How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging (2019)

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.

25 The project team, with guidance and advice from the study panel, developed a survey questionnaire to explore issues and challenges related to airline upgauging at airports of various sizes and types throughout the United States. With careful consultation and guidance from the ACRP topic panel, the team sought to identify and preselect a group of airports that have experienced upgauging and/or loss of service in recent years and ask them to participate in the survey. The project team conducted a nationwide analysis of aviation activity at all U.S. airports to identify the selection criteria of relevance to the synthesis topic. After a review of the most recent FAA traffic data, the team preselected 20 airports across the country that experienced major variations in passenger enplanements within the past 5 to 10 years. These airports met the other selection criteria as well. The team’s nationwide analysis of aviation activity included the following: • 10-year historical enplanements (2005–2016 data from the FAA Terminal Area Forecast database), with a goal to identify any significant variation of air traffic activity, either repre- senting a major growth (potential candidate for recent airline upgauging) or a drastic decrease (possibly due to a loss of service) • NPIAS category and hub size (non-hub, small hub, medium hub, large hub), to provide a representative sample with respect to operations and sizes • FAA regions (nine airport divisions), to provide a sufficient, diverse geographic representation • FAA Part 139 Certification (Class I, II, III, IV) One subsidiary objective was to determine which airports would make good case examples and could provide interview subjects. The survey acted as a screening device to identify five airports with information and experience that would warrant further investigation and provide a broad array of data. Follow-up interviews were held with these selected airports, and the case examples are summarized in Chapter 4. Appendix A includes the entire survey questionnaire and Appendix B provides the detailed responses from the survey respondents. The project team contacted the 20 preselected airports, and 18 of them completed the survey. The remaining two airports did not respond before the deadline. The result was a 90% response rate. Sixteen of the 18 respondents confirmed that they had recently experienced a major change in passenger and/or cargo activity (either in terms of volume or type) that had required some adjustments to their airport operations (see Figure 13). The two airports that answered the question in the negative went on to include, in their questionnaire responses, a description and explanation of actual upgauging/loss-of-service C H A P T E R 3 Airport Survey Responses

26 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging experience. The project team assumed that the response “no” was intended to indicate that the changes of aviation activity at their airports were not as recent as at the other airports. This chapter provides a detailed summary of the findings on how airports view airline upgauging and the types of issues and challenges they have recently confronted. The summary includes the following topics: • Surveyed Airports’ Characteristics • Drivers of Upgauging (or Loss of Service) • Impacts and Main Challenges • Airside/Airfield Impacts • Apron/Aircraft Parking Impacts • Terminal Building Impacts • Landside and Airport Access Impacts • Use of Temporary Facilities • Relationship/Communication with Airline Partners • Part 139 Operations and Certification Process • TSA 1542 Security Requirements • Terminal and/or Facility Leasing Structure • Financial Risks Associated with Costs and Investments—Airline Agreements • Environmental Planning and Community Involvement For each of these distinct elements, the project team tried to identify similarities and common challenges among groups of airports based on their characteristics and sizes. The goal was to analyze the severity of each impact depending on the type of airport operations and determine what, if any, trends could be observed. Surveyed Airports’ Characteristics Table 2 provides a summary of the 18 airports that responded to the survey in terms of NPIAS category, geographic location, enplanement level, and an overview of the impacts experienced due to recent airline upgauging/downgauging practice. Drivers of Upgauging (or Loss of Service) The first distinction made in the survey was on the type of recent activity change experienced at an airport. While the study’s main goal was to identify the impacts and challenges associated with airline upgauging on the passenger side, the project scope also included a consideration of cargo activity growth, as well as issues related to loss of service (“downgauging”). Figure 13. Survey questionnaire: major change in passenger/cargo activity.

Airport Survey Responses 27 # ID Airport Name State NPIAS Category (Hub Size) 2016 Enplanements 2016 Scheduled Departures High-Level Overview of Upgauging/Downgauging 1 BLV MidAmerica St. Louis Airport IL Non- Hub 79,988 559 Enplanements increased from 13,444 in 2014 to 79,988 in 2016; 2017 is expected to surpass 120,000. 2 LCK Rickenbacker Intl. Airport OH Non- Hub 102,751 667 Started an international cargo service in 2014 and recently received large infrastructure investments. 3 CLL Easterwood Airport TX Non- Hub 78,907 2,423 Peak volume increased in 2017 due to upgauging from 50-seat to 65-seat aircraft. 4 STS Charles M. Schulz–Sonoma County Airport CA Non- Hub 167,151 2,660 Increased from one airline to four airlines over an 18-month period. 5 ISN Sloulin Field Intl.Airport ND Non- Hub 68,829 1,820 Delta and United airlines began regional jet service in 2012, which increased the annual enplanements from approximately 20,000/year to 120,000/year in 2014. 6 DAB Daytona Beach Airport FL Non- Hub 342,495 3,239 JetBlue added service in 2016. 7 PGD Punta Gorda Airport FL Non- Hub 558,482 3,858 Allegiant Air expanded service to PGD starting in 2012. It increased the number of daily flights from 10 to 100. 8 IWA Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport AZ Small Hub 705,731 4,874 Enplanements increased from 14,588 in 2007 to 682,514 in 2012. 9 HPN Westchester County Airport NY Small Hub 766,170 14,373 Increase from 480,000 to 995,000 enplanements between 2005 and 2010 and decrease from 995,000 to 750,000 enplanements from 2011 to 2017. 10 PIE St. Pete– Clearwater Intl. Airport FL Small Hub 915,672 6,317 Fifth consecutive year of growth with a 44% growth since 2012. 11 SDF Louisville Intl. Airport KY Small Hub 1,631,494 23,766 Significant increase of cargo activity as a result of change to scheduled Group VI aircraft. 12 PIT Pittsburgh Intl. Airport PA Medium Hub 3,986,114 54,020 Significant decrease of passenger volume between 2004 and 2013. 13 DAL Dallas Texas Love Field Airport* TX Medium Hub 7,554,596 69,421 Significant increase of passenger volume since 2014. 14 AUS Austin- Bergstrom Intl. Airport TX Medium Hub 6,095,545 55,945 Averaging 10%–14% growth annually. A terminal expansion project is underway (+9 gates). 15 PDX Portland Intl. Airport OR Large Hub 9,071,154 89,504 Increase of domestic and international traffic since 2012. 16 FLL Fort Lauderdale Intl. Airport FL Large Hub 14,263,270 115,297 Significant growth in both domestic and international passenger traffic between 2011 and 2017. 17 SEA Seattle-Tacoma Intl. Airport WA Large Hub 17,888,080 195,609 Passenger volume increased by 40% and cargo tonnage increased by 30% in the past 5 years. 18 PHX Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl. Airport AZ Large Hub 20,344,867 189,785 More wide-body international flights. *Note: A 1979 amendment, which restricted long-haul flights out of Dallas Love Field, was fully repealed in 2014. ACAIS = Air Carrier Activity Information System. Sources: Enplanements from FAA ACAIS 2017; scheduled departures from Bureau of Transportation Statistics, www.bts.gov. Table 2. Detailed list of survey respondents—airports characteristics.

28 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging Fifteen of the 18 respondents confirmed having recently experienced a significant increase in passenger volume. Two of these 15 airports also experienced a significant increase in cargo volume (Seattle-Tacoma International Airport [SEA] and Rickenbacker International Airport [LCK]), and two of them also experienced a significant decrease in passenger traffic a few years after a major traffic increase (Westchester County Airport [HPN] and Sloulin Field International Airport [ISN]). As to the three airports that did not confirm having recently experienced a significant increase in passenger volume, one of them experienced an increase in cargo activity (Louisville International Airport [SDF]) but not in passenger volume, and another one experienced a major decrease in passenger volume (Pittsburgh International Airport [PIT]). The third airport is a large international hub (Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport [PHX]), with a high volume of cargo and passenger traffic. PHX did respond “no” to the question “Has your airport recently experienced a major change in passenger and/or cargo activity (either in terms of volume or type) that has required some adjustments in your airport operations?” However, it was assumed that the airport did not find any “significant” increase or decrease in recent years because of the overall high numbers already observed at the airport. In the subsequent questions of the survey, PHX provided valuable input on the effects of airline upgauging. A summary of the drivers for activity change indicated by the survey responses is provided in the sections that follow and is organized in three distinct parts: • Drivers of airline upgauging (passenger): 16 cases (7 non-hub, 3 small, 2 medium, 4 large) • Drivers of airline upgauging (cargo): 3 cases (1 non-hub, 1 small, 1 large) • Drivers of airline “downgauging” (loss of service): 3 cases (1 small, 1 medium, 1 non-hub) Drivers of Airline Upgauging (Passenger): 16 Cases For airports that experienced significant passenger increase, the survey results showed that the types of impacts are diverse and tend to be related to the airport size. For smaller airports, such as non-hubs and small hubs, the survey shows that airline upgauging primarily consists of changing aircraft type from 50-seat commuter aircraft to larger regional jets such as Bombardier CRJ700/900 (up to 90 seats) and Embraer E-jet 170/190 (up to 96 seats). The main impact in terms of traffic demand for those small airports is usually related to the increase in the peak hour demand that adds more pressure on the existing terminal facilities. In addition, some of the small airports surveyed also experienced the arrival of new airlines and an augmentation in flight frequency (e.g., from weekly or biweekly flights to daily flights). The smaller communities served by those airports usually benefit from new service added by LCCs, which provide access to larger cities and connect to a more global air service network through airline hubs. One of the surveyed airports (STS) went from one carrier to four airlines over a period of only 18 months. For the slightly larger airports, such as the small hubs with more than 1 million annual enplanements and the medium hubs, the survey results showed that the considerations and challenges are overall different from smaller airports, albeit slightly. Such airports generally accommodate a stronger and more sustainable commercial service and are served by many regular air carriers. The impact of upgauging on the peak hour demand is, generally, less drastic than in smaller airports, and the increase in demand is usually measured at an annual level. Airlines increase their frequencies and fleet size, which results in an increase in traffic throughout the day, during both peak and non-peak periods. The aircraft fleet is progressively increased from large regional jets (up to 96 seats) to the Airbus A320 and Boeing B737 families, which can carry between 120 and 200 passengers per flight.

Airport Survey Responses 29 Finally, the “larger” medium-hub airports, as well as large hubs, have been experiencing significant traffic growth for the past 5 to 6 years, mainly due to positive economic performance nationwide. The growth experienced at these airports generally follows the economic trend at the national level, with some more aggressive growth observed at airports that benefit from a particularly dynamic local environment, like the cities of Austin and Dallas, Texas; and Seattle, Washington (ranked respectively first, third, and fourth as fastest growing cities in the country in 2016 by Forbes) (Carlyle 2016). In addition to benefiting from favorable local economic conditions, all the medium and large hubs included in the survey mentioned the importance of international market growth in their overall traffic increase. Such international growth generally translates into new point- to-point connections from their airport and is driven by the use of a new generation of wider aircrafts, such as the Boeing B787 and Airbus A350 families. In addition, narrow-body aircraft with greater range capability and higher seat capacity are also more commonly used by airlines, especially for the South American market (e.g., B737 Next-Generation versions). In addition to identifying that aviation traffic is increasing at a national level, the survey also aimed at identifying local communities that have taken particular actions to become more attractive and to develop commercial service at their airport. The study shows that the primary source of traffic increase is coming from airlines currently operating at the airport (see Figure 14). However, more than half of the surveyed airports (11 out of 18) have acknowledged the existence of an air service development (ASD) program. Out of these 11 airports, six of them were successful in attracting one or more new airlines to start service at their airport. SEA, which has been one of the fastest growing airports in the United States for the past few years, has expanded its airline portfolio without an active solicitation program. SEA reports that it has been approached by new airlines to start service but does not indicate the use and implementation of a particular ASD effort. Finally, seven out of 16 airports noted a change in their mission as a result of the traffic growth (see Figure 15). Four of them are non-hub airports that indicated their mission has changed from non-commercial to commercial activity. Two of them are medium-hub airports both located in the state of Texas (Austin-Bergstrom International Airport [AUS] and Dallas Texas Love Field Airport [DAL]). Both of them indicated an expansion of their role from a regional to a national level, and even an international level for AUS. Finally, only one large airport indicated a change of mission, with an additional focus on guest experience: Fort Lauderdale International Airport (FLL). Figure 14. Survey questionnaire: main drivers of airport activity changes.

30 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging Drivers of Airline Upgauging (Cargo): Three Cases Three of the surveyed airports indicated that they faced challenges regarding cargo traffic increases (SDF, LCK, and SEA). A common challenge appeared to arise from the use of larger wide-body aircraft in the cargo industry, especially on the international side. Two of the three airports mentioned the need for ADG-VI compliant facilities on account of airlines’ use of the Boeing B747-8F for their cargo operations. The accommodation of ADG-VI aircraft generally triggers important infrastructure investments for airports, especially on the airfield. These impacts and challenges will be addressed in more detail in the subsequent sections of this report. Drivers of Airline Downgauging (Loss of Service): Three Cases Three of the surveyed airports indicated that they lost a significant volume of passenger traffic in recent years (PIT, HPN, and ISN). The three airports experienced this drop because portions of their commercial service were terminated by one or more airlines and because of a slowdown of economic activity in their region. PIT also noted it has changed its mission from being a major airline hub to providing origin and destination (O&D) service to its local and regional communities. Impacts and Main Challenges All the airports included in the survey were asked to rank high-level challenges and issues by significance of impact. Airports were able to give a number from “1” through “3,” with “1” representing the most critical challenges. For this question, respondents had the choice between the following categories: • Capacity/Facility Needs • Future Activity Assessment, Traffic Demand Uncertainty • Operations and Management • Coordination with Airline Partners • Coordination with Regulatory Agencies • Construction/Implementation • Financial/Capital Investments • Safety/Security • Other (to be specified by the airport) Table 3 shows the survey results (by order of criticality). Figure 15. Survey questionnaire: change of airport mission.

Airport Survey Responses 31 Table 3. Airport survey results—summary. Capacity/Facility Needs - Most critical challenge for airports of all sizes and types. - Twelve out of 16 airports ranked it as the most critical issue associated with airline upgauging. Construction/ Implementation - Ranked overall in second position, together with the “Financial/Capital Investments” challenge described below. - Almost half of the surveyed airports ranked it as number “1.” - No correlation seemed to exist with airport size. Some non-hub airports ranked this as number “1” while others ranked it as “3” or lower. Similar results came from larger airports. This observation could be the result of construction/implementation challenges being based on the individual physical layout and configuration of each airport rather than its size. Financial/Capital Investments - This challenge ranked in second position along with the “Construction/Implementation” challenge. - While no correlation with airport size was observed for the “Construction/Implementation” challenge, the “Financial/Capital Investments” challenge appeared to be a function of airport size. - For the smaller airports, six out of seven non-hubs and all three medium hubs ranked it either as the number “1” or “2” critical challenge. - On the other hand, all large hubs ranked this challenge as number “3” or lower. This demonstrates that financial and capital planning at large-hub airports generally encompasses other challenges, not just increased aircraft size. Future Activity Assessment, Traffic Demand Uncertainty - This challenge was evenly ranked by all airports as a secondary challenge after “Capacity/Facility Needs,” “Construction/Implementation,” and “Financial/Capital Investments.” - It was ranked as number “2” by most of the non-hub and small-hub airports. Medium and large hubs ranked it as number “3,” showing lower variability and uncertainty of traffic at larger commercial airports. Operations and Management - This challenge was ranked “2” and “3” by smaller airports (non-hub, small, and medium), but is seemingly more critical for larger airports (two out of four large hubs ranked it as “1”). - This observation may result from the larger scale of operations at these airports and the escalating difficulty to manage them when airlines increase aircraft fleet size and seat volume beyond original facility capacity. - These impacts are generally translated into increased delay on the airside (due to runway capacity), reduction of passenger level of service in the terminal, and congestion on the landside (frontage, access roadways, auto parking). Coordination with Airline Partners - This challenge was given a rank of “2,” “3,” or lower by airports, regardless of their size. - More details will be given in the subsequent sections of this chapter. Coordination with Regulatory Agency(ies) - This challenge was given a rank of “2,” “3,” or lower by airports, regardless of their size. - More details will be given in the subsequent sections of this chapter. Safety/Security - This challenge seems to become more critical with the size of the airport. - It is mostly ranked as “3” for smaller airports, “2” for medium hubs, and was ranked as “1” for one large-hub airport (SEA). Other (to be specified by the airport) - A comment box was made available to the airports to add any additional challenges they would like to share. - The following challenges were given: o Concessions o Parking (onsite/offsite) o Gate seating o Baggage handling system o Checkpoint queue - More details about these issues will be given in the subsequent sections of this chapter.

32 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging Although the survey provided the airports with the opportunity to rank each one of the categories by significance of impact, two surveyed airports noted that all of these aspects have constituted a challenge for their operations: • MidAmerica St. Louis Airport (BLV): “Each and every item above has been a challenge due to the rate of increase.” • Portland International Airport (PDX): “I would really rank more than three and it’s hard to pick what would be the top three. Coordination with airline partners has been key, management of the security checkpoint has been a constant struggle, and management of capital program as we address the needs associated with growth is ongoing.” Airside/Airfield Impacts Airside and airfield impacts are generally driven by two main factors: • Airport’s critical design aircraft: On the basis of the design aircraft, airport sponsors need to adhere to a set of airside design and operation standards from the FAA. These standards are usually based on Aircraft Design Group (from ADG-I to ADG-VI). For instance, accom- modating a larger aircraft at the airport could result in the need for a wider runway, larger runway-taxiway and taxiway-taxiway separations, wider taxiways, and fillets. In some situa- tions, airline upgauging can lead to a change of design aircraft, which will result in additional airside/airfield requirements for the airport sponsor. • Airfield capacity: The increase in the number of flights or the increase in the overall fleet size at an airport can have an impact on the overall capacity of the runway/taxiway system, reducing the available throughput and resulting in an increase in delay (especially at larger airports with high volumes of aircraft movements). Figure 16 shows results from the airport survey for impacts on the airside/airfield due to airline upgauging. Figure 16. Survey questionnaire: impacts on airside/airfield facilities.

Airport Survey Responses 33 Overall, compared with the terminal and landside, airline upgauging seemed to have limited impact on the airside. The most significant impacts occurred primarily at airports that have to accommodate aircraft larger than their airport design code (for instance ADG-VI upgrade): • Taxiway improvements/design change due to new aircraft type: This impact was ranked as the most common impact experienced by surveyed airports on the airside. However, the impact appeared to be specifically associated with airports upgrading their design code. In particular, two of them (SDF and LCK) had to complete an ADG-VI upgrade of their facilities to accommodate the cargo version of the Boeing B747-8. • Two of the surveyed airports (PHX and LCK) had to plan for some runway work to accom- modate the larger aircraft operated by airlines. • Three of the surveyed airports (AUS, LCK, and PGD) only showed the need for new lighting systems and/or additional navigational equipment (NAVAIDS) to upgrade departure/approach procedures. • One airport (SEA) experienced the need for a departure/approach procedures upgrade, without additional equipment (e.g., obstruction mitigation or new GPS procedure). • One airport (IWA) had to petition the FAA to increase Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) hours. Apron/Aircraft Parking Impacts Apron and aircraft parking impacts are generally driven by three main factors: • Aircraft size: The apron area usually comprises several parcels that can accommodate different aircraft sizes. The apron design requirements are provided by the FAA Airport Design Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, especially in regard to the taxiway-taxilane sepa- ration and the aircraft wingtip clearance to any fixed or movable object. When airlines start operating larger aircraft, airports usually have to adjust the size of their gates and hardstands and have to restripe the apron to be compliant with the appropriate FAA safety and operation standards. • Aircraft parking capacity: Parking capacity requirements are generally calculated from airline flight schedules and their peaking characteristics. For a given number of daily flights, the number of aircraft positions needed may vary depending on the peak demand that results from the schedule. If all the day’s flights are operated during a narrow window of time, the parking space requirements tend to be higher for both contact gates and hardstands. On the other hand, if the flight schedule is more evenly distributed all along the day, parking space require- ments are usually easier to manage. • Remain Over Night parking (RON): Another consideration is the amount of RON parking available at the airport. Because it is common for airlines to have their last aircraft arrival in the evening and the first departure of the day in the morning, airports have to provide RON parking capacity that can be higher than their total gate capacity. This phenomenon may result in major challenges for airports to find the land available for RON parking. Overall, the survey shows that issues and challenges related to aircraft parking and apron capacity are important when airlines upgauge their aircraft fleet. The impacts can be diverse and vary greatly by characteristics and criticality, depending on the airport size, the type of upgauging, and the overall terminal configuration (see Figure 17). • Apron area expansion and passenger loading issues: Almost all the airports surveyed, regardless of their size, indicated that they experienced important issues and challenges in connection with planned increases to their apron area, upgauge of their contact gates, and upgrade of their passenger loading/unloading equipment (Passenger Boarding Bridges). Only two airports did not reference any issues with respect to these aspects of their facilities.

34 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging • Hardstand positions and RON parking: The availability of additional hardstand positions and RON parking space to support the day-to-day gate operations was the critical challenge reported the second-most times by the surveyed airports. • Issues related to fueling operations and ground support equipment (GSE) use/storage were identified by approximately half of the surveyed airports and were usually directly correlated with gate and apron requirements. • The surveyed airports shared the following additional comments regarding potential issues and impacts on the apron operations due to airline upgauging: – “Additional ramp lighting and GSE power needs.” – “Re-marking apron for additional parking position.” – “De-icing locations have also been impacted.” – “RON and flexible use of gates for multiple aircraft types.” Terminal Building Impacts Alongside the impacts on apron operations and gates, issues and challenges related to elements of the terminal building constituted a major concern for the airports surveyed. Approximately one-third of the airports were required to build a new passenger terminal building because of airline upgauging, while almost half of the surveyed airports had to plan for major work and expansion of an existing terminal (see Figure 18). “Construction of a New Passenger Terminal Building” was considered mainly by the larger airports (two medium hubs and two large hubs). “Major Expansion of Existing Passenger Terminal Buildings” was considered by the remaining airports. Note: GSE = ground support equipment. Figure 17. Survey questionnaire: impacts on apron/ramp area.

Airport Survey Responses 35 In addition to airports that had already completed construction at the time of the survey, some airports were engaged in the planning phase for the building of a new terminal or for a major expansion of their existing facility. Because each airport and, more particularly, each terminal is unique, the survey featured a large variety of responses with respect to terminal developments that were needed to manage airline upgauging effects. Chapter 4 will present more detailed case examples. Airports shared the following answers in the survey: • Easterwood Airport (CLL): “major change to the existing footprint” • Charles M. Schulz–Sonoma County Airport (STS): “Minor modifications were necessary on the short term. Master Plan Update has been initiated. A major terminal expansion is being considered.” • STS: “To facilitate four airlines from one, a temporary ticketing facility was constructed; due to mainline aircraft a tensile structure was built for additional gate space.” • “LCK is in the process of designing a new terminal to accommodate the current and fore- casted increase in passenger service.” • Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport (IWA): “We had at least 3 major terminal expansions and have worked on about 6 space allocation projects to increase terminal and passenger process- ing facilities.” • HPN: “Potential future expansion within the terminal building to meet expected demand.” • AUS: “Addition of 9-gate expansion, building of new South Terminal with 3 additional gates, upgrading existing terminal with common use to maximize existing gates.” • PHX: “SWA upgauging to B737 Max, required modifications to gates, and construction of new concourse.” • SEA: “IAF construction developing 2–1 widebody gates where 1 widebody gate will consume 2 narrowbody gates—this further exasperates the gate shortage issues of the airport.” Figure 18. Survey questionnaire: impacts on passenger terminal.

36 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging Figure 19 reflects the diversity of terminal building interior modifications that were required to accommodate airline upgauging. Additional details are provided in Chapter 4 of this report. While the detailed terminal issues shown in Figure 19 generally concerned airports of all types and sizes, the only element that seemed to be recurrent for one category of airport is the need for expansion of concession space: all the largest airports in the survey identified this issue as a key challenge for their facilities (all medium and large hubs). Landside and Airport Access Impacts The survey results showed that landside impacts were also identified as critical factors for airports to consider when experiencing airline upgauging and significant traffic growth. As shown in Figure 20, more than half of the respondents acknowledged having experienced main issues on the landside in relation to the following: • Auto parking spaces and capacity • Reconfiguration of access roadways and/or terminal curbside • Taxi and transportation network company (TNC) operations While the need for additional auto parking capacity was relevant to surveyed airports of all types and sizes, the other two issues (access roadways/curbside and taxi/TNC operations) seemed to have been experienced principally at medium- and large-hub airports. Issues related to the public transit system were identified by only four of the surveyed airports, as these challenges are more commonly related to the specific urban characteristics and planning strategies of each individual airport/community/city. Note: FIS/CBP = Federal Inspection Services/Customs and Border Protection. Modification Figure 19. Survey questionnaire: modifications to terminal building.

Airport Survey Responses 37 The surveyed airports also identified the following additional issues and challenges on the landside: • BLV: “Additional rental car parking” • SEA: “Increased airline signage needs (more carriers = more infrastructure to support signage)” • SDF: “Roadway relocation for new taxiway construction” Use of Temporary Facilities As a mitigation measure, the use of temporary facilities generally provided an adequate means for airports to respond immediately to short-term needs resulting from airline upgauging. This type of facility enables the airport to manage the immediate demand while developing long-term and sustainable plans for further facility improvements and expansion. A variety of solutions were developed and used by the airports surveyed to address their airside, terminal, and landside needs: • SDF: “Modular facility constructed for ticketing and passenger check in; tensile tent structure built for additional gate space, will be expanded early next year for a larger TSA check point” • IWA: “We installed a ‘temporary’ modular building to house a 4 gate expansion. It is still in use 10 years later along with the construction of an additional 6 gates.” • AUS: “A 640’ × 450’ area of the Cargo Apron was converted to temporary airport passenger parking during construction of new passenger parking facilities.” • AUS: “Temp gates” • DAL: “Temporary Parking Facilities” Note: TNC = transportation network company. Figure 20. Survey questionnaire: impacts to landside facilities.

38 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging • PDX: “Currently considering options for temporary ticket counter and other airport support programs (police, TSA, emergency operations center, etc.)” • SEA: “Hardstand operations including 6+ gate temporary holdroom at 34,000 sq. ft.” Relationship/Communication with Airline Partners Communication and relationship building were deemed essential during the planning and implementation process of any airport improvement required as a result of airline upgauging and traffic growth. All of the surveyed airports indicated that communication and coordination with airline partners were required during changes of aviation activity at the airport. The airports were asked to rate the communication and coordination process with the airlines (excellent, good, satisfactory, poor). Overall, all of them indicated that they were satisfied with their relationship with airlines, with more than half of them having picked the option “excellent.” Part 139 Operations and Certification Process The survey results showed that airline upgauging rarely requires major changes of an air- port’s Part 139 requirements and certification process. Only five out of the 18 surveyed airports identified impacts in that area, relating to the following functions: • De-icing operations: – “Additional de-icing locations were created.” – “Increase in the amount of non-movement areas requiring snow/ice removal service.” • ADG-VI aircraft upgrade: – “Modification of standard for LCK to accommodate ADG VI aircraft.” See additional information in Case Example 5 (LCK) in Chapter 4. – “Modifications to standards for Group VI aircraft operations submitted as required to FAA.” Among those five airports, two of them graded their relationship/coordination process with their FAA Airports District Office as “good,” and three as “excellent.” TSA 1542 Security Requirements Four of the surveyed airports that recently experienced airline upgauging had to deal with some modifications to their TSA 1542 requirements. They all rated their relationship and coordination process with the Transportation Security Administration as either “good” or “excellent.” Terminal and/or Facility Leasing Structure The survey results indicated that the change in activity at the airports seemed to have required adjustments of terminal and/or facility leasing structure to less than half of the airports (seven out of 18). However, the four large hubs included in the survey were not concerned by this impact. For the seven airports that modified their facility lease structure, these modifications all concerned: • Gate rental and allotment • Terminal space and/or equipment • Apron space and/or hardstands (aircraft parking positions)—one out of these seven airports was not concerned by this issue

Airport Survey Responses 39 Financial Risks Associated with the Costs and Investments: Airline Agreements Five out of 18 surveyed airports reported that they structured and operated under specific agreements with airline partners to share the financial risks associated with the upgauging costs and investments. The following examples were given: • Columbus Regional Airport Authority (LCK): “Public-private partnerships were created to offset costs of major construction projects with regards to our cargo operation.” See additional information in Case Example 5 (LCK) in Chapter 4. • Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority: “Airline funded capital need and airport repaid in a defined time period.” See additional information in Case Example 2 (IWA) in Chapter 4. • Punta Gorda Airport: “Turn fees were indexed to decrease with increased frequency.” See additional information in Case Example 1 (PGD) in Chapter 4. • DAL: “Public/Private Partnership—Accelerated amortization of CBRA [checked baggage reconciliation area] expansion” Whether the airlines were associated with capital investments and risks at the airport or not, all the surveyed airports reported significant benefits from investments made to accommodate activity growth: • Non-hub airports – “Parking revenue growth to offset TNC loss” – “Investments made to support the activity growth will provide additional capacity and capability to handle additional growth and modernize existing facilities to provide a better passenger experience.” – “Economic impact study shows the airports as major contributors to the number of jobs to the area. The airport is regarded highly by members of the community.” • Small-hub airports – “Non-aero revenue growth” – “New office buildings have been constructed, in which airlines will claim tenancy, due to larger space requirements for future expected demand.” • Medium-hub airports – “The City of Austin is and will enjoy the increased revenue from air travel.” – “Increase in revenue” – “Ability to screen baggage at a rate to keep up with demand” • Large-hub airports – “Increased air service for the region—more domestic directs and more international service to both Europe and Asia” – “Decreased CPE [cost per enplanement] due to increased enplanements.” Environmental Planning and Community Involvement More than half of the surveyed airports (11 out of 18) mentioned that the increased activity at their airport created the need for additional plans and/or programs related to environmental planning and community involvement. A summary of the different categories of environmental planning/community involvement efforts is set forth in Figure 21. No specific trend was observed with respect to a possible cor- relation between the type of effort and the airport size. These requirements were primarily based on the unique context and features of each airport and could be implemented at airports of all sizes and types.

40 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging Note: NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act; EA = environmental assessment; EIS = environmental impact statement. Figure 21. Survey questionnaire: environmental planning effort/community involvement program.