Air Cargo Facility Planning and Development—Final Report (2015)

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.

Page 11-1 CHAPTER 11: TASK 9—VALIDATION PROCESS FOR AIR CARGO FACILITIES PLANNING MODEL AND INSTRUCTIONS CHAPTER OVERVIEW The model validation process was a two prong approach. The first was to provide airport planners for case study airports the opportunity to review the facility planning model and model instructions. In the second, the research team provided a similar opportunity for planners at airports unfamiliar with the study and subject matter to review the model and instructions in order to provide additional perspective. These review processes will assist in industry acceptance of the cargo facilities planning model and instructions. This process allows for additional feedback during the development of the final deliverables to ensure a comprehensive product is prepared to meet the needs of the intended audiences. The research team received responses from 10 airports regarding the Cargo Facilities Planning Model. In all approximately 20 airport planners, real estate managers, and or directors reviewed the model to varying degrees of participation and thoroughness. Overall respondents are very complimentary of the model and two respondents put it to use on existing cargo projects. Table 11-1 below identifies participants in the model and instructions validation and the responses to the data collection. Relevant comments related to the model and instructions were incorporated into the final draft of the model which is included in these report appendices. Below are general comments regarding the model provided by participants: • “Overall this process is helpful in evaluating current use vs need as well as forecasting model for future use”. • “This was a helpful tool and exercise”. • “We used to validate the planning for a new airside freighter facility. It both validated that we were right on track with many/most aspects, but also pointed out that we were proposing too many aircraft parking spaces for the proposed size of the building, thus allowing us to adjust to both maximize the site and save money related to concrete (ramp) Very happy to evaluate. Hopefully a win-win”. • “Model is a good start to help planners focus on cargo facilities. Ratios are helpful planning exercise because they provide averages used across large survey of facilities. Might be helpful to provide ratios for large, medium and small hub airports. This way planners can apply "apples-to- apples" comparisons”. • “I noticed cargo inventory buildings used by transport companies, freight forwarders, brokers not included in the study (model) I also realized many airports have kicked them off the airport. But may be useful to airports pursuing non aeronautical development. Very good tool”. • “After reviewing the Model and its results with airport management, airport management agreed with its conclusions and felt the Model was very timely as they had already engaged a consultant to determine how much more auto and truck parking space they need to pave. They asked if they could share this Model with their consultant to challenge the consultant’s findings”.

Page 11-2 Air Cargo Facility Model: Survey Response Survey participants were asked to complete a survey which provides inputs to measure the clarity of the instructions and ease of use of the air cargo facilities planning model. The survey also allowed for respondents to provide inputs into the usefulness of the model relative to their airport’s cargo facilities planning needs. A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix A. Although the sample size is small general conclusions can be drawn from the responses and from respondent comments. Also, inputs were provided in follow-up face-to-face and teleconference meetings with several of the respondents. Table 11-1 Air Cargo Facility Model Survey Summary. Airport Contact Title Number of Staff Reviewing Finished Review Survey Returned Phone or Face-to- Face Interview Notes: LAN Gary Bartek Director Logistics 1 Yes Yes Yes Provided positive feedback LCK Bryan Schreiber Manager of Business Development 2 Yes Yes Yes CRAA utilized model to determine real world air cargo project under consideration at airport. Found it very useful. SAT Joyce Wiatrek Properties and Business Development Coordinator 1 Yes No No AUS Medici, Joseph Director Planning 1 Yes Yes Yes ANC Teri Lindseth Planner Manager 5 Yes No Yes Very little O&D Traffic in ANC. They had trouble getting local cargo splits by carrier. MCI Mark VanLoh Director 2 Yes Yes Yes DFW Mark Witte Manager, Industrial Development & Leasing 3 Yes Yes Yes Very complimentary of model. Would like to have very specific inputs into the model. IAH Louis Aviles Sr Exec Air Svc Development 2 Yes Yes Yes Provided positive feedback GEG Larry Krautter Director 2 Yes No Yes Asked MP consultant to utilize model for master plan. GTF John Faulkner Director 1 No No No Didn’t have time to respond but was interested SOURCE: CDM Smith

Page 11-3 Table 11-2 Air Cargo Facility Model Survey Response Summary. 1. Inventory Tab Summary Results Question 1 allows for users to evaluate the ease of use of the model’s cargo facility inventory input. The majority of users found the input easy to understand and make the inputs. Comments focused on: 1) needing clarification for subtenant inputs, 2) adding a note on the definition of cargo tenant types, and 3) providing “third party handler” as an additional tenant type. CDM Smith response: We added instructions in the Tenant Names column to add subtenants names along with primary tenants name, we also added example of tenant types to the instructions. Third party handler was added to the model as a choice of cargo tenant. 3. Base Year Tab Results Question 3 allows for users to evaluate the ease of use of the model’s cargo volume - base year tab. The majority of users found the input easy to understand and make the inputs into the model. Comments focused on: 1) highlight that inputs are to be in US Short Tons, 2) inputting the tonnage instead of having the market share % calculate the tonnage. CDM Smith response: We added instructions on the importance in using short ton for the inputs, but chose not to change the market share tonnage calculation. 5. Forecast Volume Tab Results Question 5 allows for users to evaluate the ease of use of the model’s cargo volume forecast tab. The majority of users found the input easy to understand and make the inputs into the model. Comments focused on: 1) most respondents did not have a current cargo forecast to refer to. One made a suggestion to “list FAA Boeing Airbus forecasted growth rates to assist use since too many airport master plans are out of date”. CDM Smith response: While the Annual FAA Aerospace Forecast and Biannual Boeing cargo forecast are often used by airport planners to determine growth rates for air cargo, we recommend airports determine their own air cargo growth rates using a number of sources and methods either through the master planning update process or internal analysis.

Page 11-4 Table 11-2 (continued) Air Cargo Facility Model Survey Response Summary 7. Ratios Matrix Tab Results Question 7 allows for users to evaluate the ease of use of the model’s Ratios Matrix tab. While the majority of users found the input easy or neither easy nor difficult 43% found it difficult to understand and make the inputs into the model. Comments focused on: 1) Some respondents were not sure what this tab is providing and the downstream implications in the model (how it affects facility requirements tab), 2) one respondent thought the ratio tab was hard to understand because of our unfamiliarity with the "proper" cargo planning ratios. This airport stated they simply provide space and the tenants typically accommodate their space needs accordingly. CDM Smith response: Instructions expanded on how the ratios are used in the model and derive the spatial requirements. In our research we did find that some airports have a “take-it-or- leave-it” approach to carriers needing cargo space. This response confirms the practice. 11. Peak Hour Tab Results Question 11 allows for users to evaluate the ease of use of the model’s Peak Hour Aircraft Parking tab. While the majority of users found the input easy or neither easy nor difficult 30% found it difficult to understand and make the inputs into the model. Only one comment was made pointing out the need for an explanation of “worst case aircraft parking scenario” inputs day/time with more aircraft on the ramp. Another comment thought that the Antonov 225 aircraft should be added to the aircraft ARC reference guide. CDM Smith response: We noted in the instructions that the model allows for as many aircraft that a planner wishes to input – to model worst case scenario for peak hour or event demand, such as aircraft “remain overnight” analysis. We added the AN-225 to the reference sheet and increased the s.f. requirement for all D-VI aircraft to 125,000. 13. Reports Tab Results Question 13 allows for users to evaluate the ease of use of the model’s cargo facility reports. The majority of users found the input easy to understand. Comments focused on: 1) adding some space so the table is less crowded. CDM Smith response: We reformatted the report layout a bit. SOURCE: CDM Smith [VAL UE] [VAL UE] [VAL UE] Peak Hour Tab Easy Neither Difficult [VAL UE] [VAL UE] [VAL UE] Reports Tab Easy Neither Difficult

Page 11-5 Air Cargo Facility Planning Model Survey Implementation The following chapter provides instructions for Air Cargo Facility Model users. Comments provided in the surveys for this validation process were taken into consideration and many were implemented in these instructions as well as in the preparation of the final model. SUMMARY The study team developed an Air Cargo Facilities Planning Model to guide airport planners in the process of determining current and future cargo facility requirements. During the development of the model it was tested by professional airport planners at select U.S. Airports. Airport planners at case study airports were given the opportunity to review the facility planning model and model instructions while a similar opportunity was given to planners at airports unfamiliar with the study and subject matter. Participants were asked to complete a survey to provide inputs on instruction clarity as well as ease of use of the model and its usefulness. Overall respondents are very complimentary of the model and two respondents put it to use on existing cargo projects. Relevant comments related to the model and instructions were incorporated into the final draft of the model. The following and final chapter provides the instructions on how to utilize the Air Cargo Facilities Planning Model.