocation of total retail space at the case study airports was fairly similar. Five of the case study airports had over 50 percent of total retail space allocated to specialty retail and approximately 13 percent to 31 percent of total retail space allocated to convenience retail. The airports located outside of the United States that had a significantly higher percentage of international passengers had a higher allocation of duty- free retail, with BUD having 71 percent of total retail space allocated to duty free and LHR’s Terminal 5 having 36 per- cent of its retail space allocated to duty-free retail. This data is summarized in Table 3.8. 3.7.2 Concession Branding The type and mix of concession brands selected for a con- cession program play a critical role in customer satisfaction and overall program performance. This section investigates common characteristics observed in the case study airports related to concession branding. To achieve maximum customer satisfaction and revenue performance, it is important to include a mix of food service brands in the concession program. Ideally, there should be a variety of national brands instantly recognizable to a majority of passengers from all over the country and ideally the world, coupled with local and regional brands that showcase the pop- ular food offerings of the surrounding community. Many con- cessionaires have also developed proprietary brands that are common in their portfolio of concession offerings throughout numerous airports, but can only be found in airports. Food service branding was analyzed among the case study airports. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 3.36. Among the case study airports, on average, 58 percent of the food service units were attribut- able to national/international brands, 24 percent to proprietary brands, and 18 percent to local/ regional brands. The highest sales per enplanements were realized at airports that have a mix of brands rather than strictly national brands. (Note: Food service sales per enplanement data were Source: (a) AirProjects, Inc., 2013; (b, c) Landrum & Brown, Inc. 2013. (a) (b) (c) Figure 3.32. Specialty retail: (a) Nike, Portland International Airport; (b) Tiffany & Co., London Heathrow Airport, Terminal 5; (c) Swarovski, Budapest Liszt Ferenc International Airport.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 65 unavailable for the case study airports outside of North America.) The top-performing food ser- vice program, as measured by food service sales per enplanement, was JFK’s Terminal 5, which generated over $8.40 per enplanement and had 74 percent of the food service concessions allo- cated to proprietary brands and 26 percent allocated to national brands. However, the proprietary brands in Terminal 5 were developed in conjunction with local New York chefs and restaurateurs even though their name brands do not appear on the restaurants at the airport. Source: AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Figure 3.33. Automated Retail, Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport. (a) (b) Source: (a) Landrum & Brown, Inc., 2013; (b) AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Figure 3.34. Convenience retail: (a) Hilton Head Marketplace, Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport; (b) CNBC News New York, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Terminal 5.

66 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction The branding among specialty retail programs was also analyzed among the case study airports. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 3.37. Among the case study airports, on average, 49 percent of specialty retail units were attributable to national/international brands, 32 percent to proprietary brands, and 19 percent to local/regional brands. (Note: Specialty retail sales per enplanement data were unavailable for the case study airports outside of North America.) The highest specialty retail sales per enplanement were observed at PIT, a program that consists of 55 percent national/international brands, 42 percent proprietary brands, and 3 percent local brands. The other top-performing specialty retail programs in the sample had between 29 percent and 55 percent of national brands in their mix. PDX was an anomaly, with 52 percent of the specialty retail attributable to local brands. 3.7.3 Variety of Concessions This section investigates common characteristics observed in the case study airports related to concession variety and availability as measured by passenger satisfaction. One way to measure passenger satisfaction with the variety and availability of concessions is to use passenger survey data coupled with the number of concepts in a concession program and the amount of concession space relative to the number of enplanements. Figure 3.38 summarizes the variety and availability of concessions compared to passenger satisfaction with the food service offerings at the case study airports. Summaries of passenger survey data regarding this topic were available for three of the case study airports. All three of the case study airports had similar allocations of food service space per 1,000 enplanements, ranging from 6.4 to 7.4 square feet per 1,000 enplanements. Among the case study airport passengers, those at Minneapolis–St. Paul Source: Landrum & Brown, Inc., 2013 Figure 3.35. Duty-free retail, Budapest Liszt Ferenc International Airport. Concession Type JFK T5 MSP T1 PDX PIT SAV BUD LHR T5 Average Specialty Retail 64% 63% 72% 77% 34% 29% 51% 60% Convenience Retail 30% 31% 28% 23% 66% 13% 32% Duty-Free Retail 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 71% 36% 30% Compiled by AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Note: The specialty retail/convenience retail breakdown was not available from BUD and it was excluded from the calculation of average percentages. Table 3.8. Allocation of retail as a percentage of total of retail square feet.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 67 Compiled by AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Figure 3.36. Food service brands among case study airports. Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 8% 7% 52% 3% 33% 22% 6% 19% 55% 44% 33% 55% 33% 44% 76% 49% 36% 49% 14% 42% 33% 33% 18% 32% $- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% JFK T5 MSP T1 PDX PIT SAV BUD LHR T5 Average Sp ec ia lty R et ai l Sa le s pe r En pl an em en t Pe rc en ta ge o f T ot al S pe ci al ty R et ai l U ni ts Local National/Int'l Proprietary Sales per Enpl. Figure 3.37. Specialty retail brands among case study airports. Compiled by AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Figure 3.38. Availability and variety of food service concessions within case study airports.

68 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction International Airport were the most satisfied with the variety of the food service concessions based on a recent passenger survey. There are also significantly more food service concepts at MSP compared to the other case study airports. PDX and JFK’s Terminal 5 had similar quantities of food service concepts and similar passenger satisfaction levels. This finding suggests that there is a relationship between customer satisfaction and the number and variety of food service concepts available in the program. The retail concession programs were also analyzed to determine if variety and availability of retail concessions affect passenger satisfaction. The results of the analysis are summarized in Figure 3.39. All three airports had similar passenger satisfaction levels, ranging from 59 percent to 64 percent. However, MSP had the largest quantity of retail concepts and significantly more retail space per thousand enplanements (6.2 square feet per 1,000 enplanements) than the other airports (JFK’s Terminal 5 had 3.1 square feet per 1,000 enplanements and PDX had 4.2 square feet per 1,000 enplanements). 3.7.4 Adjacency Considerations The placement of airport concessions in relation to other concessions and airport functions can have a substantial impact on their performance. This section discusses adjacency planning considerations to maximize concession revenue and customer service. 3.7.4.1 Concession to Concession Concession planners often intentionally locate concession units near each other to create a “synergy” among the concession units. This synergy often results in customers browsing multiple shops due to their proximity. Creating synergy between concessions can have a substantial impact on sales. For this reason, many concessions are located in “nodes” and grouped together in a section of a concourse or terminal to maximize synergy between them. As a general rule of thumb, placing specialty retail concessions within view of food service con- cessions’ seating areas typically enhances the performance of the specialty retail. Customers often scan the specialty retail shops while they dine, increasing their chances of making an impulse pur- chase after they finish their meal. Specialty retail concessions may also benefit from placement near convenience retail concessions due to the passenger draw to the convenience retail concessions. Compiled by AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Note: Duty-free concessions were included in retail figures where applicable. Figure 3.39. Availability and variety of retail concessions at case study airports.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 69 Similarly, clustering food service concessions typically offers multiple benefits to the airport operator and customers alike. If the food service concessions are operated by different conces- sionaires, clustering promotes competition, which tends to improve customer service, influence pricing, and generally encourage optimal performance. From a customer’s perspective, such adjacencies create opportunities for choice and variety. Two examples of airports that have successful concession nodes that maximize synergy between concessions and the overall performance of the concessions are JFK’s Terminal 5 and PIT. The layouts of and photographs from these two airports are provided in Figures 3.40 and 3.41. JFK’s Terminal 5 has a central concession marketplace located immediately after the single SSCP. All departing passengers must pass through this central marketplace area, where numer- ous specialty retail shops are located in proximity to casual dining and quick-service food service restaurants and their seating areas. The central marketplace was specifically designed to capture the attention of all passengers emerging from the SSCP. Pittsburgh International Airport also has a central concession area, as shown in Figure 3.41. The concession program is branded as an “airmall” and focuses a majority of the concessions in the central open space, with specialty retail located primarily along the exterior of the core. This layout allows passengers to browse numerous concessions in a short amount of time and maximizes their exposure. Many of the food service units are grouped together to provide a variety of alternatives. Source: John F. Kennedy International Airport, Terminal 5; AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Figure 3.40. John F. Kennedy International Airport, Terminal 5, central concession marketplace.

70 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction Source: Pittsburgh International Airport Figure 3.41. Pittsburgh International Airport, central concession core layout. 3.7.4.2 Concessions to Airport Functions Concession performance can also benefit from locations proximate to certain airport functions. Adjacency to functions such as APMs, holdrooms, and FIDSs can benefit concessions. All of these airport functions are discussed in further detail in the following paragraphs. Grouping concessions near APM stops can offer enhanced exposure to concessions. MSP’s Concourse C is one example where multiple food service concessions (indicated by the knife and fork in an orange circle in Figure 3.42) and retail concessions (indicated by a shopping bag in a purple circle in Figure 3.42) are concentrated near APM stops. Locating concessions near holdrooms can also maximize concession exposure. In general, concessions located adjacent to holdrooms tend to perform well because the location allows passengers to shop or dine within eyesight and earshot of their holdrooms, which eliminates anxiety about missing flights. More recently, some concessionaires have blurred the lease lines between concessions and holdrooms by allowing customers to order food and beverages from their holdrooms and have meals delivered directly to the holdroom. One airport where this service is offered is JFK’s Terminal 5. The ordering stations in Terminal 5 are shown in Figure 3.43. Holdroom ordering may have implications for the concession queuing and/or seating space that is typically required in a concession program. There may be some direct growth in sales as a result of having concessions directly in or proximate to holdrooms and capturing passengers that would not otherwise move from their holdrooms. However, there may also be shifts in sales or cannibalization as purchases normally made at a centrally located concession unit may shift to the holdroom concessions. This type of sales shift could also reduce impulse purchases since passengers would no longer be exposed to other concessions while they are dining in their holdrooms. Regardless, if a holdroom ordering system is put into place at an airport, effective and efficient merchandise transportation plans are necessary. There may also be future planning implications for holdroom sizing should this trend continue.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 71 FIDS monitors are another core airport function that often becomes a destination for passen- gers. Since passengers are drawn to FIDS monitors for information, they tend to create a natural congregation point for passengers. Sometimes, passengers choose to stay near a FIDS monitor to track the status of their departing flights. Other times, passengers refer to the FIDS monitor and then head directly to their gates. BUD is one example of an airport where FIDS monitors have been effectively used to attract passengers to areas where concessions are located, as shown in Figure 3.44. The image shows the placement of the FIDS monitors directly above the convenience retail storefront, thus drawing passenger traffic to the concession unit. 3.7.5 Methods to Determine Amount of Space The amount of concession space needed at a particular airport is dependent on a number of factors, including traffic volume, passenger demographics and characteristics, passenger flows, Source: Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport Automated People Mover/Tram Stops Figure 3.42. Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, Concourse C, tram stops. Source: AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Figure 3.43. Holdroom ordering system, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Terminal 5.

72 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction terminal/concourse configuration, and anticipated sales per square foot and sales per enplaned passenger. Chapter 5 of ACRP Report 54 presents an in-depth review of this topic. This section relates the guidelines provided in ACRP Report 54 directly to the case study airports. 3.7.5.1 Impact of Configuration on Demand for Space The configuration of a terminal plays a major role in where concessions are placed. Likewise, the proper placement of concessions should help to drive the configuration for new terminals. However, there are no specific rules of thumb that dictate where concessions should be placed for specific terminal configuration. Rather, there are common planning principles that can be incorporated into various types of configurations. While all of the case study airports had different terminal configurations, all of their configurations yielded a central concession core. Regardless of whether it was a “Y” configuration, an “H” configuration, or an “X” configuration, all of the case study airports concentrated the majority of their concession programs into one central area. These core areas are identified in Figures 3.45 through 3.51. Source: Landrum & Brown Inc., 2013 Figure 3.44. FIDS monitors, Budapest Liszt Ferenc International Airport. Source: Port Authority of New York New Jersey Figure 3.45. John F. Kennedy International Airport, Terminal 5, central core.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 73 Source: Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport Figure 3.46. Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, Terminal 1, central core. Source: Portland International Airport Figure 3.47. Portland International Airport central core.

74 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction Source: Pittsburgh International Airport Figure 3.48. Pittsburgh International Airport central core. An analysis was conducted to determine if a particular terminal configuration yielded higher concession performance. The results of the analysis are summarized in Figure 3.52. JFK’s Ter- minal 5, which has an inverted Y-shaped configuration, had the highest total concession sales per square foot at over $1,500. MSP 1 and PDX both have H-shaped configurations and yielded similar sales of approximately $940 and $920 per square foot, respectively. The program at BUD, where call-to-gate procedures are used, generated sales of just under $800 per square foot. PIT, which has an X-shaped configuration, had total concession sales per square foot of just under $700. Finally, the concession program at SAV, which has a single-pier configuration, yielded approximately $300 per square foot. Note that sales per square foot also reflect the amount of concession space allocated. For example, the concession program at SAV generated the lowest sales per square foot among the case study airports, but had the most concession space relative to the number of passengers, at approximately 31 square feet per thousand enplanements. This allocation is more than three times as much concession space per passenger as that allocated at JFK’s Terminal 5, where there are approximately 9.3 square feet per thousand enplanements. For this analysis, the location of a concession program in relation to security screening was also considered. Previously, ACRP Report 54 found that among the airports surveyed, 31 percent of the concession space was located in a pre-security environment, while 69 per- cent was located in a post-security environment (9). For the case study airports analyzed for this Handbook, similar results were found as approximately 21 percent of the concession space among these airports was located in a pre-security environment, and 79 percent was located in a post-security environment, as presented in Table 3.9. 3.7.5.2 Impact of Concession Operational Procedures on Space Needs Some procedures implemented at airports by concessionaires have either a direct or indi- rect impact on the amount and/or type of space needed for concession operations. This section discusses some of these procedures and their impacts. Figure 3.49. Savannah/ Hilton Head International Airport. Source: Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 75 Source: Budapest Liszt Ferenc International Airport Figure 3.50. Budapest Liszt Ferenc International Airport central core. Source: London Heathrow Airport Figure 3.51. London Heathrow Airport, Terminal 5, central core.

76 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction In the past, when there was often a single food service concessionaire operating in an airport, there would be a centralized food preparation kitchen (a commissary) where food would be prepared and packaged or prepped so that it could be quickly finished in the concession units in the concourses. The use of commissaries for food preparation, especially at medium and large hub airports has greatly diminished, as the majority of food preparation at airports now occurs in individual concession units due to leases with branded restaurants and a greater emphasis on fresh products and visible food preparation. As a result, many commissary spaces have been converted to storage and office space for the concessionaires. However, in certain situations, the availability of such centralized facilities may reduce the need for valuable airside space for back-of-house operations. Due to CBP regulations, virtually all duty-free alcohol and tobacco products purchased by customers at U.S. airports must be delivered to the customers as they enter the passenger loading bridge just prior to boarding their international flight. From a staffing standpoint, this procedure is highly inefficient, as it requires one or more concession staff to deliver pack- ages outside of the store on a time-specific basis. From a space perspective, this procedure for purchase delivery may offer some benefits. Because orders do not necessarily have to be filled from the store itself, it may not be necessary for large amounts of inventory to be maintained in the stores. This pro cedure allows the operator to display smaller quantities of a larger variety of products in the store or, alternatively, operate a smaller store. Since U.S. international pas- sengers are accustomed to walking away from the stores without their products, gate-delivered duty-free sales also work well with a product wall where customers can order merchandise either on their smart phones or from a sales assistant for delivery to their gate. If orders are filled from a warehouse or other remote location, this secondary location should be conve- nient to as many of the aircraft departure gates as possible and must have sufficient nearby vertical circulation if the order-fulfillment center is located on a different level of the airport from the departure gates. An effective com munication system is also necessary to ensure that customers receive their purchases before their flight departs. Compiled by AirProjects, Inc. 2013 Figure 3.52. Total sales per square foot by terminal configuration. Location JFK T5 MSP T1 PDX PIT SAV BUD LHR T5 Average Pre-Security 7% 6% 48% 10% 41% 12% 24% 21% Post-Security 93% 94% 52% 90% 59% 88% 76% 79% Compiled by AirProjects, Inc. 2013 Table 3.9. Allocation of concessions, pre-security versus post-security.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 77 3.7.5.3 Impact of Airport Operational Procedures on Space Needs Airports with call-to-gate boarding operations maintain a large, central public holding area for passengers waiting to board their flights rather than individual holdrooms. Passengers from all departing flights remain in the central area until their flights are ready for boarding. Call-to-gate procedures are commonly found outside of North America. Both of the case study airports located outside of North America, BUD and LHR Terminal 5, have call-to-gate board- ing operations. The implications of call-to-gate procedures on concession productivity can be substantial given the increased concession exposure and dwell time in a central area that it creates. Airports that have this type of boarding operation typically create a central concession marketplace within and surrounding the common holding area and close to the boarding gates. This situation creates a central concession marketplace that has exposure to the vast majority of the passenger population, creating enhanced opportunities for impulse purchases and joint- marketing of the concessions. If an airport does not have call-to-gate boarding operations (as is the case with all of the North American case study airports), the way that airline departures are distributed among the gates can pose significant impacts on the concession program. In general, gate assignments are conducted in three ways: • By the airport operator (i.e., in a shared-facility/common-use environment) • By both the airport operator and the airline (i.e., in cases where there are preferential-use holdrooms/gates, the airlines determine how to allocate their assigned gates to their departing and arriving flights) • By the airline only (i.e., when the airline owns, operates, and/or leases one or more terminals at an airport) In a shared-facility/common-use environment, the airport operator can place flight arrivals and departures at any available gates. This procedure creates an opportunity for an airport operator to strategically allocate gate assignments to ensure that significant passenger traffic flows past the concessions. In a preferential-use environment, the number and nature of flights (i.e., long-haul versus short-haul, domestic versus international, etc.) as well as the characteristics of the airlines are often considered when planning concessions for a specific location within a terminal. In an airline-controlled environment, the airline also may control the concession leases and receive some or all of the rent from the concessionaires. If there is a revenue-sharing agreement between the airline and the airport operator, the airport operator likely receives a lesser revenue stream than if it directly controlled and managed the concession program. In these cases, the airline often strategically allocates its flights to specific gates in order to maximize the value of the concessions in its terminal. 3.7.6 Locating Concessions by Type Each type of concession has characteristics that dictate its ideal placement for optimal performance. This section provides an overview of the findings from the case study airports regarding the placement of various types of concessions in the terminals. 3.7.6.1 Food Service Food service concessions generally can thrive in a number of different locations, depending on the type of operation. Total food service sales per square foot were calculated for each of

78 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction the case study airports for which food service sales were reported. The results are summarized in Figure 3.53. JFK’s Terminal 5 had the strongest productivity metrics, with sales per enplanement at just under $8.50, and sales per square foot just over $1,220. As shown in Figure 3.54 the majority of the food service in JFK’s Terminal 5 is located in the central marketplace where there is common seating and a clear line-of-sight to the majority of the specialty retail concessions. This central area includes casual dining and quick-service concessions. The second highest food service productivity level was generated by the food service concessions at MSP’s Terminal 1, which yielded sales of over $930 per square foot and $6.00 per enplanement. A significant portion of the food service concessions at MSP’s Terminal 1 is located in clusters at strategic intersections or decision points within the main terminal core adjacent to and across from specialty retail concessions, as indicated in Figure 3.55. Compiled by AirProjects, Inc. 2013 Figure 3.53. Food service productivity metrics. Source: Port Authority of New York New Jersey Figure 3.54. Location of central marketplace food service at John F. Kennedy International Airport, Terminal 5.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 79 The food service concessions at PDX yielded the third highest food service productivity levels with sales of $5.90 per enplanement (similar to MSP’s Terminal 1) and just under $800 per square foot. As shown in Figure 3.56, a large portion of its food service program is concentrated in the pre-security area and includes casual dining restaurants, quick-service units, and a food court that are within eyesight of many specialty retail concessions. Successful food service programs have high productivity metrics as measured by both food service sales per square foot and food service sales per enplanement. The successful food service programs were also located in clusters in concentrated concession areas that included specialty retail. 3.7.6.2 Specialty Retail Specialty retail concessions require high visibility in order to succeed. Customers rarely plan to make specialty retail purchases at airports. As a result, specialty retail concessions should be in the direct circulation path of and easily visible to passengers since the passengers are not likely to seek them out. Specialty retail concessions benefit significantly from exposure to enplaning passengers and from a terminal configuration that provides substantial passenger exposure to concessions. This conclusion is supported by the data obtained from the case study airports, as presented in Figure 3.57. The graph in Figure 3.57 showing the specialty retail productivity metrics is not as linear as the one provided for food service. This result demonstrates that many factors affect specialty retail purchases and relying on just one metric can create misleading information. For example, the specialty retail concessions at PIT had the highest sales per enplanement at just under $4.50, yet a lower productivity with sales per square foot at just under $600 (significantly lower than three other case study airports). Likewise, the specialty retail concessions at JFK’s Terminal 5 generated Source: Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport Figure 3.55. Location of central food service concessions at Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, Terminal 1.

80 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction Source: Portland International Airport Figure 3.56. Location of central food service concessions at Portland International Airport. Compiled by AirProjects, Inc. 2013 Figure 3.57. Specialty retail productivity metrics. sales just under $2.70 per enplanement, yet these concessions yielded over $1,700 per square foot. The reasons for these variances are discussed in the following paragraphs. PIT’s specialty retail program likely benefits from the terminal’s “X” configuration that requires all passengers to pass through the central mall area. This configuration and the central concession mall provide virtually 100 percent exposure to the concentration of specialty retail within the central core of the terminal. In addition, passenger dwell times in the central core are likely sub- stantial because all of the concourses directly connect to the “X” and none are extremely long. This creates a situation in which many passengers would be willing to venture back to the central mall after they have located their departure gate. The low sales per square foot and the high sales per enplanement in this terminal generally stem from the same reason.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 81 There is a high allocation of specialty retail at this airport. This high allocation contributes to the higher sales per enplanement since there is a good variety of specialty concepts avail- able, increasing the likelihood that passengers will be enticed to make a purchase. Conversely, this high allocation also thins out the concentration of sales per square foot of space allocated for specialty retail. The high sales per square foot figure at JFK’s Terminal 5 is the result of significant sales per enplanement occurring within a small allocation of specialty retail stores. Table 3.10 summarizes the size of the specialty retail programs for the case study airports that provided data. The most successful specialty retail programs should have high productivity metrics as mea- sured by both specialty retail sales per square foot and specialty retail sales per enplanement. When there is not a strong correlation between these two metrics, further investigation is neces- sary to check for a misallocation of space, errors in concept and merchandising, or issues with the concession locations or customer service. There is typically a balance of contributing factors including exposure, terminal configuration, concepts, and passenger mix that affect specialty retail performance. 3.7.6.3 Convenience Retail Convenience retail concessions generally fill passenger needs, and for the most part, passen- gers seek out convenience retail. As such, convenience retail units are often strategically placed near specialty retail units to help draw passengers and increase exposure to the specialty retail. Convenience retail is also frequented by arriving passengers in addition to departing passengers. Average sales per transaction tend to be lower than those at specialty retail units, but the volume of transactions is typically significantly higher. Figure 3.58 summarizes the productivity metrics for the convenience retail programs at the case study airports that provided such data. Airport Size of Specialty Retail Program (square feet) JFK T5 8,900 PDX 19,500 MSP T1 34,200 PIT 32,800 SAV 3,300 Compiled by AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Table 3.10. Specialty retail program sizes of the case study airports. Compiled by AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Figure 3.58. Convenience retail productivity metrics.

82 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction Source: Portland International Airport Figure 3.59. Convenience retail locations, Portland International Airport. The productivity metrics show that the convenience retail at SAV yielded the highest sales per enplanement at just over $4.00 and that JFK’s Terminal 5 yielded the highest convenience retail sales per square foot at just over $2,200. Figure 3.59 shows the concession plan for PDX and identifies each of the convenience retail locations. The plan demonstrates a traditional approach to convenience retail placement, as it shows the convenience retail units distributed throughout the terminal, accessible to both departing and arriving passengers, and in many instances proximate or adjacent to specialty retail and/or food service concessions. The most successful convenience retail programs should have numerous units strategically located throughout the main areas of the terminal to serve both departing and arriving passengers. In addition, convenience retail co-located with or proximate to specialty retail can increase the passenger exposure for specialty retail. 3.7.6.4 Duty-Free Retail Passengers are often highly motivated to seek out duty-free shopping opportunities. As such, duty-free concessions can often be used as anchors for a terminal retail program to attract pas- sengers past other concessions. However, in other situations, duty-free operations are integrated with or along the main passenger circulation routes. One such example within the case study airports is the duty-free location at BUD, shown in Figure 3.60, where over 46,000 square feet of space is allocated to duty-free concessions. Passengers immediately enter the flow-through

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 83 duty-free store after exiting each of the SSCPs. They are not given the option to bypass the duty- free concession, but must walk through the store in order to enter the Skycourt that contains other retail and food service. LHR’s Terminal 5 has a significant amount of prominent space allocated to duty free— approximately 47,400 square feet. In this regard, the duty-free units serve as anchors to generate additional exposure to other concessions, as shown in Figure 3.61. Duty-free concessions can generate significant revenue and serve as anchor tenants for a concession program. Exposure to all departing international passengers is created through Source: Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport Figure 3.60. Duty-free concession, Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport. Source: London Heathrow Airport Figure 3.61. Duty-free concessions, London Heathrow Airport, Terminal 5.

84 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction flow-through duty-free stores that require customers to walk through the duty-free unit to access their final destination point within the terminal. 3.7.7 Concession Signage The key to the identity of each concession location is the signage that is used at the entry to the store. Such signage calls attention to the location and informs potential customers of the brand and/or products sold. It is important that signage complement the terminal architecture and the overall theme of the concession program (if there is a theme for the program), while creating a distinct, welcoming, and visible portal to its offerings. Signage is important to providing customer service and increasing concession revenue by ensuring that passengers can find the products they are seeking and identify the brands with which they are familiar. Generally, airport operators allow a single store identity sign on the storefront; if a store wraps around a corner and has two openings, then the concessionaire is typically permitted two storefront signs. The form and format of these signs vary and include large, three-dimensional signage and backlit letters cut into the fascia, among others. Figure 3.62 shows some of the different types of signage at the case study airports. Directories and directional signage in terminals, shown in Figure 3.63, can significantly affect concession performance. Frequent fliers may be familiar with terminal layouts, but many passengers still rely on in-terminal directories and signage to find their gates and learn about available conces- sions and amenities. Increasingly, airport operators are adopting new technologies to enhance wayfinding. Static directories are being replaced by digital displays that passengers can use to help find their departure gates, concessions, and airport amenities. Some of the new technologies also provide additional opportunities for advertising and promotions. Table 3.11 summarizes the different types of storefront and wayfinding signage that have been implemented at the case study airports. Signage and wayfinding can affect customer satisfaction. JFK’s Terminal 5 received strong customer satisfaction ratings for the availability of concessions. For the food service concessions, 62 percent of passengers were highly satisfied with the availability of pre-security concessions, and 56 percent were highly satisfied with the availability of post-security concessions. These figures were higher for retail, where 77 percent of passengers were highly satisfied with the availability of concessions in the pre-security area and 64 percent were highly satisfied with the availability Source: AirProjects, Inc., 2013 (a) Static (b) Three-dimensional (c) Blade Figure 3.62. Signage at (a) John F. Kennedy International Airport, Terminal 5; (b) Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, Terminal 1; and (c) Portland International Airport.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 85 (a) Static (b) Digital Source: AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Figure 3.63. Wayfinding at (a) Budapest Liszt Ferenc International Airport and (b) Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, Terminal 1. Airport Storefront Signage Wayfinding Signage John F. Kennedy International Airport, Terminal 5 Static Static Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, Terminal 1 Digital, static, and blade signs with logos Digital directories with walking time to gates Portland International Airport Digital, static, and blade signs with logos Digital and display windows Pittsburgh International Airport Digital and static signs Digital and static Savannah-Hilton Head Island International N/A Digital and static Budapest Ferenc Listz International Airport Digital and static signs Digital and static London Heathrow Airport, Terminal 5 Digital and static signs Digital and static Compiled by AirProjects, Inc. 2013 Table 3.11. Storefront and wayfinding signage at case study airports.

86 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction of concessions in the post-security area. A correlation between signage and customer satisfaction with the availability of concessions could not be determined at other case study airports, as survey data was not available. For additional guidance on airport signage and wayfinding, consult ACRP Report 52: Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. 3.7.8 Pricing Airport operators typically define a pricing policy for concessions in their leases to concession- aires. This policy is set to ensure reasonable pricing and combat the perception that products and services offered in airports are priced significantly higher than those offered at comparable facilities in shopping malls. The street pricing structure has been implemented at many airports, including several of the case study airports, as presented in Table 3.12. The most common pricing policy was straight street pricing, which prevents concessionaires from marking up prices above levels at comparable street locations. At one case study airport, concessionaires were allowed to add a 10 percent premium to street prices. When available, passenger survey data from the case study airports was reviewed to determine the passengers’ perceptions of the pricing and value of the concessions at each of the case study airports. Table 3.13 summarizes the results at each of the airports. Among the four case study airports for which both pricing policy and passenger survey results were available, a connection between customer satisfaction and pricing policy could not be determined. JFK’s Terminal 5 and PDX have a street pricing policy, while MSP’s Terminal 1 has a street pricing plus 10 percent policy. Yet passengers at MSP are slightly more satisfied than passengers at JFK’s Terminal 5, and significantly more satisfied than passengers at PDX. As such, it is possible that the concepts and variety of a food service and retail program can help to offset the increased prices and/or a 10 percent increase in pricing above the street level is not significant enough of an increase to negatively affect passenger satisfaction. 3.7.9 Sustainability Considerations Airport operators around the world are increasing their commitment to developing sustainable business practices. Concession program managers and operators have been relatively quick to adapt and develop new ways to mitigate an airport’s impact on the environment. Concessionaires and passengers have worked to adopt the new practices. A summary of some of the environmental practices currently in place at the case study airports that specifically affect concession programs is provided in Table 3.14. Airport Pricing Policy John F. Kennedy International Airport, Terminal 5 Street pricing Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, Terminal 1 Street pricing plus 10% Portland International Airport Street pricing Pittsburgh International Airport Street pricing London Heathrow Airport, Terminal 5 High Street Budapest Ferenc Listz International Airport Data not available Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport Data not available Compiled by AirProjects, Inc., 2013 Table 3.12. Pricing policy at case study airports.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 87 In addition to the sustainability criteria from the case studies airports, airports such as Chicago O’Hare International Airport have developed indoor vegetable gardens. These gardens grow herbs and vegetables that are used in airport restaurants. Airport operators and concessionaires are also encouraging the use of recycled or sustainable materials in the build-outs, such as reclaimed wood and bamboo. Use of LED lighting and eco-friendly paint also help to offset energy con- sumption and harmful chemicals, such as mercury and volatile organic compounds found in fluorescent lighting and paint (10). Additional information on sustainability as it relates to the airport environment can be found in ACRP Report 80: Guidebook for Incorporating Sustainability into Traditional Airport Projects. 3.7.10 Concession Trends Airport concessionaires are implementing new technologies and marketing strategies to enhance the passenger experience and create revenue opportunities; these strategies cater to the growing number of passengers using smart phones, tablet computers, and other personal computing devices. The impact of these advancements on customer satisfaction and concession revenue is not yet fully recognized since this technology is still evolving. Airport Survey Summary John F. Kennedy International Airport, Terminal 5 44% were highly satisfied with food service, 50% were highly satisfied with merchandise (ranked 8 or higher on 10-point scale) Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, Terminal 1 49% were highly satisfied with food service, 44% were highly satisfied with merchandise (ranked 4 or higher on 5-point scale) Portland International Airport 35% were highly satisfied with food service, 32% were highly satisfied with merchandise (ranked 8 or higher on 10-point scale) Pittsburgh International Airport No survey data available London Heathrow Airport, Terminal 5 No survey data available Budapest Ferenc Listz International Airport 2.98 score for food service, 3.01 score for retail (mean score on 5-point scale) Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport No survey data available Compiled by AirProjects, Inc. 2013 Table 3.13. Customer perceptions of pricing/value at case study airports. Table 3.14. Sustainability practices at case study airports. Practice JFK T5 MSP T1 PDX PIT SAV BUD LHR T5 Recycle Cooking Oil Recycling Program for Concessionaires and/or Passengers Organic Waste Composting Program Liquid and Ice Separation Program at Checkpoints Water Refill Stations Program to Reduce Water Consumption Compiled by AirProjects, Inc., 2013

88 Improving Terminal Design to Increase Revenue Generation Related to Customer Satisfaction 3.7.10.1 Self-Service Trends While it is generally accepted that passenger self-service is a rising trend in the airport check-in process, F&B concessionaires are only beginning to recognize the potential benefits. These benefits include enhanced user control, reduced queue times, and cashless payment systems. Self-service kiosks, phone applications, and tablet interfaces are being developed in the F&B sector, allowing passengers to place orders through their smart phones and self-service kiosks without the assistance of wait staff. These technologies can enhance user control by allowing passengers to make ordering decisions remotely, effectively removing them from traditional processes. One of the key features in self-service concessions is the ability to make cashless payments, which utilizes NFC technology. The NFC chip, which is present in some smartphones and other devices, uses proximity-based radio signals that allow users to “tap and pay” through their phones. Additionally, NFC may allow passengers to interact with concessionaire advertisements, delivering information directly to their wireless devices. Concessionaires in the industry have announced that they plan on offering more self-service F&B ordering options to passengers. Currently, an established concessionaire utilizes a mobile application (app) that allows users to order food directly from their phones and have it delivered to pre-designated locations (11). 3.7.10.2 Marketing Trends Airports are also experiencing an increase in demand for specialty F&B choices, such as gluten- free, organic, and sustainably produced foods. Consumers are also demanding more healthy food choices. In the airport environment, it is often difficult to find healthy food due to the limited concession options (10). Other marketing trends focus on providing concession information to passengers throughout their entire journey through the airport. A good example of this is the marketing campaign at Port Columbus International Airport (CMH). CMH placed digital ads adjacent to FIDSs, floor decal advertisements, column wrap advertisements, and informational displays in the parking garage and the departures level entrances. In addition to its marketing campaign, CMH focused on the placement of concession kiosks and vending machines in areas where passenger needs had not been previously met. By placing concession kiosks and vending machines inside or near holdrooms, CMH was able to satisfy passengers that typically stay near or inside the holdroom following security screening. Ultimately, the success of CMH’s marketing program can be attrib- uted to its development of signage and advertisements that clearly, thoroughly, and continually communicate to passengers throughout their experience in the airport (12). Bristol Airport in England has taken the relay of concession information to the next level. This relay of information has been accomplished by utilizing “smart” and interactive marketing displays. A centralized digital tower outfitted with LCD screens delivers advertising information to passengers based on the time of day, flight, and other available information. This strategy allows the airport to hone in on the advertisements most likely to result in concession sales. To enhance the effectiveness of the target digital market, Bristol Airport has also included walk- through retail, interactive displays, and product sampling (13). Airports are also increasingly recognizing the importance of developing concessions with airport employees in mind. Dallas/Fort Worth International and Los Angeles International airports plan on opening a well-known convenience store within their terminals. The aim is to better serve and provide services to airport workers by providing the convenience items they often purchase in their off-airport communities (10). These trends in airport concessions focus on two fundamental concepts, communication and convenience. With these two concepts, passengers’ needs are understood and evaluated.

Terminal and Concession Planning and Design Considerations 89 By evaluating how passengers interact with their environment, airports operators can respond by developing strategies that increase revenue as well as customer satisfaction. By effectively communicating through signage, advertisements, and mobile applications, passengers are quickly able to understand how, when, and where to meet their needs. The overall passenger experience is improved when these processes become faster, easier, and more convenient through the use of mobile and kiosk-based self-service concessions. 3.7.10.3 Concession Placement Trends Other trends geared toward increasing revenue relate directly to the placement of small-scale targeted concessions. In 2011, McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada, made 13 percent of its total concession revenue from free-standing retail merchandising units (RMUs), self-service vending machines, and wall-mounted concession kiosks. This strategy of using low-impact, non-fixed concession units allows smaller local companies to gain exposure in the airport at a relatively low cost and with short and flexible lease periods. This approach to enhancing the concession program, which has been successful at McCarran, could be applied at other airports that have additional space for small-scale concessions. RMUs can be strategically placed to provide impulse or grab-and-go items. These types of concessions have the potential to generate additional sales and concession revenue with minimal impacts on airport infrastructure and the existing concession programs. In addition, this strategy also allows the airport operator to conduct short test periods with concessionaires, rather than entering into three- to seven-year leases for a product line that may or may not work at the airport. This test period enables the airport to test product lines and concepts to determine those that will be the most successful and best satisfy its customers (14). While some of these trends are related to changes in technology or consumer trends, another way in which airports are changing is by repurposing unused or underutilized spaces. Airport operators are recognizing that new concession square footage can be added by creatively adapting existing spaces, potentially increasing overall concession sales and revenue (10).