Revised as of 4/21/2014-changes to slides 7, 15, 43, and 64 
Sea-Tac Airport Capital Program 
Overview / Plan of Finance 
International Arrivals Facility 
NorthSTAR

Purpose and Desired Outcomes 
Primarily, a background briefing in
anticipation of future requests for
authorization 
International Arrivals Facility (IAF) 
NorthSTAR 
Other 
Concurrence re addition of gates at North
Satellite (NorthSTAR) 
2

CAPITAL PROGRAM
OVERVIEW AND
PLAN OF FINANCE 
3

Drivers and Other Planning Factors
of Major Capital Projects 
Principal driver: Adequate
capacity 
Must also balance: 
Rate/confidence in demand grow 
Peak facility use 
How offset capital needs with
operational changes or technology 
Sustainability project elements 
"Lumpy" investments vs. long life 
Risk of over- or under-building 
Cost impacts on customers 
Financing capacity 
IAF and NorthSTAR are classic
examples of balancing act 
4

Drivers of Sea-Tac's Capital Program 
Sea-Tac is in an enviable  and challenging  
position of needing to add capacity to meet
needs of growing economy and increasing air
travel demand 
Major focus on building "just in time" or, at
least, not late 
Initial capital costs will drive growth in cost
per enplanement (CPE), debt/enplanement 
These metrics will come down as airlines more
intensely use facilities 
5

Sea-Tac Growing Faster than Most
Airports 
2013 passenger enplanements indexed to 2001 activity
U.S. large hub airports (>= 60% O&D enplanements)
(2001 = 100)
Enpl
Airport Name                Code   O&D   Index
John F Kennedy Int'l             JFK    72%    155
Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Int'l      FLL    90%    137
Ronald Reagan Washington National  DCA   76%    133
San Francisco Int'l               SFO    72%    120
Seattle-Tacoma Int'l           SEA   69%    118
Orlando Int'l                    MCO    87%     116
Baltimore/Washington Int'l         BWI    67%    116
Mc Carran Int'l                  LAS    77%    114
San Diego Intl                 SAN    88%    113
Logan Int'l                     BOS    87%     112
La Guardia                  LGA   88%    107
Newark Liberty Int'l              EWR    69%     103
Tampa Int'l                   TPA    86%    101
Los Angeles Int'l                LAX    69%    101
Honolulu Int'l                    HNL    75%      94
O&D: percentage of domestic passenger enplanements that begin trip at airport. 
Sources: FAA; USDOT OD1A database                                        6

Role of Sea-Tac in 21st century vs.
Midwest airports, post-1978 


Former connecting hubs 
Current connecting hubs - Intermountain West 
Current connecting hubs
O&D city; Asian gateway 
7

Drivers of Major Capacity Projects 



8

Capital Program 
Delivery Track Record: 1998-2008 
Overall Performance 
Without Third      Third Runway
Runway Program        Program
1999 Baseline Budget              $1,628,896,700      $773,362,000
Additions (Reductions)               (45,127,778)       355,248,430
Final Baseline Budget              $1,583,768,922     $1,128,610,430
Actuals at Completion              $1,546,113,165      $974,337,572
Overall Under-run Phase 1             $37,655,757      $154,272,858
1999  2008 capital program completed under budget 
After US ACOE and WA DOE finalized permit requirements, Third Runway was
completed on-time and under budget 

9

2014-2023 Capital Program 
Figures in $000s
Projects               2014-18  2019-23 2014-23 Total
NorthSTAR *           367,588   90,677     458,265
International Arrivals Facility    315,903    27,969       343,872
Checked Baggage Optimization  187,000  127,688      314,688
Runway 16C/34C         99,224     0      99,224
Four Major Projects       969,715   246,334     1,216,048
Aero Allowance           98,000  421,316     519,316
Non-Aero Allowance        50,000  112,089     162,089
Other Projects             459,668   70,493      530,161
Total - Current            1,577,383   850,232     2,427,615
Total - Oct 1, 2013         1,531,260   853,126     2,384,386
Change since Plan of Finance    46,123   (2,894)      43,229
* NorthSTAR budget includes possible NSAT gate additions. 
10

2014-2023 Capital Program: 
Sample of Other Projects 
Figures in $000s                  2014-18    2019-23    2014-23 Total 
Aircraft RON Parking               38,082                 38,082 
Noise Program                 35,273                35,273 
Emergency Backup Power          30,119               30,119 
Service Tunnel Renovation           23,404     4,137        27,541 
Vertical Conveyance              21,351                21,351 
Modernization 
GSE Electrical Charging Stations        17,352                  17,352 
Cargo 6 Enhancements             6,006                6,006 
Wireless Coverage - Ramps           2,890                 2,890 
Concourse D Roof Replacement        3,227                3,227 
Other Projects (115)               281,964     66,356        348,320 
Total                           459,668     70,493         530,161 

11

Funding Strategy: Another
Balancing Act 
Maximize use of grants and PFCs to minimize rate base
costs to airlines 
Maintain minimum cash balance of 10 months O&M
(approximately $200 million) 
Maintain minimum debt service coverage of 1.25x 
Grow non-aero revenue and net income to reduce
amount of required debt 
Issue debt only as needed; vast majority of debt service
paid by airline rates and charges 
Maintain focus on key metrics vs. peer airports 
Cost per enplaned passenger (CPE) 
Debt/enplaned passenger 
12

Plan of Finance 
Figures in $000s
Plan of Finance - October 2013            Current
Funding Source      2014-18  2019-23  Total ($) Total (%)   Total ($) Total (%)
Existing Bonds          24,189       0    24,189      1%     30,224      1%
CFC           4,332     0   4,332    0%    1,976    0%
PFC           86,329   38,669  124,998    5%   197,385    8%
Grants              169,051    13,036   182,087      8%     212,979      9%
Tax levy - HSD Noise     3,549     1,708     5,257      0%     10,998      0%
Future Bonds        1,054,298   557,988  1,612,286     68%   1,592,832     66%
ADF         189,512  241,725  431,237   18%   381,221   16%
Total           1,531,260   853,126 2,384,386    100%  2,427,615    100%
ADF (cash) derived from net income  principally non-
airline sources 
13

Project Costs Recovered by Users of
Specific Facilities 
Project funding sources drive costs to various cost
centers/rate bases -- paid by users of that cost
center. For example: 
Runway 16C: Airline landing fee 
Baggage Optimization: Airline baggage system
rates 
NorthSTAR: Increases costs of terminal 
Shared 77% airlines / 23% concessions 
Airline share spread among all airlines  principally in
gate cost center 
IAF: FIS rate base, paid by international carriers 
14

Runway 16C 
Figures in $000s Figures in $000's
Funding Source  2014-18 2019-23 Total ($) Total (%) Rate Base (%)
AIP         26,180     0   26,180    26%    0%
Future Bonds      73,044      0   73,044     74%    100%
Total         99,224      0   99,224   100%
Airlines pay all non-grant-funded costs in
landing fees. 


15

Baggage Optimization 
Figures in $000s
Funding Source  2014-18 2019-23 Total ($) Total (%) Rate Base (%)
TSA Grant      89,100   4,100   93,200    30%     0%
Future Bonds      97,900  123,588  221,488    70%    100%
Total        187,000 127,688  314,688   100%
TSA has committed $93 million in grants 
Airlines pay all non-grant-funded costs via Bag
Claim, Bag Makeup and FIS rates. 

16

NorthSTAR 
Figures in $000s
Funding Source 2014-18 2019-23 Total ($) Total (%) Rate Base (%)
ADF       1,788    0  1,788   0%   100%
PFC          0  5,303   5,303    1%    0%
Future Bonds    365,800   85,374  451,174     98%    100%
Total        367,588  90,677  458,265   100%
Costs included in Terminal cost center 
23% of terminal costs allocated to concessions 
77% paid by all airlines, primarily in gates and
bag make-up cost centers 
AAG will pay only its pro rata share of airline
costs 
17

International Arrivals Facility 
Figures in $000s
Funding Source   2014-18 2019-23 Total ($) Total (%) Rate Base (%)
ADF        63,571  5,034  68,605   20%   100%
PFC         126,642   9,330  135,972   40%   0%
Future Bonds       125,690   13,605   139,295     41%     0% *
Total          315,903  27,969  343,872   100%
* Assumes revenue bond debt service paid by PFCs
Acronyms: IAF = International Arrivals Facility; FIS = Federal
Inspection Services (facility) 
All IAF costs roll into FIS cost center  paid by users of facility
(international flights) 
Using Plan of Finance to keep FIS fees competitive with other airports 
May use portion of AIP entitlement grants when available 

18

Passenger Facility Charge Use 
SLOA III established FIS/IAF as separate cost center 
Port clear in negotiations of plans to use financing
strategy to ensure FIS airline fee remained
competitive 
Since 1992, Sea-Tac spent $972 million in PFCs to
fund capital program and debt service 
57% spent on airfield; 43% on terminal projects 
None spent on international facilities (i.e., FIS) 
With projected allocation to IAF, 1990-2023 PFC use
to support international service will be ~11% 

19

Comparative FIS Rates 
Airport     2013-2014                   Comments 
Denver          $6.65  Not cost recovery. Increase 2 -3% per year. 
Portland          $6.00  Rate based on the number of passengers. 
San Francisco      $8.96  Average cost per passenger derived from international facility
joint use fee. 
Los Angeles       $9.50  Signatory rate 
Vancouver       $12.42  FIS fee derived from terminal fee as well as a per aircraft turn
fee for international flights. 
Sea-Tac 
2014           $5.76  Signatory rate, full cost recovery 
2019          $11.00  With planned use of PFCs 
2019          $25.00  Without use of PFCs 


20

Passenger Facility Charge Use 
Figures in $000s
PFC USES                2014    2015    2016    2017    2018    2019
PFC Backed Bonds Debt Service 
Third Runway, Conc A, STS        18,770    18,770        18,767        18,915        20,129        20,128 
Revenue Bond Debt Service
Third Runway              20,794        25,099        25,901        28,240        28,240        28,430 
Conc A & STS                 9,595    4,781    3,675    1,336    1,337    3,927
Baggage systems (prior projects)     3,095     3,920     4,224     4,224     4,223     4,223
IAF                                                           11,405 
NorthSTAR - - 
Total                      33,485         33,800         33,800         33,800         33,800         47,985 
TOTAL USED FOR DEBT SERVICE    52,255        52,570        52,567        52,715        53,929        68,114 
Pay-Go Funding
Noise                     922        926       2,770    - 1,491 - 
Baggage System (prior costs)       5,000     5,000     5,000     5,000     5,000     5,000
IAF                             50,850        47,235        14,924        13,633 - 
NorthSTAR                                                 2,568
Total pay-go                  5,922    56,776         55,005         19,924         20,124         7,568
TOTAL USES               58,176       109,346   107,572   72,639        74,053        75,682 
21

Cost per Enplanement (CPE) Impact 
Cost Per Enplanement (CPE)
$18.00

$16.00

$14.00

$12.00

$10.00

$8.00
CPE Growth Rate (2012-2022)
Nominal $   2.6%
$6.00                                              Constant $  0.6%
(1999 base year)

$4.00
1999  2001  2003  2005  2007  2009  2011  2013  2015  2017  2019  2021  2023
Cost Per Enplanement (CPE)          Inflation Adjusted CPE (1999 base year)
22

CPE Comparison - Current 
2012 CPE For 22 Peer Airports
$30.00

$25.00

$20.00

$15.00
26.75
25.55 24.94

$10.00
19.40
17.25
15.74
14.58 14.28
13.45 13.23 13.14 12.70
11.90
$5.00                                              10.80 10.15 10.13 9.54
8.10
6.54  6.50
5.64
4.13
$0.00
JFK EWR IAD MIA LGA SMF SFO BOS LAX SEA ORD SJC DEN PDX PHL IAH DTW SAN DFW MSP PHX SLC   23

CPE Comparison - Future 
$35.00

$30.00

$25.00
CPE   Future CPE
$20.00

$15.00

$10.00

$5.00

$0.00
IAD JFK EWR ORD LAX MIA SFO SMF LGA SEA BOS DFW DEN PHL PDX SJC SAN DTW IAH MSP SLC PHX
24

Past and Future Debt Levels 
Sea-Tac Airport 
$3,500
Figures in $millions                                                Debt/Enplaned Passenger
$200
Existing Debt  New Debt
$3,000
$180
$160
$2,500
$140
$2,000                                                                                    $120

$100
$1,500
2          2        2            2
$80                2                     2           2
0          0        0            0                          0                  0          0
0          1        1            2                          0                  1          1
$1,000                     5                                                              $60
0        4            0                          5                  4          9
$40
$500
$20
$0
$0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023           1999   2000   2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   2016   2017   2018   2019   2020   2021   2022   2023


25

Debt Per Enplaned Passenger 
2012 Peer Airports 
Debt Per Enplaned Passenger - 2012
Peer Airports
$400                                                                        Airports that
356                                                                                  serve as major
$350      341
hubs have a
$300                                                                        higher
260                                                                         percentage of
$250
connecting traffic
215
and thus lower
$200                   190
debt per
157   153
148
$150
133                                           enplaned
116   114
105
93                        passenger 
$100                                                        92   89
74
$50

0
$0
SJC   IAD  SMF  ORD  SFO  DFW  SEA  DEN  DTW  LAX  BOS  PHX  IAH  MSP  PHL  SAN  SLC

26

Summary 
Current capital program needed to meet future
demands and safe operations 
Plan of Finance is appropriate and affordable 
Future debt and CPE levels within industry norms 
Strategic use of PFCs is critical to managing
rate base balance among cost centers 
Port has ability to adjust allocation of funding
sources as conditions and/or priorities change 

27

INTERNATIONAL
ARRIVALS
FACILITY 
28

International Arrivals Facility 
What are the problems? 
How will we measure success? 
Elements of the solution 
How can operational improvements help? 
What facility improvements are required? 
How did we define scope? 
How build "just in time?" 
How best deliver project? 

29

Problem: Insufficient Capacity;
Unacceptable "Front Door" 
FIS facility design capacity = 1200/hour 
2014 peak summer schedule: ~1500/hour 
2014 peak demand with Irregular Ops: ~2000/hour 
Passengers increasingly required to wait on
board aircraft due to insufficient capacity 
Aircraft can wait up to 45 minutes for gate 
Baggage system lacks capacity due to small
claim devices 
Minimum Connect Time (MCT) too long 
30

Inadequate Capacity 

Unacceptable
Customer
Experience 

31

Key Characteristics 
SSAT      SSAT       IAF 
1973       2014       2018 
Capacity (passengers/peak hour)        600      1200     ~1900 
Scheduled passengers at peak hour      NA      ~1500        ?? 
Number of FIS accessible gates           2        11        18 
Slow /
Passenger flow                 Simple             Intuitive 
confusing 
Single bag claim process              No        No       Yes 
Curbside direct access                No        No       Yes 


32

Customer Service Impacts 
Hold on   Hold in Hold for   Total  Minutes/
Board   Corridor    Gate   Events  Customer
2013        23      339      16     378       19 
2012        25       78       0     103       18 
2011        20       36       0      56       13 
2010        19       0      NA      19       9 
2009        4       0      NA       4      NA 
Source: Airport Operations Dept. logs 



33

Inadequate Capacity: Passengers
Cannot Proceed to FIS 
Frequency of "hold" events increasing 






34

Customer Service Metrics 
Customer Service At Peak                 1973      2013    IAF 2018 
Hold on Boards:                          0        23         0 
Hold in Corridors:                           0        339          0 
Over Ramp Busing  possible times/day:           0    2 (2014)         0 
Lines at "Primary" (Passport Check):              0       Long     Modest 
Crowding at Baggage 
International Carousels                   0    Extreme        Low 
Terminal Carousel                      0    Medium       Low 
Double Bag Handling: FIS & Bag Claim        Yes        Yes        No 
STS Train Wait (Minutes):                    Low   4 (2nd train)        N/A 
Minimum Connect Time (minutes):            N/A        90        75 

35

Demand/Capacity Mismatch Getting Worse 
SEA is among fastest growing international gateways; anticipate
600+ passengers per hour beyond capacity over the next 5 years 
International growth benefits airlines' domestic routes 
Airlines anticipating improvement; affects interest in Sea-Tac 

154% 


60% 




Source: airline reports and flight schedules 36

Elements of the Solution 
Operational improvements 
Expand Global Entry  now 3.4% of passengers 
Automated Passport Control kiosks  now "all"
U.S. and Canadian passport holders 
12 new CBP officers for Seattle (not all Sea-Tac) 
Enhanced FIS customer-oriented staffing 
Short-term capital improvements at SSAT 
Way finding -- stanchions in corridor 
Additional "international" gate (2015) 
Off-gate busing ability (seeking to avoid using) 
37

Elements of the Solution -- CBP Wait
Time Measures 
2013 data (Jan-Dec) 
SEA     MIA    MCO    DFW    JFK    IAH    SFO 
Processed passengers    1,348,703   9,643,416  1,457,359   2,984,363  6,059,294  4,048,937  2,473,425 
Average Wait Time         18       29       28       25       28       25       25 
(minutes) 
Passengers with wait        19%      37%      36%      30%      30%      30%      29% 
time > 30 minutes 
Source: http://awt.cbp.gov/ 
TSA/CBP cooperation / effectiveness is high at STIA 
New CBP resources will flow to airports with worst
problems 

38

Elements of the Solution: Scope 
New International Arrivals Facility (IAF) 
18 gates connected to IAF  no waiting for gate 
Adequate primary processing  no holds on
board or corridor 
6, then 8, bag claim carousels (vs. 4 today) 
Shorter time to domestic connections for
passengers and bags 
Direct passenger access to landside (no double
baggage pick-up) 
39

Defined Scope with Airline
Involvement 



40

Airline Engagement 
Discussed 12 times over 4 years with AAAC 
Discussions over 24 months during SLOA III
negotiations. 
29 airlines signed SLOA III that includes
separate IAF cost center, with understanding
during negotiations of Port intent to use a
distinct IAF PFC funding plan 
Concourse A facility selected 
41

Construction Options 
Sought best combination of (1) providing
necessary long-term scope while (2)
controlling costs 
Examined three options: 
Construct entire facility in one phase 
Construct in two phases with both including partial
shell and related improvements 
Construct entire shell and only necessary near-term
improvements in first phase; longer-term
improvement in second phase 

42

Construction: 
One Phase versus Two Phase 
Build All in One Phase      Build in Two Phases 
Phase 1 


Phase 2 


43

Two Phase Construction 
Construct Full Shell; Build Out Interior In Two Phases 


Phase 1                      Phase 2 
Building full shell and only those improvements required for first 5
years is most cost-effective approach 
Subsequent contract to construct second phase of shell would require new
procurement, new Port staffing, contractor mobilization, etc. 
More disruption of bus operation 
No laydown area, etc. 

44

Traditional Design to Construction Process 
Cost Estimate Confidence 
Planning Estimate       Budgeting Estimate         Budget       30% Design      Notebook:         60% Design    90% Design   Engineer Estimate  Bids    Construction Contract 
Status 1      Status 2    Status 3         Status 4              Status 5 
Prospective    Biz Plan    Committed       Authorized            Under Contract 
Timeline 
Status 1     Status 2     Status 3      Status 4                Status 5 
Port Staff    Business     Notebook of    Project Detailed Engineers bid  Construction Costs 
rough       Plan       budgetary     Estimates      Estimate 
estimate     estimate     program
estimate 
45

Traditional Design to Construction Process 
IAF Initial Cost Estimates 
Cost Estimate Confidence 
Planning Estimate       Budgeting Estimate         Budget Notebook:      30% Design   60% Design    90% Design   Engineer Estimate  Bids    Construction Contract 
Status 1      Status 2    Status 3         Status 4              Status 5 
Prospective    Biz Plan    Committed       Authorized            Under Contract 
Timeline 
Status 1     Status 2     Status 3      Status 4                Status 5 
Port Staff    Business     Notebook of    Project Detailed Engineers bid  Construction Costs 
rough       Plan       budgetary     Estimates      Estimate 
estimate     estimate     program
estimate 
46

Project Delivery 
Have examined multiple delivery options,
including: 
Design/Bid/Build 
Lump Sum Design/Build 
Progressive Design/Build 
General Contractor/Construction Manager 
Extended briefing scheduled for May 6 to
discuss options and provide more
information on Progressive Design/Build 
47

BAGGAGE
OPTIMIZATION 
48

Baggage Optimization Will Address 
Major Long-term Challenge 
Now accommodate 35 Million
Annual Passengers (MAP) 
Will need to handle ~60 MAP 
Four of the existing six systems
are nearing end of life 
Current configuration won't
support operations past 45 MAP 
Expanding current
configuration would remove
aircraft gates 

49

Baggage Optimization 
Existing                Optimization 





50

RUNWAY 16C/34C
REPLACEMENT 
51

Runway 16C/34C 



52

RW 16C/34C Pavement Inspections 



53

NORTHSTAR
PROGRAM 
Update And Key Issues 
54

Agenda 
Origins of Project 
Collaboration with Alaska Air Group and
other airlines 
Project Status 
Key Current Issues 


55

Origins of Project 
Port staff planning upgrade to NSAT to address seismic, HVAC,
and other issues 
~2008 - AAG approached Port with interest in focused
operations at NSAT and enhanced customer experience 
2010 - Airline realignment planning initiated to facilitate AAG
relocation to NSAT 
Q4 2010 - AAG retains consultant to articulate NSAT vision 
Q3 2011 - AAG presents north end development program to Port 
Q2 2012 - Port/AAG Letter of Understanding creates NorthSTAR
Program; Commission authorizes initial funding 
Q2 2012 - Preliminary Project Notebook; Commission briefing
defines $300M NorthSTAR program 
56

Collaboration with Airlines 
Since 2010 - Quarterly AAAC briefings re airline
realignment 
Early 2012  AAAC briefed on $300M NorthSTAR Program 
Quarterly updates on progress of NorthSTAR program and
specific projects; Q4 2013 NSAT expansion presented 
Four separate MII approvals for NSAT Design, Refurbish
Baggage, Concourse C Vertical Circulation & NorthSTAR
Program Management 
As chair of AAAC, AAG discusses program with other
airlines 

57

Project Status 
4 of 5 projects authorized and active 
Concourse C Vertical Circulation $18.5M - starting construction 
Baggage System $21.5M - awarding construction contract 
NSAT $208.3M - 15% design complete; 30% design initiated 
Main Terminal Improvements $29.2M  in planning 
Concourse C & D Exterior Stairs $21.4M - still prospective project 
Briefing today / subsequent request to adjust scope 
$175.2M Five additional gates ($ budget increase) 
Design work underway consistent with expansion option 
AAG indicated support in October, 2013; now completing 2nd look 
Delta has requested additional gates 

58

Key Issue  Dual Doors 
Alaska Air Group is evaluating benefit of adding scope to
facilitate "dual door" operations at some NSAT gates 
Allow passengers to enter/leave aircraft from front/rear doors 
Could shorten the time required to "turn" an aircraft 
Would require addition of stairs, escalators, elevators,
ramp-level passenger holdrooms, aircraft rear entry ramps 
Major questions: 
Would this save sufficient time to justify AAG investment? 
Would this allow airport to handle more aircraft at peak and,
thus, reduce need for one or more gates? 
AAG committed to finalize its assessment and get Port
staff concurrence by May 9 
59

Key Issue  Add Five Parking
Positions 
NSAT now has: 
12 jet bridge-equipped gates 
5 ramp loading positions for regional jets 
Current NorthSTAR NSAT scope: 
15 jet bridge-equipped gates 
No (0) ramp loading positions for regional jets 
2020 is first year completed NSAT will be available for
peak summer period 
Airport last added gates in 2004 (replaced old 7-gate
with new 14-gate Concourse A) 
One gate since "lost" at Concourse D due to relocation of AA
(addition of 757s) and restriping to accommodate winglets 

60

Growth in Common Use Facilities 
Port works intensely to delay need to add gates
or expand other terminal facilities 
SLOA gate allocation process 
Common use gates 
2000   2014 
Common Use Gates                7    14 
Airport Owned Passenger Loading Bridges    7     57 
Common Use Baggage Make-Up Devices     1    16 
Common Use Ticket Counters            0     62 

61

Key Issue  Add Five Parking
Positions 
Analysis indicates NorthSTAR should
include expanded NSAT 
Reached conclusion following intense and
quite conservative flight and gate analysis 
Cross-checked assumptions/inputs to
ensure Seattle market could support 
Consistent with current airline business /
network strategies 
62

North Satellite Expansion Phase II 



63

Gate Demand Analysis -- Background 
In mid-2013 AAG provided Port team with 2017 forecasted
flight schedule for use in determining AAG gate demand 
Project team (with consulting assistance) gated this
schedule using AAG operational " rules;" determined
NSAT peak gate demand required 4 additional parking
positions / gates to satisfy anticipated growth. 
Peak airline activity (5:45-8:30 AM, 8:15-12:00 AM)
determines total number of required gates 
Q4 2013, AAG indicated support for NSAT expansion as
most viable option for expanding gate availability (to meet
AAG gate demand by 2020)  now confirming 

64

Gate Demand Conservatisms 
Assessing whether need more gates in 2020 
Used following airline schedule inputs 
Alaska: 2017 projected schedule (as provided in mid-2013) -
13 more departures than 2013 
Delta: 2014 actual schedule  83 departures (not announced
plans for 150 departures in 2017) 
Other domestic airlines: 2013 schedule 
International : Three more departures (beyond 2014 actuals) 
Assumed all gates available 24/7/365 
No maintenance outages 
No construction impacts 
65

12 ungated flights require 4 additional gates

Examined Ability to Put Flights
Elsewhere 
12 "un-gated" AAG flights at the North Satellite  at
morning and evening peak 
Could gate 10 of 12 flights on Concourses A, B and
SSAT  if AAG were willing and no other growth 
Remaining un-gated flights means minimum of 2
additional NSAT gates (beyond 15 in scope) 
However, assumptions already out of date: 
Assumed 2013 to 2017 AAG growth of only 13 flights 
AAG 2014 schedule already up by 8 flights 
AAG indicates that 2017 departures likely substantially more
than what assumed in analysis 

67

Gate Demand Analysis "Reality Check" 
Evaluated whether analytic assumptions are beyond what
Seattle market can support 
Used additional departures, seats and load factors (LF), to
calculate growth of enplanements between 2013 and 2020 
Equaled annual growth of: 
1.0% -- 70% load factor 
1.25% -- 85% load factor 
This compares to historical and projected passenger growth
at Sea-Tac: 
2010-2013: 2.9% (since recovery from recession) 
2000-2013: 1.6% (includes impacts of 9/11; two recessions) 
FAA approved long-range forecast: 2.3% 

68

Greater Concern May Be That NSAT
Gate Expansion May Not Be Enough 
Since completion of analysis, both AAG and DL indicate they
expect to grow faster 
AAG:Has announced more destinations from SEA 
We expect AAG will allocate more aircraft to Seattle routes 
DL: Remains committed to plans to grow to 150 daily departures in
2017 (~110 in 2015 and ~130 in 2016) 
Some of this growth could offset each other and some could
"cannibalize" other airlines 
But very possible that Sea-Tac could see unusually fast growth for
next few years (before settling back to long-term average growth) 
Strategic location as international gateway 
Seattle area economy is one of healthiest in nation 
Airlines far more disciplined; seek sustainable expansion 

69

Risk of Underbuilding Gates During
NorthSTAR 
NSAT is by far the best  least expensive and most timely  
location to add gates 
If we waited until after completion of current NSAT scope to
add gates, would: 
Need to take four gates out of service (airport would then have three
fewer gates ~2021 to 2023 than today) 
Need to re-procure designers and contractors 
Airlines would have to load and unload significant number of
passengers at remote gates with busing to/from the terminal 
North Satellite would remain severely constrained in customer
amenities  hold room capacity and concessions offerings 

70

Implications of Building in
Anticipation of Demand 
Pros: 
Construction closures less problematic 
Airlines do not limit plans due to capacity constraints 
Likely lower costs to airlines, measured as NPV 
Able to address shortage in concessions and other
customer amenities 
Cons: 
Airline gate fees grow a little earlier 
Port costs (23% of terminal) increase earlier, offset by
concessions revenue increases 
71

Conclusion: Expand NSAT during
NorthSTAR 
Very conservative assumptions underlie analysis demonstrating
four gate shortfall
Expanding North Satellite to provide 20 gates is all that is
possible prior to having to "dogleg" NSAT for full expansion 
Least cost option; consistent with long-range airport
expansion plan 
NSAT 15% design complete; good time to adjust scope 
Additional gates would provide some buffer between 20-gate
NSAT and subsequent expansion 
Greatly enhances level of service for passengers -- 
increased concessions, holdrooms, and customer service
areas 
72

Next Steps re NSAT Expansion 
May 9, 2014 -Alaska Airlines final
confirmation of scope re dual doors 
June 2014 - Majority in Interest vote of
airlines 
July 22, 2014 - Request for Commission
authorization to expand and complete
design 

73

Questions? 

74