Just saw a thread started yesterday regarding the upcoming changes to SLC (https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5762932/) and wanted to tweak that thread topic a bit. Rather than focus on alternatives to rebuilding SLC (as there is no true viable alternative), I wanted to focus on the unique opportunity that SLC has in building a new terminal. The airport created a website (http://myairportslc.com/) that solicits public feedback, so I thought we should start a thread to chip in our two cents and aggregate all of our ideas together.

From a passenger/crew/ground worker/airport employee perspective, if you were to build a new terminal in 2013 anywhere, what would you do to make it best in class? Just as DEN came up with a unique design and passenger experience two decades ago, it would be my hope that SLC could do the same in a less problematic and less expensive way.

For example, in SLC I hope to see the following ideas integrated into the final plan:

1. Glass jetways
2. A pre-security outdoor observation deck (like LGB) and a post-security indoor observation deck (quiet and public, like MSP)
3. If you've seen the proposed specs, SLC currently plans to renovate three existing concourses. Because the proposed project will take 10+ years to build, I say why not just go ahead and build the oft-proposed midfield concourse starting northwest of the current D concourse and get the construction aggravation over with already. Scrap the moving train and instead install underground moving walkways (like DTW) to save money. As a symbol of public pride and the gateway to our community I would rather have a uniform airport experience than a hodgepodge of old and new.
4. On site airport hotel (or at least space for one in the future)
5. Lengthen runway 34R to better accommodate long haul flying (so CDG doesn't have any restrictions)
6. Keep the on property golf course
7. Keep rental car facilities nice and close as they currently are
8. What else?

I submitted my thoughts on the website. Lots of natural light. Plenty of security checkpoints. Flexibility in the check in area, as by the time this gets finished the days of an actual check in desk will likely be long gone.

Quoting yra (Thread starter): I say why not just go ahead and build the oft-proposed midfield concourse

simple....dollars. Saves hundreds of millions for something that can be deferred. The project is not necessarily about building the ultimate airport it is about creating the best they can without increasing airline operating costs.

Quoting yra (Thread starter): On site airport hotel (or at least space for one in the future)

usually a good idea but I'm not sure how many people would use one given the number of nearby hotels and downtown only 6 miles away.

Quoting yra (Thread starter): Lengthen runway 34R to better accommodate long haul flying (so CDG doesn't have any restrictions)

the project is terminal work only not for airfield expansion and again, dollars. can SLC justify spending hundreds of millions to satisfy one flight that may have restrictions on certain days? Though I believe this is a project in the 20 year master plan.

Quoting yra (Thread starter): Keep rental car facilities nice and close as they currently are

they are planned for level one of the new garage which is going to be directly across from the front door of the new terminal, much like todays configuration.

You are right, I appreciate SLC's caution in not biting off more than they can chew, break the bank, or have skyrocketing airline costs. I just dread the thought of regularly using an airport that is perpetually under construction for a decade or more, only to have them "finish" and then decide to start up construction all over again and build that midfield concourse.

My main question is what are the costs of seismically upgrading B, C, and D compared to the costs of building a new concourse that matches the rest of the new design? If they have to gut everything to structurally strengthen each old concourse I don't see how that would be much cheaper than an all-new building. We already have the space for half of it and it would be a minimal disruption to flight operations. Why not just build half of a midfield concourse and let OO use it for the regional flights?

Look at DTW or MSP and see the simpler, scaled back midfield-type concourses they built for regional operations. I 100% agree with the general premise that building the midfield concourse now is expensive but I always believed that the train, not the building itself would be the true driver of cost. Ditch the train for moving walkways and save several hundred million dollars.

Another thought to look more deeply into this idea would be to have the potential GCs bid just like they did on the I-15 freeway expansion - have the airport give them a price, say $1.5B and then see what the GCs propose they can build for that price. Maybe there is a GC out there who can figure out a way to do a midfield concourse for the same price as seismically upgrading B, C, and D.

Quoting yra (Reply 2): Another thought to look more deeply into this idea would be to have the potential GCs bid just like they did on the I-15 freeway expansion - have the airport give them a price, say $1.5B and then see what the GCs propose they can build for that price. Maybe there is a GC out there who can figure out a way to do a midfield concourse for the same price as seismically upgrading B, C, and D.

...you mean the project that ended up in lawsuits with the losing parties claiming favoritism to the winning bidder?  

But I get your point, let the contractor be creative with the budget.

The problem is they are not designing an airport for the passenger. They are designing an airport for the airline. Passengers don't have a huge choice between SLC and anything else. If they are connecting they go with the best flight availability, if they are O/D passengers they have no other choice. And the quality of the airport does nothing to make the city money. So, they are going to in the end design it the way that will make it most cost effective for the airline, while maximizing revenues for the city, i.e. food and retail. Thus, a shopping mall.

There's a reason why airports no longer have windows or lots of places to sit. Same reason you don't find them in department stores or malls. If they really wanted to focus on the passenger experience they would provide plenty of comfortable seating, quiet areas, things for people to do besides shop, well signed and with clear directions and announcements. And they would make it easy to get from gate 10 to gate 120 without having to cross the airport or "exit through retail". And they would provide places for families to both meet and bid farewell, as well as places for them to wait together before their flight. And, they would make the friendly to not only passengers but also visitors to establish it as part of the city.

/rant

I just hope that they take into account accessibility. I have no idea why people think DEN is so great -- imagine being in a wheel chair and the number of "ups" and "downs" you have to go through to get from passenger drop off at the lower level to your gate, and even worse, a visit to an airline club on an upper level!

Contrast this with ATL where all that is needed is a single "down" and then a single "up" for everything.

gas station for rental car returns at the airport exit!

an onsite hotel would be great too. the current choices in the area leave much to be desired and are completely isolated from any kind of retail.

My ideas for the ideal hub terminal:

Check-in Area wide, with many entrances and exits. Check-in on Second floor, bag claim, ground transport, and waiting areas on ground floor. Maintenance, baggage handling, and other assorted services on B1F. Third and fourth floor could handle restaurants and the 5th floor would have a skydeck. Also on first floor would be a large area for CBP processing.

After check-in, the various check-in areas would "merge" into a large hall which houses security. In addition, a second escalator will come up from the left side where an escalator will come up from CBP for pax rescreen but that will have its own dedicated line in order to keep that line as small as possible.

After security, there will be 3 separate concourses, all serviced by a tram and moving walkways. Concourse A, on the left side, is the widebody and international concourse. Many restaurants line the hall, where 25 gates are (or more depending on the demand at this airport). Concourse B, on the right side, will house 35-45 gates (depending on demand, again) and will service domestic mainline flights. Also on one end will serve other airlines that are in that terminal, including RJs from other airlines. Concourse C will be connected by an underground moving walkway from the very center of the concourse and will have 50-60 gates dedicated to various sizes of RJ. The tram will have 5 stations, and will pass at the central station, and run every minute. One station at the far right and left ends, the middle of the concourses, and right in the middle (In similar vein to DTW)

Baggage will be all automated, with part of the underground path between C and Main working as the sorting area for the bags. Also on top of C will be the ramp control tower for the entire terminal.

What do you think? it's just my idea for the ideal terminal.

Quoting yra (Thread starter): 1. Glass jetways

In that climate, the glass jetways would be very cold in winter or very warm in summer as most jetways I have been on don't have heat or a/c.

Quoting yra (Thread starter): . A pre-security outdoor observation deck (like LGB) and a post-security indoor observation deck (quiet and public, like MSP)

In reality this will never happen as airports are in business with the airlines and not with passengers. As much as I would like to see what you are proposing in all airports, they may have thought of this but the current trend is against the aviation enthusiast and not allow for any visual contact with the aircraft except at the departure gate.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 4): There's a reason why airports no longer have windows or lots of places to sit.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 8): and not allow for any visual contact with the aircraft except at the departure gate.

I think the new terminal at IND and the McNamara terminal at DTW would beg to differ   Although I will concede that is the exception, not the norm.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 4): And the quality of the airport does nothing to make the city money

Huh? Yes it does. If you have a good airport that is friendly to the passengers (meaning it allows for efficient and quick operations), it will also be friendly to the airlines. The airlines will choose to use your airport.

DTW is a major source of local revenue and employemt, for example. Part of the reason that it remains so is because it is so friendly to both passengers and airlines. The Midfield terminal makes a fantastic terminal for both O&D and transfer passengers. It allows DL to quickly connect passengers from one flight to the next and make the most efficient use of the facility. If the airport were still a pile of dung like it used to be, DL would probably have chosen a more airline and passenger-friendly airport elsewhere.