Site Admin

Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 949
Location: Carmel, IN

Doesn't mention IND, but interesting nonetheless. May be some lessons for IND in all of this...

Airports gamble on fancy - and costly - terminals By Dan Reed, USA TODAY
Mon Jul 18, 7:25 AM ET



When it opens Saturday, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport's massive new international Terminal D will be one of the grandest airport terminals anywhere.


Built for $1.4 billion, the 28-gate terminal includes a high-end hotel and an array of features designed to move passengers with comfortable efficiency.


But for all of its glitz and amenities, long-term success is by no means assured. The facility is just the latest in a series of big, flashy terminals opening at major airports across the USA. The airports that have been building them stand to gain from an explosion in the number of air travelers projected during the next 25 years.

...read the rest at: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ambleonfancyandcostlyterminals

Site Admin

Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 2316
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Excellent story. It was interesting noting the per passenger costs at airports like SEA and DFW. The projection for IND after the new airport opens is supposed to be in the area of $10.50 per passenger. That is fairly close to what DFW is going to be and 33% less than what SEA will be. Plus IND will be blessed with extremely short taxi times which may make it more appealing as well. With middle of the pack per passenger fees (or better), low taxi times, and low delays IND should be attractive to other airlines and continue to grow as other airports become bogged down with billion dollar expansion projects and mounting delays and long taxi times. BTW I think the $10.50 per passenger is the estimate based on the new lease. Wouldn't that carry them to 2020 when further expansion is planned?

Member

Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 333
Location: St. Louis, MO

$10.50 per passenger?

even if that is three years from now that cost is largely insane for an airport the size of Indianapolis.

the costs to and from St. Louis are roughly $10 this year this and $11 next year and has caused a dramatic increase of airfares and a decline of air service.

i hope IND officials take note of this and keep their costs in line, or else have a pretty strong sense as to what they are doing.

the lower landing rates will make a difference...slightly.

by comparison...

costs to board a passenger at Kansas City $3.64 per person and isn't going to reach $4 until 2008. landing rates are $1.20 per 1,000 pounds of weight.

at Las Vegas, cost to board a passenger is roughly $5 and is expected to stay under $6 through 2009. landing rates are $1.22 per 1,000 pounds of weight.

costs to board a passenger at Pittsburgh are roughly just over $6.50 per person. landing rates are in the $2.40 range per 1,000 pounds of weight landed. Pittsburgh projects a 3-5% cost increase per year for the next 15 years because of the US Airways service declination.

Site Admin

Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 949
Location: Carmel, IN

I don't know about STL, but in KC the airport is like 30 years old or something. Probably not much in the way of bonds to pay on. But KC is also about a third empty - raising their rates isn't the best way to fill up an underutilized resource.

At Vegas, (which is not a showpiece airport by any stretch) I believe the facility is subsidized by the LVCVB, which gets a ton of money from the hotel/casinos, etc. When you've got the kind of pax volume that Vegas has, you can keep rates low.

Pittsburgh, I believe, was paid for by the city or county, with the obligatory grants from the state, etc. When they built the new terminal, it was all the rage to do everything to get a hub operation at your airport. Similar story to CVG, I believe. Competition was fierce, and the PIT terminal was built with city money so that the airlines didn't have to fund the bond payments with high fees. This is the exact opposite of IND. No, the city and state are going to spend $1 billion on a new stadium and convention center instead.

Member

Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 333
Location: St. Louis, MO

St. Louis is an old airport. The costs there are related to the elimination of the hub and the W-1W Project that was built for...the hub. Costs have gone up in St. Louis and for the most part, Southwest has axed half of its 2000 (122 flight a day schedule). Since most of the cities it served from STL were also served from MCI, that is part of the reason why there has been such a dramatic increase at MCI in the Southwest presence over the past few years. This is also why IND service west skips STL and now goes to MCI instead.

Vegas, of course, will receive a ton of a benefits from the tourism traffic. That's just the way it is going to be. The airport isn't a showpiece, I agree, but it's not too shabby, either. I remember going into the baggage claim area my first time arriving there. WOW! All and all, I found the airport efficient to use and commend them for doing such a good job at keeping it pretty user friendly while experience a tremendous growth boom over the last 15 years.

Cincinnati is quite a unique character all on its own. It's one of the true post de regulation hub establishments. The design in the airport for a hub operation is almost near flawless, especially for coming in four different phases.

Site Admin

Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 949
Location: Carmel, IN

Interesting story about the Vegas airport. In 2002, I was on a consulting trip in China. My return trip took me to Singapore, and from there I flew to Vegas with a short stop in Hong Kong. That's right, Singapore Airlines flew a direct route from Singapore to Las Vegas. I'd flown from Beijing to Singapore in the morning, then left for Vegas in the evening. So I had been flying for nearly 24 hours already when I finally arrived in Vegas. It was like 11:00 at night - and it was still nearly 100 degrees outside. The international terminal is (or was at the time) seldom used. I think I found out later that this was the only international flight direct to Vegas that wasn't from Canada or Mexico at the time. The international terminal has boarding bridges, but when we landed, it was more like a train station inside and very plain and old. Totally deserted at that time of night, I was 2nd off the plane and first to get luggage. I followed the signs to the customs desks, which were in a cavernous room with no furniture, and I had to wait for the customs agents to show up. I cleared customs in a flash and was into a big lobby area with no one around. I finally figured out where I was supposed to go - I had to walk about 300 yards in 100 degree heat, carrying my luggage from the past 3 weeks to the domestic terminal. I had to recheck my bags at regular ticket desk and clear security (which took FOREVER) to catch my Delta redeye to CVG. It was a very odd experience in that there wasn't a welcoming facility that served as the international terminal. It was very makeshift, which is how I imagine international passengers feel when they arrive at IND. This was my first time in Vegas, and it didn't leave a good impression. Although I have to admit that most people flying Singapore to Vegas weren't transiting through to Cincinnati - so there was plenty for them to be impressed by after they left the airport.

Site Admin

Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 949
Location: Carmel, IN

stlgph wrote:

Cincinnati is quite a unique character all on its own. It's one of the true post de regulation hub establishments. The design in the airport for a hub operation is almost near flawless, especially for coming in four different phases.

I agree with you on CVG. I used to fly DL all the time, and I really fell in love with CVG when Comair started flying the RJs - before everyone else did. I thought the Comair terminal was great and really easy to connect through. Now, it's a little worn and rather crowded, but still convenient.

I think in addition to CVG, two other airports that are great designs for hub operations are ATL and PIT. Lots of people groan at the thought of connecting via ATL. But you have to admit, for an airport that massive, handling that many passengers, it's a really efficient design (think of a comparison to ORD or DFW). All those parallel terminal buildings allow gates on both sides and the ends. The central connecting train is a fast, easy way to move between terminals. The only thing that could make transiting through ATL easier would be to have two trains evenly spaced, dividing the terminals into thirds. Or even to leave the central train and add trains at the ends as well. This would keep you from having to hike from the end of one terminal building, to the train, and then to the end of another terminal.

But I think PIT is one of the better designs for a medium-large hub airport. The giant X gets the benefits of parallel terminal buildings, allowing gates on both sides of the building. But it's a little easier than ATL to connect from one terminal to the other by walking to the center of the X. And PIT was the first major airport to really embrace retail in a big way with the Skymall, which was also the first airport retail center to promise the same kind of pricing as the regular shopping malls. I used to love connecting at PIT, both for the speed with which I could reach my next gate and for the diversions available at the airport. I haven't flown through there for years, so I don't know what it's like now, but I imagine it's pretty depressing with the US dehubbing.

I'd have to say that of all the US hub airports, my top three in terms of the entire airport would be DEN, CVG, and PIT, not necessarily in that order. Of all the US hubs, my favorite terminals would be the new NW terminal at DTW, the newest CO terminal at IAH, and the Comair terminal at CVG.