PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.      6e 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting    September 27, 2016 
DATE:    September 19, 2016 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Michael Ehl, Director, Airport Operations 
SUBJECT:  Purchase of Hardstand Equipment (CIP #C800838) for Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport 
Amount of This Request:       $11,800,000   Source of Funds:   Airport Development
Fund 
Est. Total Project Cost:         $11,800,000 
Est. State and Local Taxes:        $920,000 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to (1) advertise and execute
long-term contracts for up to 10 years for the purchase of hardstand equipment; (2) procure
required hardware, software, vendor services, and maintenance to expand the Gate Management
System; and (3) use Port staff for implementation for a total authorization of $11,800,000. 
SYNOPSIS 
The airport is currently experiencing a shortage of contact gates and the related ability to
accommodate passenger loading/unloading at remote facilities. With the temporary loss of gates
during the construction of the International Arrivals Facility (IAF), North Satellite Expansion
(NSAT) and other future projects, compounded with the unprecedented growth in passenger
traffic,  this shortage will be exacerbated.  To accommodate our current and future flight
operations, it will be necessary to operate inbound and outbound aircraft from remote hardstand
locations and bus passengers to and from the terminal building. In order to accommodate these
passengers, the Airport must purchase airfield ramp buses, aircraft boarding ramps, mobile
aircraft power and pre-conditioned air units. An expansion of our current gate management
system to manage the hardstand equipment and bus operations is critical for efficiency. 
This request authorizes the purchase of equipment that will facilitate up to 12 simultaneous
narrow-body-equivalent hardstand operations at one time. The forecasted equipment requirement
is based on the number of hardstand operations projected under the following conditions: 
Multiple construction projects simultaneously remove at least five gates from service at
a time between 20172020 
Aircraft operations continue to increase 

Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
September 19, 2016 
Page 2 of 7 
Until such time as additional terminal gates, as identified by the Sustainable Airport
Master Plan, are constructed to meet future demand 
The airlines that operate at the Airport have notified the Port of their intent to form a consortium
that will manage hardstand operations beginning in 2017. Therefore, the current assumption is
that equipment requested in this memo will be leased to the consortium for operation and
maintained by the Port. 
BACKGROUND 
Passenger traffic at Sea-Tac Airport continues to break records and has increased each month for
the past 31 straight months (since November 2013). Passenger traffic is up 10 percent for 2016
compared to 2015. This growth in passenger traffic is mirrored in growth in the number of airline
operations as well, resulting in the absence of available gates during peak periods. 
In 2017, construction activities for two large projects, IAF and NSAT, will exacerbate the
current gate shortage as existing gates go out of service for several years. To accommodate
operations when sufficient contact gates are not available, the airport will institute hardstand
arrivals and departures where passengers are bused between the terminal building and remotely
parked aircraft. The Airport is in the process of designing and building terminal waiting areas for
hardstand passengers including B Ramp Level Holdroom, D6 Holdroom Modifications and the
recently authorized D Hardstand Terminal. However, additional equipment is required to
transport passengers and to support remote aircraft operations. 
Limited voluntary airline hardstand operations began in the summer of 2015 to allow the carriers
the opportunity to evaluate and prepare for the advent of future mandatory, high volume
hardstand requirements. Continued overall growth has resulted in increased hardstand activity
during the summer of 2016. Since the 2015 inception of hardstand operations, six airlines
carrying more than 16,000 passengers on over 170 flights have utilized hardstands for arrivals
and departures from Sea-Tac. 
In recognition of the greatly increased volumes of hardstand activity experienced, the anticipated
closure of several gates due to construction, and the desire to control and maintain their
individual customer service and operational standards, the airlines have indicated their intention
to form a consortium to lease Port hardstand equipment and conduct hardstand operations
beginning in 2017. In the event the Port and the airlines reach agreement, the Port's hardstand
equipment, including the equipment subject to this request, will be leased to the airline
consortium, and maintained by the Port. 
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS 
Aviation Planning and Operations staff forecast that the hardstand peak demand could eventually 
increase to 11-13 simultaneous operations in the 2018-19 timeframe. This request is to authorize 
the purchase of equipment and expansion of the gate management system that will facilitate
approximately twelve narrow-body equivalent hardstand operations at one time. 

Revised March 28,

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
September 19, 2016 
Page 3 of 7 
Project Objectives 
Provide dedicated equipment to facilitate remote hardstand aircraft operations including: 
Transportation of passengers between the terminals and aircraft parking locations 
ADA compliant aircraft boarding 
Provision of power and pre-conditioned air to remotely parked aircraft 
Scope of Work 
Purchase equipment to facilitate and support hardstand operations at the Airport such as: 
400 Hz mobile units 
PC Air mobile units 
ADA aircraft boarding ramps 
High-capacity ramp buses 
Bus washing equipment 
The project will also procure and install a new gate management system module designed for
mobile operations. 
Schedule 
Commission Authorization                          September 2016 
Execute First Set of Purchase Orders (Equipment needed in 2017)   October 2016 
First Equipment Delivery                            March 2017 
Gate Management System Deployment                  July 2017 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Budget/Authorization Summary              Capital     Expense   Total Project 
Original Budget                     $11,800,000          $0   $11,800,000 
Previous Authorizations                       $0          $0          $0 
Current request for authorization            $11,800,000          $0    $11,800,000 
Total Authorizations, including this request    $11,800,000          $0    $11,800,000 
Remaining budget to be authorized               $0          $0          $0 
Total Estimated Project Cost             $11,800,000          $0   $11,800,000 
Budget Status and Source of Funds 
This project was not included in the 2016-2020 capital budget and plan of finance. The budget
will be transferred from the Aeronautical Allowance CIP (C800753) resulting in no net change to
the Aviation capital budget. The funding source will be the Airport Development Fund. 


Revised March 28,

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
September 19, 2016 
Page 4 of 7 
Financial Analysis and Summary 
CIP Category             Revenue/Capacity Growth 
Project Type              Business Expansion 
Risk adjusted discount rate     N/A 
Key risk factors             N/A 
Project cost for analysis        $11,800,000 
Business Unit (BU)          Airfield Apron Area cost center 
Effect on business performance  NOI after depreciation will be positive 
IRR/NPV             N/A 
CPE Impact             Increase by $.10 by 2018 
It is anticipated that the buses will be leased to the airline consortium and operated by the airline
consortium. The CPE listed above represents the costs if included in the airline rate base, and
indicates the cost to the airlines whether paid to the Port directly or indirectly through the
consortium. 
Lifecycle Cost and Savings 
Aviation Maintenance anticipates total equipment maintenance costs (including maintenance
labor and materials) for the hardstand ramp equipment resulting from this project to be $333,780
annually. These figures do not include fuel consumption to support the equipment. Any
additional maintenance costs related to future equipment purchases will be addressed by the
acquisition project at that time. 
Annual licensing costs for the gate management system are expected to increase by $20,000.
This will be budgeted in the Information & Communication Technology Operating Budget for
2017. 
STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES 
This project supports the Port's Century Agenda objectives of meeting the region's air
transportation needs at the Airport for the next 25 years by providing critically needed equipment
to facilitate hardstand/off-gate aircraft operations. 
Environmental Responsibility 
The Port's Century Agenda Goal is to reduce aircraft-related carbon emissions at Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport by 25 percent by 2035. Providing pre-conditioned air and 400 Hz will
reduce air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions relative to the aircraft's onboard systems
when parked on the ramp. The mobile PC air and 400 Hz units will be equipped with modern
Tier 4 diesel engines to ensure pollutant emissions are minimized when serving the aircraft. 
Staff explored the feasibility of using electric ramp buses for hardstand operations. Although
electric ramp buses are being produced, none are currently in use in North America. They are at
least 50% more expensive than diesel buses and would require significant construction on the

Revised March 28,

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
September 19, 2016 
Page 5 of 7 
airfield to bring charging utilities to the bus parking location. If bus parking must be relocated in
the future, which is probable due to space constraints, additional construction would likely be
required to bring charging utilities to the new parking location. Additionally, these buses, on
average, require three added months from order to delivery when compared with diesel buses so
they would not be available when the increased hardstand operations begin in 2017. Since ramp
buses move short distances at low speed they are a minor source of air emissions on an annual
basis. Given the high up-front costs, operational constraints, and minimal environmental benefits
of electric busses, diesel units were determined to be the most appropriate equipment for this use
at this time. 
Social Responsibility 
The Port is working to maximize small business opportunities on each of the procurements in
order to meet our Century Agenda goals. 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1  Status Quo  Do not purchase this equipment 
Cost Implications: $0 
Pros: 
(1)  Does not require capital investment 
(2)  Does not result in additional operating or maintenance cost 
Cons: 
(1)  Does not provide the required equipment to support hardstand operations 
(2)  The Airport will experience additional flights delays 
(3)  Would negatively impact the operations of the Terminal D Hardstand 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2  Lease the equipment required for hardstand operations 
Cost Implications: $12,000,000 over 10 years (buses and ramps only) 
Pros: 
(1)  Limited up-front capital investment (compared to preferred alternative) 
(2)  Greater flexibility in equipment procurement / disposition 
Cons: 
(1)  The acquisition of this equipment will require additional Port resources to maintain. 
(2)  The cost of this alternative includes only the buses and boarding ramps, but is more
expensive than purchasing all of the equipment required. 
(3)  The cost of this alternative does not include the purchase of required software or
configuration of software. 

Revised March 28,

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
September 19, 2016 
Page 6 of 7 
(4)  The Port will return equipment at lease-end and not be able to benefit from any
residual value. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 3  Require the airline consortium to procure and maintain the equipment required
for hardstand operations 
Cost Implications: $700,000 for resource scheduling software/hardware 
Pros: 
(1)  Limited capital investment. 
(2)  This option would eliminate the need for additional Port resources to maintain the
equipment. 
Cons: 
(1)  The airline consortium does not have facilities available to maintain the airport ramp
buses. 
(2)  The Airline Consortium does not currently have means to acquire the capital needed
to purchase the equipment. Providing the consortium time to acquire this capacity
would not meet the scheduled need for this equipment. 
(3)  Since the Port already owns some equipment (buses, 400 hz) required for hardstand
operations, the hardstand  equipment would be mixed between Port/non-Port
resources making scheduling, use and maintenance agreements more complicated. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 4  Purchase the identified equipment, including electric ramp buses, and software
required  to  operate  approximately  12  narrow-body  equivalent  hardstand  operations
simultaneously 
Cost Implications: $14,800,000 
Pros: 
(1)  Provides all of the passenger conveyance, aircraft boarding, portable utilities and
ancillary equipment and software required to facilitate hardstand operations. 
(2)  The Port will potentially benefit from residual value of the equipment when it is no
longer required for operations. 
(3)  Electric ramp buses do not produce carbon emissions. 
Cons: 
(1)  The purchase of electric ramp buses would require significant construction on the
airfield to bring charging utilities to the bus parking location. 

Revised March 28,

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
September 19, 2016 
Page 7 of 7 
(2)  If the ramp bus parking area is relocated in the future due to airfield space
constrictions, construction may be required again to bring charging utilities to the
site. 
(3)  Electric ramp buses are, on average, 50% more expensive to purchase than diesel
buses. 
(4)  Electric buses require, on average, three added months between order and delivery
and would not be available when hardstand operations increase in 2017. 
(5)  The acquisition of this equipment will require additional Port resources to maintain. 
(6)  This is the highest cost alternative identified. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 5  Purchase the identified equipment, including diesel ramp buses, and software
required to operate approximately 12 narrow-body equivalent hardstand operations
simultaneously 
Cost Implications: $11,800,000 
Pros: 
(1)  Provides all of the passenger conveyance, aircraft boarding, portable utilities and
ancillary equipment and software required to facilitate hardstand operations. 
(2)  The Port will potentially benefit from residual value of the equipment when it is no
longer required for operations. 
Cons: 
(1)  The acquisition of this equipment will require additional Port resources to maintain. 
This is the recommended alternative. 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
Computer slide presentation 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
None 




Revised March 28,