National Academies Press: OpenBook

Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook (2010)

Chapter: Appendix G - Issues and Trends

« Previous: Appendix F - Regulations
Page 369
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Issues and Trends." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 369
Page 370
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Issues and Trends." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 370
Page 371
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Issues and Trends." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 371
Page 372
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Issues and Trends." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 372
Page 373
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Issues and Trends." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 373
Page 374
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Issues and Trends." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 374
Page 375
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Issues and Trends." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 375
Page 376
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Issues and Trends." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 376
Page 377
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Issues and Trends." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 377
Page 378
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Issues and Trends." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22964.
×
Page 378

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.

As part of the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Project 07-05 research, the Landrum & Brown (L&B) Team conducted an industry survey in order to identify current issues and potential emerging trends as they relate to the planning and design of airport passenger terminals. During the months of November and December 2007, e-mails were distributed to over 200 industry stakeholders throughout the United States. The stakeholders group included airport directors, airport planners, consultants, and various industry organizations including members of the terminal committee of the Airport Consultants Council. The intent was to provide an opportunity for a broad cross section of the industry to provide input to focus the L&B Team on the most pressing concerns and developing trends. Participants in the survey were asked to rank in importance a variety of areas of interest rela- tive to current issues and trends. General Terminal Planning Issues and Trends We have organized our general terminal planning comments about current issues and emerging trends into the eleven major categories ordered in the manner they were ranked in our industry survey: • Capacity • Construction Costs • Level of Service • Security • Revenue Maximization • Common Use Facilities • Sustainability • Low Cost Carriers • Self-Service Processing • Remote Processing • Information Technology These items then formed the general structure for this appendix and were then supple- mented with additional information and comments based on the knowledge and experiences of the L&B Team. Capacity Balancing Airside, Terminal, and Landside Components of the Terminal Complex—A fun- damental principle that is often an issue on terminal facility projects is to ensure that what is cur- rently in operation and projected for the future is in balance with the airside and landside G-1 A P P E N D I X G Issues and Trends

facilities capabilities. A current popular trend is to measure the capacity throughput of the air- field, gates, terminal, curb, parking, and roadways using simulation modeling that accurately reflects the level of service (LOS) and/or capacity desired. Aircraft operations and minutes of delay, turns per gate, passenger throughput, and International Air Transport Association (IATA) LOS, curb vehicular capacity, roadway flow LOS, and parking vehicle capacities are all impor- tant factors in balancing airside, terminal, and landside capacities. Planning for Variable Aircraft Fleet Mixes, Variability of Schedules, and Changing Airlines—A key challenge for every terminal plan is to incorporate the flexibility to appropriately accommodate a variety of aircraft types and operation scenarios. In today’s economic environment it is more important than ever to make effective utilization of aircraft gates. This is best accom- plished by planning aircraft parking positions and passenger loading bridges to accommodate the widest range of aircraft types anticipated at the airport. Additionally, when appropriate, it is impor- tant that the control of the gates’ operation ensures that multiple airlines have the ability to use gates when their demand requires. While exclusive gate use may be appropriate for an airline with significant activity throughout the day, airports should maintain sufficient control to promptly reassign gates if the airline’s schedule no longer warrants exclusive use. Further, some gates should be equipped to readily be facilitated by multiple airlines so that the number of turns per gate can be maximized and new service more easily accommodated. Use permits and agreements, and gate management protocols are key to assuring that well-planned gates are effectively operated. Accommodating Flexibility in Design—Preserving flexibility should always be an objective in terminal planning. The airport industry goes through cycles for both growth and types of service required, and in recent years, changing security requirements. Although the low cost carrier (LCC) model seems to be the dominant trend most recently, it may not be the controlling paradigm in the future. Even among LCCs, there are differences in the degree of customer service and methods of operation which would not be suitable for a ‘one size fits all’ approach. For example, one airline may place a greater emphasis on having passenger service agents at kiosk check-in counters than other carriers, and the arrangement of check-in kiosks may vary by carrier. Several themes emanate from the notion of flexibility, including a need of considerations such as: (1) whether the market is sufficiently stable to warrant development, for example, of a 50-year terminal or a far less expensive 15-year terminal; (2) the extent to which airline proprietary systems, equipment, and finishes are suitable when compared to more pliable shared use systems; and (3) if available space allows a design with economically alterable demising conditions. Phasing Flexibility—An important aspect of the viability of any Master Plan is its ability to adapt to changes in mission by providing flexibility in how the ultimate Terminal Area Master Plan can be achieved. This flexibility attribute is accomplished by developing several phasing plan patterns or options that are driven by certain “trigger point” events and passenger activity levels (PALs). Assuring that assets will not need to be prematurely wasted to implement future phases needs to be integral to sound phasing decisions. Phasing Trigger Points—The identification of “trigger points” that use realistic PALs serves as the theoretical benchmark to begin development of additional capacity for various compo- nents of the terminal complex. Most critical passenger processing functions are based on peak hour or peak surge (10- to 20-minute timeframes). It is typically necessary to translate the peak period activity statistics into an annual PAL since actual peak period statistics are difficult to monitor and collect. Identifying the relevant “passenger” information for the PALs is critical. Application of Sustainability and Demand Management Concepts—One means of success- fully achieving sustainability objectives is to minimize the amount of building construction required to meet the Master Plan’s passenger demand levels. This places additional emphasis on understanding how far the efficiencies of the existing terminal complex can be pushed through G-2 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

demand management concepts that provide an acceptable LOS (such as IATA’s LOS “C”). For example, Terminal LOS analysis would provide an objective of trying to reduce the amount of future construction required and/or to defer needed future construction. The sustainability and demand management concept objectives increase the importance of identifying termi- nal capacity on a function-by-function basis for major passenger processing activities. The PAL “trigger point” information for additional passenger processing capacity will need to be determined. Importance of Incremental Expansion—An important challenge in planning terminal facil- ities is that there are expansion paths that incrementally add more capacity without significant interruption to ongoing operations. Construction Costs/Affordability Construction Cost Escalation—The rapid economic growth in Asia, particularly China, has resulted in significant increases in the cost of steel, concrete, asphalt, copper, and other raw materials that have escalated construction costs of airport terminal facilities. This rapid change in costs has made it difficult to accurately estimate project costs. The escalation in construction costs has put additional pressure on increasing all sources of airport revenues, in particular, non- airline revenues, given the current pressures on the airlines’ cost of doing business. Impact of Airlines Cost Factors on Affordability—Unprecedented increases in the cost of jet fuel and high labor costs have significantly contributed to the cost per passenger, especially for the legacy carriers. This has opened the door for the establishment and success of the LCC with lower operating costs. Both of these trends have in turn placed additional pressure on keeping terminal project costs aligned with expected and needed benefits. A Rising Need for Terminal Capacity During a Time of Limited Revenues—In the post 9/11 environment, the demand for air travel has increased while economic pressures have tempered increases in airlines rates and charges. Growing competition for federal budget dollars and con- cerns about the effect of higher charges on airline ticket sales are limiting the ability to increase funding options such as additional Airport Improvement Program grant funds or Passenger Facility Charges that are used by airports as an effective path to capital development funds. Accelerating Commercial Revenue in Phasing Approach—Airports are keenly committed to developing potential non-airline revenue sources. It is important that, when possible, commercial revenue generation opportunities such as terminal concessions or adjacent commercial develop- ment be accelerated to provide additional Capital Improvement Program funding leverage. Level of Service Industry Need to Identify Level of Service Standards—While international LOS standards have been identified by the IATA, there has not been an official U.S. source or an authoritative treatise on LOS for airport terminals. ACRP has several research projects in addition to this Air- port Passenger Terminal Planning Guidebook that will touch on LOS including ACRP 03-05, “Passenger Space Allocation Guidelines for Planning and design of Airport Terminals.” Domestic Arrivals Meeter/Greeter Areas—Existing airport terminals are still adjusting from pre-9/11 configurations that do not provide designated spaces for meeters/greeters to congre- gate. Most often this area in existing terminals is physically very constrained. Depending on the specific characteristics of an airport’s passengers and its ratio of meeters/greeters to arriving Issues and Trends G-3

passengers, it may improve passenger service to provide a meeter/greeter lobby with seating and access to some landside concessions. Security Increased Spatial Requirements and Flexibility to Meet Changing Security Procedures— Countering the potential reduction in check-in time and space for check-in through technolog- ical improvements is the steadily increasing complexity of and process time for security, both for passengers and bags. Security at airports has always functioned in a reactive mode, for example, the recent liquids ban. The example of the liquids ban resulted in a short-term spike in checked baggage which overwhelmed many airport baggage systems. It is most likely that reactive measures will continue and that the space and processes for passenger and bag screening will continue to require changing types of equipment and configurations. For instance, new passenger screening technologies like backscatter and millimeter wave are being tested in some U.S. airports like Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX), John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and may see wider use if personal privacy issues caused by the clarity of body images can be overcome. These new devices may add to spatial requirements at security checkpoints. Thus, there is a need for flexibility in these areas, as well as in other portions of the terminal. The ability to have sufficient and easily convertible space around critical security screening functions is one of the best insurance policies to allow a quick and less expensive adaptation to new procedures or added technologies. Astute terminal plan- ning calls for recognition of passenger screening as a major “pressure point” in the terminal. It should be mentioned that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has recently published a new standard entitled, Recommended Security Guidelines for Airport Planning, Design and Construction, revised in June of 2006. Multiple vs. Single Security Checkpoints—There are various aspects to this issue. Because of the continued pressure on the TSA to control staffing costs, there appears to be a preference for focusing staff resources on fewer checkpoints rather than multiple checkpoints. Conversely, some airport operators have suggested that they prefer having more than a single checkpoint because this basically forces the TSA to actually have sufficient staff to provide a satisfactory LOS for security screening. Another important aspect to this issue is the potential for security breaches that requires closing down areas beyond the security checkpoint to isolate the potential threat. Having multiple checkpoints associated with a limited and contained area of exposure (i.e., a concourse) allows the option to close down the terminal in sections. Behavior Detection—The TSA has recently launched a new security program that uses behavior detection officers, trained at recognizing “micro-expressions” to identify potential suspicious airline passengers. There are also indications that TSA is looking at automating this effort by using video cameras and computers to measure and analyze heart rate, respiration, body temperature, and verbal responses, as well as facial micro-expressions. This new program may require configuration adjustments and additional spatial requirements at existing Security Screening Checkpoints. Explosive Detection System in-line Baggage and Handling Systems for Screening Checked Baggage—The TSA is continuing to push for in-line baggage processing systems for checked luggage to increase throughput efficiencies and reduce TSA staff resource requirements. Its objective continues to focus on working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop technologies that increase throughput capacity and overall detection capabilities. While indicating that it is accelerating and facilitating the installation of cost-effective checked baggage screening systems, there are some sobering realities about the funding available to G-4 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

provide Explosive Detection System (EDS) Baggage and Handling Systems (BHS) to the nearly 280 Category X through Category III airports in the United States. In-line screening has many advantages from a passenger service standpoint, but it usually requires significant increases in terminal area. Blast Resistant Structures—Each terminal design needs to be carefully reviewed relative to its susceptibility to possible terrorist threats using explosives. While there still are operational guidelines relative to keeping vehicles 300 feet away from the face of a terminal during severe (Red) and high (Orange) national alert levels, each terminal design needs to be carefully assessed relative to mitigating blast construction. A blast analysis can be performed to explore mitigation measures if the distance from parked vehicles is less than the 300 feet. Mitigation measures might include special designed spaces or construction materials to absorb the blast, structural reinforcement, and coated glass. TSA Travel Document Program—The TSA has implemented a program which is assuming the duties of checking travel documents/boarding passes at several major U.S. airports. The TSA believes that this will provide an additional deterrent to terrorism because TSA officers will be used to check the travel documents which allow: spotting fraudulent IDs and boarding docu- ments, examining passengers for suspicious behavior, and checks against watch-list data. Registered Traveler Program—Currently, six airports are involved in the U.S. Registered Traveler (RT) Program which is aimed at eliminating hassles and delays at security checkpoints. It is estimated that the RT security lines are capable of processing as much as three times as many travelers as regular airport security lines and can substantially reduce security-line wait times. This potentially adds an additional lane to the security screening checkpoints or possibly replaces the premium airline customer lane. Secure Flight—This TSA program is designed to conduct uniform prescreening of passen- ger information against federal government watch lists for all flights of U.S. aircraft operators. Aircraft operators are generally defined as passenger airlines that offer scheduled and public charter flights from commercial airports. The TSA proposes to implement this rule in two stages. The first stage would include covered flights between two domestic points in the United States and the second stage would include covered flights to or from the United States, flights that overfly the continental United States, and all other flights (such as international point-to- point flights) operated by covered U.S. aircraft operators not covered in the first stage. Basi- cally this is the TSA taking over from the airlines the inspection process of travel documents and boarding passes. Revenue Maximization Concessions Revenue Maximization—One of the most important current trends is conces- sions development (i.e., relying on concessions to provide a higher revenue stream for airports and providing a level of amenity for passengers as their dwell times increase in terminals). Con- cessions also require flexibility to be able to react to changes in passenger tastes and needs. For example, if the current domestic airline model of minimal in-flight food service reverses toward providing meals (as a competitive advantage), there could be a need to change the mix of con- cessions in a terminal. Concessionaire Logistic Centers—The general trends for the development of airport conces- sionaire logistics centers include more efficient use of information technology to better balance the arrival and delivery of goods. Integration with airport shop POS (point of sales) systems enables the logistics center providers with the ability to better predict the demand for merchan- dise deliveries to the terminal building. Issues and Trends G-5

The development of concessionaire logistics centers is expected to increase in popularity as airports expand further the size and complexity of their concession programs. With a trend away from master concessionaires and to a greater number of concession providers, the need for air- port operators to consolidate and streamline the delivery of merchandise to terminal buildings becomes increasingly important. Wireless Passenger Check-in—Rental car companies have for many years used wireless devices to check in and invoice returned cars at remote sites. This concept can be extended to passenger check-in by equipping wireless tablets to perform passenger identification functions and transmit this data, in encrypted form, to readers at screening checkpoints in the terminal. A wireless device, such as a portable tablet, could be configured to perform fingerprint scan, iris scan, and facial recognition of a passenger, and also to scan the bar code of the passenger’s pre- printed boarding pass. The passenger could then be given a temporary match-on-card token containing the required biometric identifier(s) and proceed, by an airport bus, to an area of the terminal equipped with biometric readers. Once the passenger has done a biometric match with the token at a checkpoint reader, passed through the checkpoint, and the event recorded, the biometric data on the passenger’s token would be erased and the token recycled for use by other passengers. Airside/Landside Concessions Allocation—In light of current TSA security screening pro- cedures, most passengers prefer to pass through security prior to using any discretionary time to shop. This current passenger behavior pattern has placed a priority on situating the majority of concessions beyond the security checkpoints. In general, a rule of thumb is to provide upwards of 80% to 90% of the available concessions on the secure airside of the terminal, especially in airports with large shares of connecting passengers. Even if an airport’s passengers are mostly Origin and Destination (O&D), concessions located past security screening on the airside typically outperform similar landside concessions. Focusing Passenger Flows for Maximum Revenue Return—The most productive conces- sions programs focus the primary flow of departing passengers through a significant block of concessions once they have cleared security screening. Examples of these “grand hall” conces- sion malls include Seattle-Tacoma International Airport’s Central Terminal Pacific Market- place and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport’s Terminal D shopping areas. Some existing terminals have also been able to successfully provide a similar shopping mall configuration but prior to security screening such as at PHX’s Terminal 4. Centralized vs. Decentralized Facilities—For some airports the decision between planning a terminal configuration that is centralized vs. decentralized can affect the revenue generation and quality of concessions offerings. Maximized revenues are best achieved by exposure to a cen- tralized flow of passengers as compared to a dispersed pattern of passenger flows. A decentral- ized facility typically requires the concessionaire to duplicate concession locations, which in turn increases the cost of doing business at the airport. In addition, the breadth of products that can be offered, and the associated increase in total average spend per passenger, is greatest when concessions do not require unnecessary duplication. Impact of In-Flight Service Reductions by Air Carriers on Concession Revenues—Reductions in the availability of in-flight amenities offered to passengers onboard aircraft, both complimen- tary and for sale, have generated increased demand for food and beverage and other take-away products at airport facilities. As a result, the provision of grab-and-go food and beverage facilities, especially those provided in locations proximate and directly visible to gate holdrooms, has become particularly popular. Impact of Changes in Security Processing on Concession Layout Strategies—As many con- cession facilities, both landside and airside, are located on primary passenger flows adjacent to G-6 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

passenger security checkpoints, concession layout plans should ensure flexibility in their design to provide for potential future changes in passenger processing technologies and security screen- ing. For example, both the depth and width of security checkpoints could change in the future as new security screening technologies are introduced. Flexibility to Accommodate Future Concessions Demand—The concessions layout plan should recognize and assess the effect that terminal renovations/expansions will have on current and future passenger flows. Potential changes in the levels of passenger and aircraft activity, especially in the first years after expansion areas open, will affect demand for commercial and service facilities in existing facilities. As a result, the location, sizing, and timing for the building’s commercial facilities must be flexible, because passenger destinations and dwell times will depend on the airlines operating there. Common-Use Facilities Impacts of Common Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE) and Common Use Self-Service (CUSS)—The operational characteristics of the specific airlines servicing an airport have a signif- icant effect on the quantity of gate and passenger processing capacities that the future terminal complex must deliver. The more airlines that operate in a common-use manner the more it will help to reduce the overall size of the terminal complex. This also helps to meet the sustainability objective of minimizing the consumption of building materials and hence natural resources, as well as minimizing construction activity effects to the environment. To identify each airline’s operational policies and potential conversion to CUTE and potential utilization of CUSS kiosks requires interviews with both corporate and local airline station managers. It may also affect existing leases and operating agreements. Common Use Provides Adaptability and Flexibility—Advances in information technol- ogy have allowed the introduction of common-use kiosks that allow multiple airlines to use a common kiosk platform. On an operational front, common use of aircraft gates can assist in minimizing capital construction costs. Airlines’ Resistance to Common-Use Facilities—Historically airlines have often resisted the implementation of common-use terminal equipment in deference to their own marketing and business priorities. This has been changing as economic realities begin to usher in cost-saving measures, and airports and airlines become increasingly familiar with the risks, risk mitigations, benefits, and costs of these systems. Sustainability Sustainability—Concepts of sustainability were initially conceived in the 1980s and began to gain true application toward the beginning of 2000. The sustainability trend has gained additional momentum with airport terminal projects to the point that achieving Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification is not whether LEED should be pursued but whether the appropriate LEED target is Silver, Gold, or Platinum. It is reported that only one airport termi- nal has achieved LEED certification to date, Terminal A at Boston Logan International Airport. L&B did the initial planning at Terminal A for Massport and Delta, and through the subsequent architectural design and construction of the project, achieved a LEED Certified award certification. These LEED certifications look at a multitude of factors including site ecosystems, effect on build- ing occupants, building systems, and sustainable materials performance. Thirty-four credits and up to 69 points are awarded for: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, material and resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovation and design. Issues and Trends G-7

Green Building Technologies—The term “Green Building” is synonymous with sustainable building design. The U.S. Green Building Council has developed and conducts the LEED certi- fication process. Environmentally friendly approaches, such as recycled and recyclable materi- als, natural lighting, energy conservation, use of low-emitting materials, building reuse, and various system controls, all assist in making a building “green.” Gate Electrification—As part of a “green” initiative the FAA has provided Detroit Metro’s North Terminal project with a $5.1 million grant to provide gate electrification for precondi- tioned air to save fuel consumption by aircraft not having to run auxiliary power units at 26 gates. This is also a trend at many other airports. Central Utility and Co-Generation Plants—Because airports typically require a substantial amount of electricity and steam 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the operational concept of a centralized co-generation plant that produces steam for both the production of electrical power and heating works well at airports. The combination of reducing the cost of electric and heating, along with the elimination of sulfur dioxide emissions, if natural gas is used as the fuel source, is why co-generation plants are becoming more of a trend at airports. Low-Cost Carriers Changes to the Terminal Business Model—The aviation industry continues to experience change in the form of new air service concepts and uncertainty about various issues like fuel prices. New air service entries offering no frills services (LCCs) are changing the traditional ter- minal model. Airport terminals that rigidly anticipate a status quo almost always result in dimin- ished flexibility. Since the early 1970s, but more recently over the last 15 years, LCCs have continued to capture additional market share from traditional airlines. The operating formula for the LCCs has been a business performance model that includes simplifying all aspects of their operations. Characteristics of this business model include providing one class of service (typi- cally without reserved seating), selecting a single aircraft type, simplifying fare structures, focus- ing on quick ground turns of aircraft, and operating from airport terminal facilities that provide minimal levels of service at low costs to the airline. Southwest Airlines in the United States and easyJet Airline Company in Europe immediately come to mind as examples of LCCs, but others in the United States include Air Tran Airways, JetBlue Airways, and Spirit Airlines. Of a similar nature but providing even lower base fares are the “ultra” LCCs like Ryanair in Europe and, recently, the launch of Skybus Airlines, an ultra LCC based in Columbus and actually modeled after Ryanair. While low fares are a characteristic of both LCCs and ultra LCCs, the ultra LCCs allow passengers to select only the services and options appropriate to their travel needs through costing options that add to a very low base price. LCC Impact on Terminal Facilities—The LCC concept is having a profound effect on the airport/airline industry as a whole and has begun to have an effect on U.S. terminal designs. Because of the recent financial plights of the traditional service legacy carriers and the success of the LCC concept, there is increasing pressure on airport operators to provide terminals that reflect the same austere quality of the business model used by the LCCs. Low-cost, simple ter- minals providing minimal services with a low rent base for the airline operator help these types of LCCs achieve their business model performance objectives. In turn, these LCCs are also act- ing as a catalyst in the development of secondary airports and metropolitan multi-airport sys- tems. Because the primary objective of the LCC is to get its aircraft into and out of the terminal quickly, the apron needs to be conducive to efficient aircraft positioning and fast aircraft turn- arounds, with easy access to primary-use runways. Quicker turnarounds mean more flights can be processed at each gate, thereby requiring fewer total gates. Depending on the package G-8 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

of services being offered by the particular LCC, the terminal may be designed around ground level passenger loading with passenger loading bridges being an option. Providing this option allows the flexibility for the LCC to add bridges at a later time and to raise their LOS package. It also allows the airport operator more flexibility for using the facility should a legacy carrier need gates. Because these types of LCC operations are fairly self contained, there is usually no need for an interline baggage system. A simple flat bag belt feeds to the airside, and flat plate claim device for inbound bags is normally sufficient. Building dedicated low-cost facilities, specifically designed and constructed at a minimal cost that can then be used to justify a lower cost lease arrangement for the low-cost class of carrier, may help to resolve this potential con- flict. It may be necessary to also offer any new low-cost facilities to the legacy carriers, as well, in order to avoid being accused of discriminatory practices. LCC Effect on Level of Service—The interior design of an LCC terminal will also reflect a sim- ilar low-cost approach. LOS targets are generally below the IATA suggested LOS C, such as D or E, but for only short durations. The LCC business model demands quick aircraft turns and lim- ited dwell times for passengers. Most often these terminal designs include common holdrooms, sometimes with plastic seating (Singapore Changi Airport), containing fewer seats and relying on people standing for short periods of time, sharing contingent holdroom areas, and even occu- pying some concession areas. Although these facilities are low cost there are potential conces- sions revenue opportunities to be capitalized on. LCC passengers still spend some money on concessions. This trend has been reported at Southwest’s new terminal at Baltimore/Washing- ton International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI). Self-Service Processing Electronic Check-in—Advances in computer technologies and the Internet have revolu- tionized the check-in procedures at airports around the globe. In the United States, a board- ing pass is required to board an aircraft and to pass through airport security checkpoints. Having an electronic ticket that can be printed prior to coming to the airport allows a passen- ger with only hand-carried luggage to bypass the traditional check-in counters and proceed directly to the security screening process. On airlines without online check-in, the check-in may take place at a self-service kiosk in the airport, or at the check-in counter. Expanding Use of Self-Service Check-in Kiosks—This includes both airline-dedicated and CUSS, and is associated with other forms of electronic check-in (whether via Internet, off-site locations, mobile devices, etc.). All have effects on the size and configuration of the check-in lobby. These technological advances can also have potential capacity effects on down-stream processes such as security, if the amount of time required for that process is reduced and passen- gers find that they can arrive at the terminal closer to departure time. Arriving later at the air- port but processing more quickly through the check-in process places a more peaked demand on the down-stream security screening process. Remote Processing Remote Passenger Processing from Off-Airport Locations—A potential exception to the previously mentioned concessions centralization principle is the potential for a secondary loca- tion to be established in a higher passenger traffic and economic yield demographic. Establish- ing a remote passenger processing facility in a central business district, with fast and convenient access to the airport’s air travel services, may also improve revenue generation. Some airports around the world have taken advantage of opportunities to develop commercial facilities Issues and Trends G-9

downtown (in some cases including duty-free sales) with convenient rail access or, conversely, immediately adjacent to the airport terminal (i.e., Hong Kong International Airport’s Kowloon Station and SkyCity facilities respectively). Information Technology Building Information Modeling (BIM)—Is a software product that is gaining momentum in the planning and design of airport terminal facilities. BIM builds a database of project informa- tion that exists in a multi-dimensional graphic format. As the project moves from initial plan- ning to a more refined design, the BIM program files increase in detail, becoming the repository of information about the entire project. This database of information allows cost estimates to be prepared at any time during the project commensurate with the level of detail of the graphic drawings. BIM is also proving to be an excellent presentation tool that facilitates project under- standing on many different levels, early in the project. G-10 Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design

Next: Appendix H - Acronyms »
Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 25, Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design comprises a guidebook, spreadsheet models, and a user’s guide in two volumes and a CD-ROM intended to provide guidance in planning and developing airport passenger terminals and to assist users in analyzing common issues related to airport terminal planning and design.

Volume 1 of ACRP Report 25 explores the passenger terminal planning process and provides, in a single reference document, the important criteria and requirements needed to help address emerging trends and develop potential solutions for airport passenger terminals. Volume 1 addresses the airside, terminal building, and landside components of the terminal complex.

Volume 2 of ACRP Report 25 consists of a CD-ROM containing 11 spreadsheet models, which include practical learning exercises and several airport-specific sample data sets to assist users in determining appropriate model inputs for their situations, and a user’s guide to assist the user in the correct use of each model. The models on the CD-ROM include such aspects of terminal planning as design hour determination, gate demand, check-in and passenger and baggage screening, which require complex analyses to support planning decisions. The CD-ROM is also available for download from TRB’s website as an ISO image.

View information about the TRB webinar on ACRP Report 25, Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, which was held on Monday, April 26, 2010.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

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

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

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

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

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!