Forum on Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's
International Arrivals Facility: 
Financing, Planning, and Technology 
Commission Meeting 
July 28, 2015

Continuing the 90-day review 
May 26 commission motion 
June 23 contract award 
July 14 forum 
Today's forum overview 
1.  Airport Finance Overview (continued) 
2.  IAF Planning History 
3.  Independent Architectural Review 
4.  Design-Build Contractor and Validation Process 
5.  Customs & Border Protection; Technology at Federal Inspection Service
Facilities 
Next meeting on August 11 
An ongoing effort 
2

Airport Finance Overview 
(continued) 
Borgan Anderson 
Director Aviation Finance and Budget 
Jim Burchett 
Vice President, AvAirPros 
Warren Adams 
Managing Partner, WJ Advisors 



3

Introduction 
Background  previous IAF funding briefings: 
January 27 and April 14 
Motion: May 26 
July 14Airport finance 
Today Identify sources of funds used for
international facility projects 
Consultants: 
Jim Burchett, AV Air Pros 
Warren Adams, WJ Advisors LLC 
Today is a follow-on to the July 14 presentation 
4

Scope of Services 
1. Identify other international arrival facility
(IAF) projects at United States (U.S.) airports 
2. Review the sources of funds for those projects 
3. Identify the level of passenger facility charge
(PFC) revenues used to fund IAF projects 
4. Review the number of international and
domestic passengers at the same airports 
5. Respond to questions from the July 14 Port
Commission meeting 
Key question: How do other airports fund international facilities? 
5

Important Information 
An IAF project includes an international
arrivals facility or international terminal
building 
For some airports, specific international arrivals
facility project information was not available 
We relied upon publicly available information,
including PFC uses from FAA records 
We focused on the use of PFC revenues to fund
IAF project costs; this occurs by paying project
costs during construction and in paying debt
service on bonds 
Results based on publicly available information 
6

Criteria for Selecting IAF Projects 
Facilities that are in use at U.S. airports 
Large-hub U.S. airports 
IAF projects that were funded by airports, not
airlines 
IAF projects that were funded by different funding
sources, including PFC revenues 
PFC funded costs cannot be included in airline rates and
charges 
Focused on comparable facilities at large hub U.S. airports 
7

PFC Regulations and Use 
Focuses on project eligibility only; does not
stipulate how much PFC revenue should be
used to fund a particular project 
The use of PFC revenue to fund a particular
project is determined by the airport operator 
All 11 airports discussed in this document used
varying amounts of PFC revenues to fund IAF
project costs 
This can be viewed as an indication of PFC-
eligibility for these types of projects 
International facilities meet FAA eligibility criteria for use of PFCs 
8

PFC Regulation, continued 
Consultation with airlines is provided before
imposing and using a PFC 
Airlines can submit written agreement or
disagreement for a project, which is required to
be submitted to FAA 


FAA makes determination to approve PFC application 
9

Airport/Airline Business
Arrangements 
FAA policy on rates and charges encourages
local negotiations between airports and
airlines 
SLOA III was the outcome of local negotiations;
airlines with 99.9% of passengers in 2013
signed SLOA III 
SLOA III created an FIS separate cost center 
SLOA III specifically states that Port cash
(nonairline revenue) can be used to lower the FIS
fee paid by airline users of the FIS 
SLOA III forecast assumed use of PFCs in IAF funding plan 
10

IAF Project at SEA 
New IAF would be used by all international
deplaning passengers at SEA 
10.6% of SEA enplaned passengers in 2019 are
forecast to be international passengers 
$608m project cost; opening date: 2019 
Scenario 6 from April 14 recommendation
assumed the following sources: $200m of Port
cash, $100m of PFCs to directly fund project
costs, and $308m of revenue bonds 
Comparisons on following slides based on Scenario 6 from April 14 
11

UseofPFCsatSEA
PFC can be used to fund projects
or to pay
PFC-eligible debt service
- Scenario 6 at SEA assumed the following:

Funding Sources and Use of PFC Revenues (millions)

Effective
Use 0f PFCS for IAF
percent of IAF
Funding  Percent of    Construction  Pay Debt         costs paid with
Sources    Total        Costs     Service   Total PFCs     PFCs

Port Cash              $ 200       33%

PFCs to fund project costs   S    100       16%    S      100

Revenue bond proceeds    S   308      51%            $ 250

Total funding sources     5    608      100%   S     100  S    250  S    350       57.6%



12

Finding #1 
Of the 11 airports meeting the criteria, all used
PFCs. The PFC% ranged from: 
A low of 8.1% at Miami International Airport 
A high of 82.6% at Boston Logan International
Airport 
Scenario 6 for the IAF at SEA proposes 57.5%
(within the range) 
The results on the next page are organized by
year of when the facility opened 
All recent international facilities use PFCs as funding source 
13

Finding #1 
PERCENTAGE OF PROJECT COSTS PAID BY PFC REVENUES FOR IAF / INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL PROJECTS OVER TIME
100%
95%
2000 - 2005                                   2011 - 2014
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
82.6%
40%
35%                                                                 71.9%
65.1%
30%                  60.3%                                   62.2%
57.7%                                                   57.5%
53.7%
25%
46.3%                               44.6%
20%
15%           30.5%
10%
5%                                                                     8.1%
0%
DEN (1995)    SFO (2000)    MSP (2001)  DTW McNamara  BOS (2005)   DFW (2005)  IAH Central FIS   IAD (2011)    ATL (2012)   MIA (2012) (a)   LAX (2014)    SEA (2019)
(2002)                          (2005)
Approximate Airport and (IAF/International Terminal Opening Date)
(a) The percent of costs paid by PFC revenues for international arrivals facilities at MIA is low because PFC eligibility far exceeds PFC capacity. A large portion
of available PFC revenues are used to pay debt service for general terminal facilities at MIA, and only 8.1% is used to pay debt service for
international arrivals facilities. This percent varies from year to year based on management decisions at MIA.
Sea-Tac's proposed use of PFCs is similar to other airports 
14

Finding #2 
The percent of PFC revenues used to fund
IAF project costs typically exceeds the
percent of international passengers to total
enplaned passengers 
Passenger data is for the year when the facility
opened 
For SEA, we used forecast 2019 passengers and
Scenario 6 sources of funds 
No apparent connection between % of int'l passengers and PFC allocation 
15

Finding #2 
Percentage of IAF/International Terminal Project Cost Paid with PFCs vs International Passengers as % of Total
90%
82.6%
% of IAF/Int'l Terminal Cost Paid with PFCs
80%
71.9%                                                      Int'l Passengers as % of Total
70%
65.1%
62.2%
60.3%
60%                                            57.7%     57.5%
53.7%
51.0%
50%                                                                      46.3%
44.6%
40%
30.5%
30%                               28.4%
27.0%
20.0%
20%                      17.4%
15.7%
10.3%                                           10.6%               9.5%
10%                                                8.3%
7.0%                                                          8.1%
0.7%
0%
BOS (2005)    ATL (2012)   IAH Central FIS   IAD (2011)    MSP (2001)  DTW McNamara   SEA (2019)    DEN (1995)    DFW (2005)    LAX (2014)    SFO (2000)   MIA (2012) (a)
(2005)                              (2002)

(a) The percent of costs paid by PFC revenues for international arrivals facilities at MIA is low because PFC eligibility far exceeds PFC capacity. A large portion
of available PFC revenues are used to pay debt service for general terminal facilities at MIA, and only 8.1% is used to pay debt service for
international arrivals facilities. This percent varies from year to year based on management decisions at MIA.
Percentage of PFC funding for Sea-Tac is within the range of other airports 
16

Responses to July 14 Questions 
1. Airports with agreements, but no majority-in-
interest (MII) provisions--Denver International
Airport (DEN), George Bush Intercontinental
Airport (IAH), Los Angeles International
Airport (LAX) 
2. Examples of where airlines have reduced or
eliminated service due to CPE increases
Difficult question to answer as service
decisions are influenced by competition, local
economy, and other factors 
Each airport is different 
17

Responses to July 14 Questions 
3. Examples where FIS is a separate cost
center--LAX, DEN, IAH 
FIS costs paid by airlines at LAX are after nonairline
revenue credits 
FIS costs paid by airlines at DEN are effectively after
certain nonairline revenue credits 


Each airport is different 
18

Comparison of CPE 
LARGE HUBS--Projected Passenger Airline CPE
Note: Each airport is different in terms of what the airlines operate/pay for directly and what the airport operator provides and charges airlines
Airport and              through rates and charges. CPE does not factor in what airlines operate/pay for directly. As such, not all CPE comparisons are appropriate.
Projection Year
IAD (FY18)                                                  $26.24                                                        $4.88
EWR *                                                    $30.29
JFK *                                                 $25.70
ORD (FY22)                                   $18.39                                            $6.75
SFO (FY21)                              $15.78                                          $8.08
LAX (FY20)                                                                                                     Year for each projected increase
$13.59                                      $9.23
is shown at left next to airport
MIA (FY19)                                       $20.54                                      $1.27                  code. For example, projected
increase for IAD is in FY18.
LGA *                                   $18.73
BOS (FY18)                         $13.55                             $3.75
MDW (FY22)                     $12.12                      $2.14
DFW (FY20)              $7.53                       $6.51
SEA (FY24)                     $11.49                       $2.34
DEN (FY20)                       $12.40                       $1.36                                              FY 2014
PDX (FY21)                   $10.39                      $3.18
Projected Increase
DCA (FY18)                     $11.32                      $2.20
PHL (FY16)                      $11.74                     $1.38
LAS (FY17)                      $11.74                    $0.43
HNL (FY19)               $7.77                    $4.37
Large Hub Average, Maximum, and Quartiles -- PROJECTED
SAN (FY18)                   $10.49                  $0.66
$35            $31.12
IAH (FY15)                   $10.44                 $0.53
$30
DTW (FY22) **                   $10.49                  DTW FY22 CPE = $9.82
$25
BWI (FY15) **                   $9.88                  BWI FY15 CPE = $9.12
$20                     $18.37
FLL (FY19)        $4.52           $2.87                                              $14.24
$15                             $13.32
TPA (FY23)          $5.23          $1.97
$10                                      $8.01
MSP (FY18)             $6.84          $0.06
$5
SLC (FY20)       $3.90         $2.36
$0
ATL (FY17)          $5.37        $0.81                                              Large Hub     Max CPE    3rd Quartile:   2nd Quartile:   1st Quartile:
Average CPE              75% of data     50% of data     25% of data
PHX (FY16)           $5.79        $0.23
points fall      points fall      points fall
MCO (FY16)                                                                                         below this CPE    below this CPE    below this CPE
$4.59        $1.28
CLT (FY17)  $1.33 $0.49
$- $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 $12 $13 $14 $15 $16 $17 $18 $19 $20 $21 $22 $23 $24 $25 $26 $27 $28 $29 $30 $31 $32

* Projection not available.
** Projected CPE for this airport is less than the FY 2014 CPE shown.
Sources: FY 2014 data--CAFRs/annual reports, rating agency press releases, and/or bond official statements.
FAA CATS data used if those sources are not available.
Projected data--Primarily bond official statements. In some cases, rating agency press releases, budgets, or reports/studies.
The ranking of SEA's cost per enplaned passenger would not materially change 
19

Questions? 


20

International Arrivals Facility
Planning History 
Elizabeth Leavitt 
Director Aviation Planning and
Environmental Services 
Ross Payton 
Principal, AIA, Corgan

Options Considered 
Over 50 Federal Inspection Services (FIS) and Connector Options Considered
During Last 10 Years 
Slot control adjusting flight arrival times 
Technology and process improvement 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) staffing, POS staffing, Automated
Passport Control (APC), holding passengers on planes or in corridor 
Mid-term FIS 
Gate use, immigration, bag claim, customs, security checkpoint, train 
Long-term FIS at South 
SSAT, Concourse A, split, under taxilane, remote 
Long-term FIS at North 
Concourse D, NSAT 
Connector between SSAT and IAF 
Tunnel, bridge, busing, modify existing train system 

Over 50 FIS and Connector Options Considered During Last 10 Years 
22

2009 FIS Study 
Study by HOK on Long-Term FIS Options 






Two options recommended for further analysis 
23

2009 FIS Study 
Study by HOK on Long-Term FIS Options 






Two options recommended for further analysis 
24

2011 Consideration of Slot Control 
Potential Option to Reduce Peak Loads by Spreading
Flight Arrival Times 
Potential mid-term capacity enhancement option 
Rejected by airlines (difficult due to system-wide
issues) 


Slot control is not a viable option for airlines 
25

2012 FIS Mid-Term Capacity Enhancement 
Potential Improvements within Footprint to Increase Capacity at $37M Cost 






Difficult to expand outside walls due to underground location 
26

2012 IAF Mid-Term 
Potential Improvements to Increase Capacity at Minimal Cost 
Potential mid-term capacity enhancement from 1,200  
1,600 pax/hr 
Additional queue space at primary inspection 
Additional "small" bag claim devices 
Rejected by Alaska and Delta 
Decision to move to other longer-term options 
Existing underground location too small beyond 1,600
pax/hr 
Need larger space than South Satellite to accommodate
FIS demand 
Difficult to expand while maintaining operations 
Mid-Term option does not provide needed capacity 
27

2013 IAF Landside vs Airside 
Four Potential Options for Long-Term Capacity 



Option 1  New Concourse A FIS          Option 2  Expand SSAT FIS 




Option 3  Expand FIS w/ Dogleg Gates     Option 4  Split FIS 
Options 1 and 4 most promising 
28

2013 IAF Landside vs Airside 
Four Potential Options for Long-Term Capacity 






Options 1 and 4 most promising 
29

2013 IAF Landside vs Airside 
Refinement of Potential Options for Long-Term Capacity 



Single  Landside IAF Only               Split  Landside IAF & Renovated FIS 
Passenger processing capacity 
1,900 pax/hr in Phase 1 
2,600 pax/hr in Phase 2 
Phase 1 gate capacity 
Widebody gates on two concourses (12 on South Satellite & 8 on Concourse A) 
Single landside option ranked best 
30

2013 IAF Landside vs Airside 
Single  Landside IAF Only 
Pros 
Least initial cost (majority of savings in Phase 1) 
Shortest international to domestic connect times 
Local passengers exit directly onto street pre-security (majority of
pax) 
Local passengers do not claim bags twice or ride train 
Easy access for construction workers and equipment (pre-security) 
Cons 
IAF needs to be elevated to anticipate future terminal development 


Single landside option ranked best 
31

2013 IAF Landside vs Airside 
Split  Landside IAF & Renovated FIS 
Pros 
Greater flexibility for future development at south end of Main terminal 
Cons 
Greater initial cost (majority of additional cost in Phase 1) 
Longest international to domestic connect times 
Local passengers at SSAT exit post-security (majority of pax) 
Local passengers at SSAT claim bags twice and ride train 
Requires expensive STS train improvement to provide adequate capacity 
No space for expanded security checkpoint at SSAT 
Difficult access for construction workers and equipment (post-security) 
Underground expansion impacts many gates during construction 
IAF needs to be elevated to anticipate future terminal development 

Split option ranked worst 
32

2014 IAF Recommended Option 
Connector Bridge Option 






Connection to from South Satellite IAF via overhead bridge 
33

2014 IAF Recommended Option  Bridge vs Tunnel 
Connector Tunnel Option 






Connection from South Satellite to IAF via underground tunnel 
34

2014 IAF Recommended Option  Bridge vs Tunnel 
Decision Matrix 






Bridge better than tunnel after evaluation 
35

2014 IAF Recommended Option  Bridge vs Tunnel 
Bridge Option 

Pros 
Lowest cost (both initial and ongoing) 
Least impact to operations during construction (shorter duration) 
Easier wayfinding for passengers 
Opportunity for unique iconic image 
Cons 
Greater maintenance and inspection 


Bridge better than tunnel after evaluation 
36

2014 IAF Recommended Option  Bridge vs Tunnel 
Tunnel Option 
Pros 
No FAA airspace issues to resolve 
Cons 
Greater cost (both initial and ongoing) 
Significant impact to gate access during construction with open cut 
Significant risk of collapse with deep tunnel 
Significant risk of ramp damage and 12 month impact with shallow tunnel 
Greater impact to operations during construction (longer duration) 


Bridge better than tunnel after evaluation 
37

2014 IAF Recommended Option  Airline Review 
Airline Technical Representative (ATR) led review of IAF Planning
Document with airlines 
Functional program accepted by airlines participating in review 





IAF functional program accepted by participating airlines
38

Independent Architectural
Review 
Andy Bell 
Airport Market Sector Lead,
Kimley-Horn 
Kiran Merchant 
CEO, DY Consultants 
Mike Doucette 
Deputy Executive Director,
Los Angeles World Airports

Peer Review 
Proposed International Arrivals Facility (IAF) 
Seattle  Tacoma International Airport 
July 28. 2015

Andy Bell 
Professional Resume 
43 years of experience in planning, design and construction of
Airport Development Projects 
Currently Airport Market Sector Lead with Kimley-Horn in Atlanta 
Formerly Vice President of Planning for Dallas/Ft. Worth
International Airport (DFW) 
Responsible for the Airport Development Plan which defined over $3B in
terminal, roadway, parking and rail projects 
Developed phased expansion strategies for International Gates and passenger
processing facilities 
Managing Executive for Skylink Automated People Mover at DFW 
Directed design and construction for world's largest APM system
connecting 6 terminals 
Formerly Deputy General Manager of Planning & Development for
the Atlanta Airport 
Oversight for final design and construction of new International Concourse
E, largest in North America 
Responsible for Airport Master Plan and airline approvals for $5.4B in
terminal, airfield, roadway, consolidated rental car, and parking facilities 
Created the "Vision" and master plan for a new Concourse F International
Terminal 

Peer Review proposed IAF Facility     July 28, 2015

DFW - International Terminal D 
28 Gates 
2 million square feet 
$1.2B development cost 
Opened July 2005 
3,100 Int'l passengers/hour
arrival capacity 
APC, Global Entry, Modified
One-Stop

DFW  Phased Development Strategy for Int'l Growth 

Walk Distances
to CBP
Processing 

Expand Sterile 3,275
Corridor for Int'l Feet                                                2,595
Feet 
Gates 
Bus               1,820
Optimize
Feet 
Terminal D                   Interf
ace 
Add A-380                      1,060
Gates        2,040      1,140     Feet 
Feet        Feet 
Phase in
Terminal F
Less than or equal to DFW's acceptable walk distance Gates 
Greater than DFW's acceptable walk distance

Hardstanding Aircraft  A New Paradigm for DFW 
Bus Gate Built as part of original facility 
Supports COBUS operation for
convenient connection to Sterile Corridor 
Critical support during transition to new
gates to meet growing demand 
Sloped Ramps provide convenient and
fast way to load/unload at aircraft

ATL  International Concourse E and Terminal F 
International Concourse E 
2 million Square Feet 
Opened 1994 
28 gates 
FIS 
Connecting 
"Concourse E is wonderful but
you still have to fix the broken
arm..Atlanta needs to have
a direct connection to landside
to be a global competitor". 
Atlanta Int'l Business Community 

FIS Terminating
Terminal F                      & Connecting 
Opened 2012 
12 Gates 
24/7 FIS 
Landside Access

IAF Planning Process - Observations 
Holistic Approach            Airport and Airline Stakeholders
Engaged during the Process 
Demand Driven 
Sustainability Factors incorporated
Thorough Examination of Site
in the Planning Process 
Alternatives 
Importance of cost and customer
New Innovative Ideas
experience not lost in the process 
uncovered during process 
Result: Clear Objectives and
Due Diligence exceeds
Project Definition 
Industry Norms

IAF Development Challenges/Opportunities 
Bridge vs Tunnel from SSA to Landside

IAF Development Challenges/Opportunities 
Bridge vs Tunnel from SSA to Landside 
Hardstand and Busing Strategy 




Potential Bus Interface 
Convenient Access
to FIS 
Accommodate
Arrivals & Some
Departures

IAF Development Challenges/Opportunities 
Bridge vs Tunnel from SSA to Landside 
Hardstand and Busing Strategy 
Potential Congestion/Chokepoints in
Customs/ReCheck/SSCP Area

IAF Development Challenges/Opportunities 
Bridge vs Tunnel from SSA to Landside 
Hardstand and Busing Strategy 
Potential Congestion/Chokepoints in
Customs/ReCheck/SSCP Area 
Clarify Potential Conflict with GT Lot under
Building

IAF Development Challenges/Opportunities 
Bridge vs Tunnel from SSA to Landside 
Hardstand and Busing Strategy 
Potential Congestion/Chokepoints in
Customs/ReCheck/SSCP Area 
Clarify Potential Conflict with GT Lot under
Building 
Ensure Central Utility Plant capacities can support
new IAF space and future expansion 
Ensure Curbside is balanced with IAF demand 
Elevators sized to accommodate carts,
wheelchairs and aging population

IAF Development Challenges/Opportunities 
Bridge vs Tunnel from SSA to Landside 
Hardstand and Busing Strategy 
Potential Congestion/Chokepoints in
Customs/ReCheck/SSCP Area 
Clarify Potential Conflict with GT Lot under
Building 
Ensure Central Utility Plant capacities can support
new IAF space and future expansion 
Verify that Curbside is balanced with IAF demand 
Elevators sized to accommodate carts,
wheelchairs and aging population 
Technology will assist in "Future Proofing" the IAF
Facilities

IAF Development Challenges/Opportunities 
Bridge vs Tunnel from SSA to Landside 
Hardstand and Busing Strategy 
Potential Congestion/Chokepoints in
Customs/ReCheck/SSCP Area 
Clarify Potential Conflict with GT Lot under Building 
Ensure Central Utility Plant capacities can support
new IAF space and future expansion 
Verify that the Curbside is balanced with IAF
demand 
Elevators sized to accommodate carts, wheelchairs
and aging population 
Technology will assist in "Future Proofing" the IAF
Facilities 
Progressive Design-Build project delivery approach
is excellent path to ensure collaboration,
cost/schedule controls and minimize "Buyer's
Remorse".

Peer Review 
Proposed International Arrivals Facility (IAF) 
Seattle  Tacoma International Airport 
July 28. 2015

International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review
International Arrivals Facility  Program Review 






SeattleTacoma International Airport 
55                                    Independent Expert Review 
July 28, 2015

International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review
Kiran Merchant 
CEO DY Consultants 
30 years of experience at over 50 airports worldwide 
Formerly Head of Planning for Port Authority of New York New Jersey,
busiest airport system in the world. Experience includes planning
oversight of several major terminal development projects, such as: 
JFK T4, Terminal Expansion Program for Delta Airlines 
JFK T5i, new international terminal for JetBlue Airlines 
JFK T8, new international terminal for American Airlines 
EWR Terminal A, new 35 gate domestic terminal 
Formerly Director of Facilities for Continental Airlines 
Oversight of Newark Terminal C international terminal, global gateway
project 
Director of Facilities Design and Construction for TWA 
Managed Capital Improvement Projects for 72 Airports System 

SeattleTacoma International Airport 
56                                    Independent Expert Review 
July 28, 2015

International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review
JFK  Terminal 4 
International Arriving PAX Demand 
2,500 
Total FIS Space Program 
210,000 sft. 
International arrival gates 
25 contact gates, 
11 HS positions 
Passport Control positions - 54 
APC Kiosk  66 
Global entry kiosks - 24 
Baggage claim devices 
(7) 250 LF devices 
Customs Positions  9 
Recheck positions - 6 

SeattleTacoma International Airport 
57                                    Independent Expert Review 
July 28, 2015

International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review
JFK  JetBlue T5i 
International Arriving PAX Demand 
1,000 ( Planned for 1400) 
Total FIS Space Program 
128,000 sft. 
International arrival gates 
6 contact gates, 
3 HS positions with bus loop 
Passport Control positions - 14 
APC Kiosk  42 
Global entry kiosks - 9 
Baggage claim devices 
(2) 280 LF devices 
Customs Positions  4 
Recheck positions - 4 

SeattleTacoma International Airport 
58                                    Independent Expert Review 
July 28, 2015

International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review
IAF  Program Strengths 


Well Defined Process & project organization.     Intuitive Passenger flow 
Good Project definition and methodology.       Strong Arrivals Experience 
Focus on value-driven design.              Landside facility creates least
Decisions made with financial impacts in mind.      operational disruptions 
Positive partnering                     Easier access to construction site 

SeattleTacoma International Airport 
59                                    Independent Expert Review 
July 28, 2015

International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review
Integrated Development Process 


Streamlined delivery model. 
Ensures on-time and latest CBP thinking. 
Structured start up process. 
Early stakeholder engagement and
agreement. 
Incremental development process. 
Cost control throughout process. 
Optimization of existing infrastructure. 
SeattleTacoma International Airport 
60                                    Independent Expert Review 
July 28, 2015

International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review
Potential Challenges 
1.  Narrow exit paths - Customs, Recheck and SSCP
could back up in situations of arrival delays. 
2.  Baggage first solution needs bigger space in claim
area due to passengers arriving before bags and
requires proper Queuing widths and may need
alternate Queuing patterns. (Less turns).
3.  Entrance to Baggage Cart route to the feeder belts
may need to be widened 
4.  Smarte Cart Return route needs some refinement. 
5.  Terminating Passengers at the Arrivals frontage may
create some congestion at the south end of terminal
complex 





SeattleTacoma International Airport 
61                                    Independent Expert Review 
July 28, 2015

International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review
Opportunities 


Cut and Cover Tunnel option with re-aligned Taxi Lane may
be explored for cost and schedule savings. However Total #
of gate closure during construction need to be studied for
Operational Impacts. 
Close vicinity of Primary and Secondary processing is good
for "Baggage first" option. The same could be explored for
other options to optimize CBP staffing. 
Way-finding and well defined Branding/Signage Plan will
reduce the stress of long international travel and enhance
the Sense of Place for Passengers. 
SeattleTacoma International Airport 
62                                    Independent Expert Review 
July 28, 2015

International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review
Airport of the Future 
Real time data sharing / connectivity begins at a traveler's
home or office 



Technological innovations and
changes in Social Behavior can
be incorporated to improve
Operational efficiencies and
enhance Customer Service. 
SeattleTacoma International Airport 
63                                    Independent Expert Review 
July 28, 2015

Peer review of the International Arrivals Facility (IAF) 
prepared for the 








July 28, 2015

Mike Doucette 
Deputy Executive Director at Los Angeles World Airports 
30 years of experience at over 50 airports worldwide 
Registered Architect in the State of California 
Former Head of Planning for Los Angeles World Airports 
Previously employed by two major airport planning firms 
Landrum & Brown 
TCI (Thompson Consultants International) 
Work at Los Angeles includes: 
Oversight of Design and construction of new Tom Bradley International Terminal 
Development of Airport Master Plan 
Various Individual Terminal Expansion Programs 
Experience with over half a dozen international arrivals facilities, such as: 
Vancouver, BC       Chicago O'Hare     LAX 
Melbourne Aus.      Austin Texas       Phoenix Sky Harbor 
Munich          JFK            Seattle 

July 28, 2015             Peer review of the IAF prepared for the

LAX International
Airport
18 gates 
9  A380  Group 6 
6  B777 - Group 5 
3  B737  Group 3 
1.3 M square feet 
1.7 Billion dollars 
4500 PAX per hour International 
Arrival Capacity 




July 28, 2015             Peer review of the IAF prepared for the




Melbourne
International
Airport
Phase 1 - 5 new Group 5 & 6 
Gate Positions 
Increased Outbound Pax 
Processing 
Phase 2  6 additional Group 
5 & 6 gate positions 
New Concessions Core 
Inbound Arrivals Improvements



July 28, 2015             Peer review of the IAF prepared for the



Vancouver
International
Airport
Planning and Programming work 
including development of 
Basis of Design Document 
15 New Group 5 Gate Positions 
New International Arrivals & 
Departures Facilities 
US pre-clearance facilities 
New Concessions Core 




July 28, 2015             Peer review of the IAF prepared for the


Sea-Tac IAF Macro Development Issues 
Expand existing South Satellite versus Landside IAF 
Passenger connection to Landside - Bridge - Tunnel - 
Busing 
International Arrivals Activity and the Potential Impact
of Pre-clearance ? 
Role of Technology in Processing Arriving Passengers 
Bag First Processing and the role of BIWIS 
(Baggage Image and Weight Identification) 


July 28, 2015             Peer review of the IAF prepared for the

Sea-Tac IAF Macro Development Issues 
Expand existing South Satellite versus Landside IAF 
Passenger connection to Landside - Bridge - Tunnel - 
Busing 
International Arrivals Activity and the Potential Impact
of Pre-clearance? 
Role of Technology in Processing Arriving Passengers 
Bag First Processing and the role of BIWIS 


July 28, 2015             Peer review of the IAF prepared for the

Sea-Tac IAF Macro Development Issues 
Expand existing South Satellite versus Landside IAF 
Passenger connection to Landside - Bridge - Tunnel - 
Busing 
International Arrivals Activity and the Potential Impact
of Pre-clearance ? 
Role of Technology in Processing Arriving Passengers 
Bag First Processing and the role of BIWIS 


July 28, 2015             Peer review of the IAF prepared for the

Sea-Tac IAF Macro Development Issues 
Expand existing South Satellite versus Landside IAF 
Passenger connection to Landside - Bridge - Tunnel - 
Busing 
International Arrivals Activity and the Potential Impact
of Pre-clearance ? 
Role of Technology in Processing Arriving Passengers 
"I will not have pre-clearance in Doha and
Bag First Processing and the role of BIWIS from what I know, Dubai will not have
that," Akbar Al Baker*said, speaking at a
press conference at Arabian Travel Market. 
*Qatar Airways' CEO Akbar Al Baker 
May 10, 2015 


July 28, 2015             Peer review of the IAF prepared for the




Sea-Tac IAF Macro Development Issues 
Expand existing South Satellite versus Landside IAF 
Passenger connection to Landside - Bridge - Tunnel - 
Busing 
International Arrivals Activity and the Potential Impact
of Pre-clearance 
Role of Technology in Processing Arriving Passengers 
Bag First Processing and the role of BIWIS 


July 28, 2015             Peer review of the IAF prepared for the

Sea-Tac IAF Macro Development Issues 
Expand existing South Satellite versus Landside IAF 
Passenger connection to Landside      - Bridge - Tunnel - 
Busing 
International Arrivals Activity and the Potential Impact
of Pre-clearance ? 
Role of Technology in Processing Arriving Passengers 
Bag First Processing and the role of BIWIS 
(Baggage Image and Weight Identification) 
"Let checked bags stay checked" 
r 
July 28, 2015             Peer review of the IAF prepared for the

Sea-Tac IAF Specific Planning Issues 


Construct or Provide Provisions for future
Airfield Bus interface to CBP 
July 28, 2015             Peer review of the IAF prepared for the

Sea-Tac IAF Specific Planning Issues 


The post baggage claim process (i.e.
immigration review, secondary customs-
APHIS. Baggage and Passenger Recheck) are
confined to a relatively narrow area which
could become a congestion point and
capacity bottleneck 

July 28, 2015             Peer review of the IAF prepared for the


Sea-Tac IAF Peer Review Conclusions 
Observations 
Planning Work completed to date has been well thought out and very
comprehensive.
With confidence in the Passenger Forecast/cost affordability the
development of the new IAF will provide a tremendous improvement in
the passenger/employee/stakeholder experience at Sea-Tac. 
Recommendations 
Cost Benefit Analysis to alternative Cut and Cover Tunnel phasing
approach as a possible Value Engineering fallback. 
Incorporate Airfield Bus Access for future flexibility. 
Incorporate current future technology to the extent possible. 
Consider Bag First / BIWIS approach to streamline arrivals experience. 
Continue to refine physical layout and try to reach consensus of major
functional layouts prior to engaging design build team. 
July 28, 2015             Peer review of the IAF prepared for the

Design-Build Contractor and
Validation Process 
David Brush 
IAF Program Leader 



78

IAF Design-Build Contractor 
Introduce Lou Palandrani 
Senior Vice President Clark Construction, Team Leader, 20 years
design-build experience 
June 24 - Clark/SOM selected from among six
nationally known design-build firms 
July 20  Contract negotiations concluded &
contract executed 
July 21 - Port and design-builder staff began co-
locating to the SeaTac Office Center 
Clark/SOM, extremely high caliber firm, is working 
79

IAF Design-Build Validation Work 
Conduct a comprehensive assessment of all
existing conditions: 
Confirm utility locations 
Undertake geotechnical survey and borings 
Conduct surveys and site investigations 
Laser scan existing structures 
Systems assessments (Mechanical, Electrical,
IT, etc.) 
Validation work comprehensively assesses all existing conditions 
80

IAF Design-Build Validation Work 
Evolve various work plans: 
Design-Build Team Implementation Plan 
Building Information Management (BIM) Plan 
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan 
Safety & Security Plans 
Construction Staging Plan 
Construction Phasing Plan 
Review and validate Project Definition
Document planning concepts & requirements 
Validation involves creating many vital plans 
81

IAF Design-Build Validation Work
Incorporate feedback/decisions from the
Commission's 90 day review period 
Actively engage stakeholders, especially the
airlines, CBP & TSA, throughout Validation 
Develop design concepts options based on the
current program with various passenger flows and
square footage to improve passenger processing
times, reduce costs and speed construction 
Validation checks, and improves upon, earlier programming 
82

IAF Design-Build Validation Work
Advance the Port-selected concept to Early
Schematic Design level 
Key Validation Period Deliverables: 
Refined IAF concept that incorporates
stakeholder input and satisfies the Airport's
project goals and objectives 
Target Budget 
Target Schedule 
Validation concludes in late November 2015 
Results and deliverables will be available in November 
83

Customs & Border Protection;
Technology at Federal Inspection
Service Facilities 
David Brush 
IAF Program Leader 



84

CBP Collaboration with IAF 
Dan Tanciar 
Director, Travel & Tourism Initiatives, Office of Field Operations 
Mark Wilkerson 
Seattle Area Port Director 
Jeff Holmgren 
TSA Federal Security Director for State of Washington 
The Airport (SEA) has a close working relationship with
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) addressing overcapacity
and congestion issues in existing South Satellite FIS 
Staff has engaged in monthly meetings with CBP staff since
2012 to discuss the SEA IAF 
Airport Director engaged Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner of
CBP for joint effort to ensure creation of the most modern
processing IAF possible 
IAF work includes continuing collaboration with CBP 
85

CBP Collaboration with IAF 
CBP will have a representative assigned to the
IAF and will have an office with the IAF team at
the SeaTac Office Center 
CBP & POS are working together to design a
"Flagship" IAF 
New Passenger Processing Methods under
consideration: 
Automated Primary 
Baggage First Layout 
Modified Egress 
CBP & POS are working together to design a "Flagship" IAF 
86

CBP Ingenuity and Delivery 
New Technology Vision 
All passengers process through automated
kiosks or mobile devices 
Dynamic wayfinding signs 
Mobile inspections 
Biometrics 
New Project Delivery Method 
IAF to be first international facility delivered
using Progressive Design Build 
CBP will employ new technology to help increase passenger throughput 
87

Preclearance  An Overview 
Preclearance takes place outside the USA 
Passengers are screened on foreign soil,
allowing DHS to determine (ahead of time) who
can come into the USA with reduced risk 
Involves the same immigration, customs and
agriculture inspections of international air
passengers performed upon arrival in the USA 
Currently exists at 15 foreign airports in six
different countries (Canada, Caribbean, Ireland,
and UAE) 
Preclearance allows passengers to be screened out side of the USA 
88

Preclearance  An Overview 
Requirements for operating in host
countries are: 
DHS entering negotiations with ten airports in
nine countries for new pre-clearance facilities 
Host countries and airports fund new CBP/TSA
facilities and majority of CBP/TSA staff costs
and expenses 
Budget or security events in either country
could cause Preclearance agreements to
change 
Preclearance will take significant time to implement 
89

SEA Preclearance Implications 
London (LHR), Narita (NRT), Amsterdam
(AMS) 
Existing service from LHR, NRT and AMS
includes 18% of daily flights into the FIS
during noon peak 
Schedule for expanded pre-clearance 
LHR 2-4 years (scalable operations) 
AMS and NRT could be 3-5 years, or longer depending upon
agreements, budgets, and construction in those busy
airports. 
Preclearance could somewhat lower crowding at SEA 
90

SEA Gate Overview 
2015 
11 wide-body int'l gates now, 12 by year end 
All 11 gates in simultaneous use during peak 
15 aircraft use int'l gates during 3 hour peak 
2020 
18 wide-body int'l gates at completion of IAF 
16 gates in simultaneous use during peak 
22 wide-body aircraft use int'l gates during 3 hour peak
(includes 2 anticipated new services, 2 domestic aircraft,
and 4 potential preclearance aircraft) 
The Commissions' Century Agenda goal
envisions 6 added int'l new services after 2020 
The shortage of wide-body gates available at peak will continue to grow 
91

SEA Passenger Overview 
Passenger (PAX) volume has greatly
outgrown the existing 11 gate facility. PAX
"holds" are increasing on both aircraft and
in corridors. 
In 1970 the FIS was designed to process 800
passengers per hour 
Today's peak hour demand on the FIS is
1,600 passengers. 
The current FIS facility does not have capacity for the passenger volume 
92

Preclearance Gate and PAX Summary 
Preclearance does not eliminate the need for
added IAF wide-body gates at SEA during
peaks
Preclearance would slightly improve today's
operation, but does not eliminate the need
for expanded IAF international passenger
processing capability in SEA. 
The airport will grow and the IAF is a facility
to handle growth for the next 4 to 5 decades. 
Preclearance does not eliminate the need for a new IAF 
93

Airline Involvement in Project 
The Port continues to involve the airlines, including
the Commission's 90 day review 
The airport has retained two individuals as "Airline
Technical Representatives" who: 
Will communicate with the airlines as intermediaries
throughout the Validation period 
Consolidate airline input and provide to the IAF team 
Communicate IAF team progress to the airlines 
This will continue beyond the 90 day period and run
to November when the IAF team returns to
Commission with the results of Validation 
Airline involvement will continue past the 90 day review 
94

Forum Wrap-up and Next Meetings 
Technical discussions on July 29 
Airline Roundtable on August 11 


An ongoing effort 
95