Airport Strategic Planning PowerPoint Presentation

Slide 1 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Airport Strategic Planning Dr. Richard de Neufville Professor of Engineering Systems and Civil and Environmental Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Slide 2 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  The Vision The Context The Problem Fixed Master Plan Management Commitment to Plan Inflexibility ; Losses The Solution: Dynamic Strategic Planning Recognition of Risk as Reality of Planning Analysis of Situation Flexible, Dynamic Planning Outline

Slide 3 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  A significantly improved approach to Airport Systems Planning that realistically accounts for rapid changes in the economy airline routes and alliances airport competitors (regional and local) and technology The Vision

Slide 4 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  The Traditional Approach is a Master Plan e.g.: US Federal Aviation Advisory Circular 150/5070-6A Or: ICAO Airport Planning Manual, Part 1, Master Planning The development of a Master Plan involves Defining the Forecast (pick one) Examining Alternatives ways of development for THAT FORECAST Selecting a SINGLE SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT with no examination of alternative scenarios The Context

Slide 5 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  The Master Plan does not anticipate RISK of possible changes in market conditions, that is, of “trend-breakers” thus does not provide insurance against those real risks, is inflexible, and inherently unresponsive to the risks. Management furthermore may commit to plan concept (if not timing…) leading to resistance to change when it is needed The consequences are losses or extra costs ; losses of opportunities The Problem

Slide 6 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  New Denver Management could not reduce initial size... Even when airlines not committed => unnecessary passenger building No back-up for failure of new technology (Bag System) Dallas / Fort Worth Gate Arrival Master Plan: No Provision for Transfer passengers, and huge unnecessary costs No provision for failure of technological leap (AirTrans) Examples of the Problem

Slide 7 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Forecast versus Actual Operations after 5 years

Slide 8 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Forecast versus Actual Operations after 10 years

Slide 9 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Forecast versus Actual Projects after 5 years

Slide 10 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Forecast versus Actual Operations after 15 years

Slide 11 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Forecast Unreliability Increases for Longer Planning Horizon

Slide 12 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Forecast versus Actual Projects after 10 years

Slide 13 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Forecast versus Actual Projects after 15 years

Slide 14 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Dynamic Strategic Planning 3 Phases Recognition of Risk as Reality of Planning Analysis of Situation Flexible, Dynamic Planning -- designed to track real developments in air transport industry Compatible with Master Planning but Examine plans under various forecasts Analyze variety of development patterns, sequences Reallocate analytic effort from in depth examination of an unlikely future to many quick reviews likely to include actuality Outline of Solution

Slide 15 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Recognizes Risk looks ahead at opportunities and threats of many scenarios accepts that future levels and types of traffic cannot be known Examines Complex Possible Developments “Pure” plans PLUS combinations of these: “HYBRID” solutions Chooses Flexibility Plans responsive to market, industry conditions These are necessarily “HYBRID” Commits only one period at a time Process of Dynamic Strategic Planning

Slide 16 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  DYNAMIC STRATEGIC PLANNING IS LIKE PLAYING CHESS AS A GRAND MASTER -- YOU LOOK AHEAD MANY MOVES BUT ONLY DECIDE ONE MOVE AT A TIME. DYNAMIC STRATEGIC PLANNING COMPARES TO MASTER PLANNING AS GRAND MASTER CHESS COMPARES TO BEGINNER PLAY. Chess Analogy

Slide 17 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Risk: Wide Range of Futures The Forecast is “always wrong” Extrapolations of past cannot anticipate the surprises that always occur somewhere Many extrapolations are possible for any historical record Complexity: Wide Range of Choices Number of Choices is Enormous “Pure” solutions only 1 or 2% of possibilities Most possibilities are “hybrid”, that combine elements of “pure” solutions “Hybrid” choices provide most flexibility Phase 1: Recognition of Risk and Complexity

Slide 18 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Combine “Pure” Concepts New York/LaGuardia: “Finger Piers” and “Gate Arrival” Paris/de Gaulle: Gate Arrivals. Transporters, Finger, and soon satellite buildings Chicago/O’Hare (United): “Gate Arrival” and “Midfield” Are Inevitable -- The “Pure” concepts become inadequate for actual conditions Dallas/Fort Worth: “Gate Arrival” => “Midfield” (Delta) + Central (American) Washington/Dulles: “Transporters” => + “Gate Arrival” => “Midfield” Hybrid Designs

Slide 19 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) Identifying Risks Decision Analysis of Possibilities Identification of Initial Phase and Potential Different Responses to Actual Events Phase 2: Analysis

Slide 20 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  The Choice Any Choice is a PORTFOLIO OF RISK Choices differ in their Likely benefits Performance over a range of futures The Plan Buys Insurance -- by building in flexibility Balances Level of Insurance to Nature of Risk Commits only to immediate first stage decisions Maintains Understanding of Need for Flexibility Phase 3: Dynamic Strategic Planning

Slide 21 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Permit good Performance for range of futures Achieve Overall Best Performance by Building in Flexibility to adjust plan to actual situation is later periods -- this costs money Sacrificing Maximum Performance under some circumstances “Buy Insurance” in the form of flexibility; capacity to adjust easily to future situations Commit only to Immediate Period Decisions later in should depend on then actual situation The Best Choices

Slide 22 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Master Plan Completed in 1994 Obsolete “Accepted” but recognized as Overtaken by Changes in Airline Industry Insensitive to realities of Access Constraints Strategic Plan Started in 1995 Focus on Key Decision points Which are major “forks in road” that shape future State decisions on highways, rail access Arrangements with major Airline “Families” Focus on Providing for Alternative Futures Space for New Megacarriers, Spine access system Strategic Planning for Miami

Slide 23 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Hybrid Design: Gate Arrival that permits Transporters as Needed Anticipation of Future Room for Expansion Provisions for Rail Access Investment according to need Easy to Change Design (as done) Example of Flexible Plans: Paris/de Gaulle (Air France)

Slide 24 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Hybrid Strategy: Maintain and Enhance Principal Airport Acquire Major Site Anticipation of Future New Site is Insurance against Need Cost small compared to Major Construction Investment According to Need Future Plans Easily Tailored to industry Structure, Traffic Levels Example of Flexible Plans: Sydney Second Airport

Slide 25 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Pure Design: Multi-Airline Super-Hub But United Dominates Phase-out of Continental Massive Immediate Commitment Could not adjust to actual traffic Disadvantages of High Costs per Passenger Reliance on Untested Technology Failure of High-tech baggage system No effective fall-back position Example of Inflexible Plans: New Denver

Slide 26 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Pure Design: Unit Terminals, Satellites Unsuited for actual Transfer, International Traffic Use of 1950’s Terminal Premature Investments Terminal C Boarded up, unopened for decade Major changes required Example of Inflexible Plans: New York / Newark

Slide 27 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Evaluate Situation Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats Risks Analyze Possibilities Major Attention to “Hybrid” Options Match Physical Facilities to Industry Structure Current Major Clients Possible Future Clients Dynamic Strategic Plan Define Initial Commitment How Plan Can Develop to Meet Range of Possible Future Market Conditions Recommendation

Slide 28 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Transportation Research Board Session 513 - Lessons Learned from Large Airport Development “Orlando Airport Experience” The following slides are excerpted from presentation made by Rob Blancheau at TRB in Jan 2007 and supplied for class use. Full talk is posted on website.

Slide 29 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Airport Statistics and Background Capital Improvement Plan Lessons Learned Planning & Design Land Use Other Agenda

Slide 30 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Actual passenger traffic compared to forecast 2000-2014 Source: Actual-GOAA records, Forecast-Leigh Fisher Associates, John F. Brown Company. Contact: GOAA Marketing 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 38.0 40.0 Million Annual Passengers (MAP) Actual Traffic Actual +3.5% 2002 Master Plan 2002 Bond Issue (High) 2002 Bond Issue 2002 Bond +3.0% 2002 Bond Issue (Low) Actual +3.5% 34.6 34.8 36.1 37.3 38.6 40.0 2002 Master Plan 30.0 26.0 29.3 30.7 32.0 33.3 34.5 35.7 37.0 38.3 39.6 41.0 42.2 43.5 2002 Bond Issue (High) 30.3 29.9 26.5 30.0 31.3 32.7 34.2 35.6 37.0 38.5 40.0 2002 Bond Issue 30.3 29.9 25.6 28.6 29.7 30.8 31.7 32.7 33.7 34.8 35.8 2002 Bond +3.0% 35.8 36.9 38.0 39.1 40.3 2002 Bond Issue (Low) 30.3 29.9 24.4 26.8 27.5 28.1 28.8 29.4 30.0 30.6 31.2 1,538,000 above Master Plan Forecast

Slide 31 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  FLEXIBILITY! Landside/Airside vs. Unit Terminal Concepts Evolution of the Airside Building Capacity Analysis Emerging Trends Lessons Learned Planning and Design

Slide 32 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  1. FLEXIBILITY! Land Overbuild when economically possible Three Level Terminal Ability to add additional curb Size of airsides have evolved Security Simple buildings targeted to be experienced from interior. Exterior enhanced with landscaping. Lessons Learned Planning and Design

Slide 33 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  One more reason to remain flexible!

Slide 34 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Hurricane Charley – August 13, 2004 7:30 PM

Slide 35 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 

Slide 36 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  2. Landside/Airside vs. Unit Terminal Concepts Landside/airside with APM’s used at MCO to place airsides in stable soil locations, minimize walking distance and to serve domestic O&D traffic Double Bag Handling & Security Screening South Terminal will offer hybrid concept with unit terminal and landside/airside elements Terminal A vs. Terminal B Lessons Learned Planning and Design

Slide 37 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 

Slide 38 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Double Bag Handling Airside 4 FIS Opened in 1990 1,500 Pax per/hr Modified once since 1990

Slide 39 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Proposed South Terminal 120 Gates (ultimate) 48 Contact Gates 72 Gates by APM

Slide 40 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 

Slide 41 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  The Usual Error Polarized concepts, simple ideas “Pure” choices narrowly defined on a continuous path Examples of polarized concepts Dallas/Fort Worth -- “Gate Arrival” Concept Denver -- “Multi-Airline Super-Hub” Correct View: “Hybrid” plans that Combine concepts. These cater to different tendencies, thus allow the greatest flexibility and adjust easily to variety of possible industry futures Complexity of Choices

Slide 42 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Competition International Airports: Atlanta, Orlando... Regional Airports: Hollywood/Ft. Lauderdale… Dependence on Major Client with Alternatives Great financial demands -- US$ 3 Billion Long-term commitment ? Change in Airline Industry Structure Shifting Airline Alliances New Airlines (JetBlue, etc) Identifying Risks

Slide 43 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Miami example: At time of planning Positive: Strengths Strong Traffic, Major Transfer Hub Profitable Negative: Weaknesses Volatile Traffic, Dominant Client (American AL) Old Facilities, Limited Site Future Positive: Opportunities Growth of South American Economies Negative: Threats Competitive airports; Fickleness of Major Client Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, & Threats

Slide 44 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Simple way of defining wide range of possible developments Over several periods Including Risks Standard Method Expected Results: NOT a Simple Plan: Do A in Period 1, B in Period 2, ... A DYNAMIC PLAN: Do A in Period 1, BUT in Period 2 If Growth, do B If Stagnation, do C If Loss, do D Decision Analysis of Possibilities

Slide 45 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Risk: Wide Range of Futures The Forecast is “always wrong” Extrapolations of past cannot anticipate the surprises that always occur somewhere Many extrapolations are possible for any historical record Complexity: Wide Range of Choices Number of Choices is Enormous “Pure” solutions only 1 or 2% of possibilities Most possibilities are “hybrid”, that combine elements of “pure” solutions “Hybrid” choices provide most flexibility Phase 1: Recognition of Risk and Complexity

Slide 46 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  Reason 1: Surprises Past trends always interrupted by surprises Major political, economic changes New airline alliances or plans Economic Booms or Recessions Reason 2: Ambiguity Many extrapolations possible from any historical data Many of these extrapolations are “good” to the extent that they satisfy usual statistical tests Yet these extrapolations will give quite different forecasts! Example: Miami Master Plan Forecasts Forecast “Always Wrong”

Slide 47 -

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN  “RELYING ON FORECASTS IS LIKE STEERING A CAR BY LOOKING IN THE REAR VIEW MIRROR... SATISFACTORY FOR A VERY SHORT TIME, SO LONG AS TRENDS CONTINUE, BUT ONE SOON RUNS OFF THE ROAD.” Rear View Mirror Analogy