Upload
lelien
View
217
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
George Bush Intercontinental Airport Master Planning Principles of Lasting Results September 8, 2014
2
Agenda
Brief history of planning at IAH
Activity at IAH Today and Forecasted
Master planning principles ― Flexibility in capital plans ― Strategy ― Partnership
Principles in action: planning of a new international terminal
4
IAH in 1978 (before deregulation)
A B
Point-to-point service mandated by regulation;
Two runway airfield;
5 Houston Airport System and United Airlines Master Plan Briefing
Two innovations in the 1960s made Houston cutting edge
Bring the airplanes to the passengers ― Minimized walking distances to planes providing four
concourses at each corner of the terminal; ― Allowed passengers to dwell in terminal area longer,
“eliminating the need for the passenger to travel to the gate before the flight is called”
― Downside: small departure lounges with inadequate space for concessions
Terminal exits in six directions ― Minimized walking distances to cars by allowing
elevators to parking on roof of terminal or going to lower level to take train
― Separated pedestrian and vehicle traffic for “safety, comfort, and convenience”
― Downside: led to 8 curbfronts for just two terminals
Planning in the 1960s
7
IAH in 2014 (United Hub, Latin American Gateway)
A B C D
E
Connecting hub airport;
Five runway airfield;
FIS
10
About Houston
Largest City in Texas Fourth largest city in
the U.S. 2 million people in City
limits 6 million people in
Houston-Galveston region Strong energy-based
economy
IAH
EFD HOU
Introduction
11
The Houston MSA is expected to grow by 3.4 million people (55%) by 2035
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
1990-2011 2011-2016 2016-2021 2021-2026 2026-2035 2011-2035
Com
poun
d an
nual
gro
wth
rate
POPULATION GROWTH RATES
Houston MSA
United States
Sources: Houston MSA: Houston-Galveston Area Council; U.S.: Woods & Poole, Economic and Demographic Projections, 2011.
Forecast Historical
12
IAH enplaned (boarding) passengers are expected to double by 2035
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
4519
9019
9219
9419
9619
9820
0020
0220
0420
0620
0820
1020
1220
1420
1620
1820
2020
2220
2420
2620
2820
3020
3220
34
Enpl
aned
pas
seng
ers (
mill
ions
)
International
Domestic
Compound Annual Growth Rate 2011 - 2035 2.4% 4.9% 3.0%
Compound Annual Growth Rate 1990 - 2011
Domestic 3.4% International 6.7%
Total 4.0%
13
IAH aircraft takeoffs and landings expected to grow to 840,000 by 2035
- 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
1,00019
9019
9219
9419
9619
9820
0020
0220
0420
0620
0820
1020
1220
1420
1620
1820
2020
2220
2420
2620
2820
3020
3220
34
Airc
raft
ope
ratio
ns (t
hous
ands
)
Air carrier Air taxi General aviation and military
Compound Annual Growth Rate 2011 - 2035 2.1% 1.7% 1.9%
Compound Annual Growth Rate 1990 - 2011
Air carrier 1.7% Air taxi 7.0%
Total 2.5%
15
Plan for the market – not the airline ― Reflect the values of City of Houston ― Address rapid growth in international activity ― Address the continued growth of the domestic spoke airlines (e.g. Spirit, Delta, American)
Start with the end in mind ― Inform near-term planning decisions ― Develop a financial framework to get you there
Don’t neglect the near-term ― Address current issues to keep the airport in business ― Provide incremental improvement
Strategy – how we mirror our strategic plan in our facility planning exercises
16
Terminal planning ― Provide clear spans wherever practical ― Plan for common use ― Invest in planning and design to provide for change (flexible apron layout)
Airfield planning ― Start with the ultimate layout of site and work backwards ― Consider the incremental cost of providing for one standard beyond what may be required
(e.g. plan for ADG V aircraft rather than ADV IV in your near-term fleet)
Revisit the CIP often ― Revise the priorities on a yearly basis to accommodate changes in the market ― Prune projects that no longer appear justified ― Advance projects that generate revenues ― Defer projects that appear to have merit but are not yet ripe for implementation ― Maintain what you have, don’t defer maintenance to the point of detrimentally affecting a
healthy operation
Flexibility – how we ensure the plan can adapt to future unforeseen changes
17
Partnership — airport management and airlines must act as a team
No major capital improvements will be forced upon the airlines
The cost structure will be fair to all airlines serving the market
The balance sheet for Houston Airport System must remain strong
Three core principles guided our partnership with our airlines:
Throughout the airline consultation disagreement on the details would require falling back to agreed-upon principles
With endgame in mind, the parties were able to work through more minor disagreements
Fair cost structure was defined through benchmarking
“we might not like the leveraging of PFCs for that particular project, but in the end, if the rates and charges are reasonable…we can live with it.”
19
What is driving new international terminal development
Growing international service in the last two years ― Air China ― Interjet (Oct 2014) ― Korean Air ― SAS ― Turkish Airlines ― Lufthansa (upgrade to A380 Aug 12) ― Emirates (upgrade to A380 Dec 14)
Functional deficiencies ― Failing building systems ― Increasing O&M expenses ― Insufficient airline club space ― Inefficient use of space ― Gate reconfiguration to accommodate
the A380
20
Refresh, circa 2010 ― Aesthetic improvements to existing Terminal D ― $429M in 2013 USD ― 13 narrowbody equivalent gates (NBEq*) ― No new capacity relative to existing facility
Renovate, mid-2012 ― Rehabilitate existing building, add single pier ― $710M in 2013 USD ― 789k square feet – 4 stories (existing building ~480k sf) ― Meets code, adds club and concession space ― 20 NBEq; net addition of 7 new NBEq
Rebuild, late 2012 ― Rebuild entire building, add single pier ― $713M in 2013 USD ― 715k square feet – 3 stories ― 20 NBEq; net addition of 7 new NBEq ― Meets code, adds club and concession space ― Adds additional roadway lane and curb and ticket hall depth
Concepts considered prior to master planning process
* NBEq aircraft: 739 with winglets
21
Focused only on the needs of foreign flag airlines ― Financial risk to HAS unacceptably high ― High cost structure for airlines using the building ― Insufficient building utilization throughout the day
Provided insufficient capacity enhancement at great cost ― Inability to accommodate the hub carrier United
and their need for additional international gates ― Inability to accommodate new entrant airlines
Failed to address related facilities ― Expansion of the FIS ― Baggage handling system capacity ― Terminal roadway and curbfront congestion ― Utility Infrastructure Problems
The previous terminal concepts were rejected
Inconsistent with our strategic plan for balance capacity
Would not increase flexibility
Lacked partnership with multiple airlines
22
We identified goals that we share with our airline partners
HAS Perspective Airline Perspective
Growing international passenger demand
Seeks to accommodate new entrant demand and provide excellent customer experience
Seeks to capture increasing share of profitable international market segment
Operational efficiency Seeks low-cost, flexible improvements
Seeks efficient airfield and terminal operations for profitability and operational flexibility
Aging legacy infrastructure
Seeks to bring infrastructure to reasonable condition and minimize operational disruptions
Seeks competitive cost structure for required investments; required new international capable gates
Passenger experience
Seeks to reduce terminal curb and road congestion and provide excellent in-terminal customer experience
Seeks modern facilities, comparable to other terminals, at reasonable cost
23
Mickey Leland International Terminal (MLIT)
Source: Mickey Leland International Terminal Program Definition Manual, HNTB, June 30, 2014.
24
Addressed both United Airlines’ and the foreign flag airlines need for additional international arrival gates in the near-term
Common use facility would be most efficient use of capital
Financial risk shared by United Airlines and the foreign flag airlines lower unit the costs given greater use of the building throughout the day
No second FIS would be required (a second FIS was required for the East Terminal and/or United’s proposed expansion of Terminal B)
Minimum connect times would remain same as in today’s terminal configuration
Minimal environmental impacts as the site is already in use
MLIT advantages over previously considered concepts
25
Flexibility ― Open spans allow for the evolution of the ticketing lobby, security checkpoint, and
departure lounges ― Aircraft parking positions provide for the spectrum of fleet: A380s, widebody, narrowbody
and regional jets
Strategic approach ― Common use facility designed with the market demand, in mind, as opposed to the
individual airlines ― Account for continued airline consolidation and airline alliances (e.g. alliance clubs) ― Provides capacity enhancement and greater operational efficiency
Partnership driven ― Reasonable capital investment which will provide certainty with regard to airline cost
structure ― Plan enjoys consensus of airlines ― Financial risk spread among all airlines and the City of Houston
MLIT – How will the plan “stand the test of time”