More mingling of international and domestic travellers may be the way of the future. Photo / Costfoto, CFOTO, NurPhoto via AFP
Could this be a solution to expensive airfares?
A new study has found integrated airport terminals - where domestic and international operations are bought together - save on double-ups and encourage passengers to spend more money.
With airport fees a big contributor to plane ticket costs, more profitable airports might conceivably be in a position to pass on some savings to airlines.
Matt Findlay, New Zealand and Australia head of aviation at global architectural firm Populous, said advances in security, biometrics and border policy were helping speed up integration.
“The benefits of integration are far-reaching, from a reduction of duplicated infrastructure and operations to better allocation of passenger time within a single de-pressurised experience.”
Ivo Favotto, managing director at travel and infrastructure advisers The Mercurius Group, said integrated terminals were common at smaller and regional airports but rare at big New Zealand and Australian airports.
“Integrated terminals deliver capital and operational efficiencies alongside significant commercial benefits,” he added.
“Their proven advantages are driving active consideration and development at major airports including Perth, Brisbane, Sydney, and Auckland.”
Auckland Airport is currently employing 1500 people across its terminal integration programme.
That project is a multibillion-dollar scheme aiming to deliver a new domestic jet terminal integrated with the existing international terminal.
The Mercurius Group white paper said using the same infrastructure for domestic and international flights could bring major capital expenditure savings over time.
Lewis Caswell, principal airport planner with built environment consultants Arup, said as more airports adopted integrated terminals, the benefits to operations and passenger experience became clear.
But he said legacy processes, especially double-screening of international departing passengers, stopped integrated environments reaching their full potential.
The white paper said smaller international airports could boost revenue by letting international passengers spend more time in bigger, better domestic terminals.
The study also said efficiencies could flow from a more “common-user approach” to expensive infrastructure.
It said that approach could make it easier for regional airports to accommodate international traffic.
“Making it cheaper and easier to operate international flights will allow more airports to pursue them at scale, delivering material economic benefits to regional communities,” the study added.
The Mercurius Group study said in a segregated terminal, passengers were kept separate from check-in through security and departure lounges.
It said segregation was the old-fashioned approach and still in use at Auckland, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney.
At what the authors called current integrated terminals, domestic and international passengers were partially processed at the same point.
Both groups were screened to domestic passenger standards and admitted into the domestic terminal departure lounge.
International passengers had a second screening before going to a segregated departures lounge, typically managed through a swing gate.
The authors said Adelaide, Hobart and Spain’s Málaga–Costa del Sol airports already used integrated models.
Another type of terminal was the common departure lounge model.
Those terminals had a single common departure lounge with one screening point, and domestic and international passengers mixing freely.
“In such terminals, segregation of domestic and international passengers typically occurs at the gate, most commonly using biometric technology, such as day-of-travel photo matching.”
The study said no New Zealand or Australian airports operated this model but Heathrow was an overseas example of this model.
International arriving passengers still needed segregation to meet border protection and quarantine regulations.
The authors said international passenger surveys at Adelaide, Cairns and Gold Coast airports showed travellers spent on average two hours and 16 minutes at the airport.
About 44% of time was spent in the domestic terminal and 56% spent in international.
On average, international passengers started queuing to enter international screening 82 minutes before flights, with an average of six minutes getting through security and emigration.
The study said the amount of time passengers spent in international terminals at the three airports caused much dismay.
“I did not enjoy the double security clearance, but what was worse was realising there was nothing great in the international terminal,” one respondent said.
“If you make us arrive early, give us something to do.”
Some flyers cited double security screening, lack of communication, confusing layouts and poor-quality food and beverages.
The study found for every additional 15 minutes, a traveller’s average spend increased by $3.60.
The study said international passengers when in domestic terminals spent 2.4 times more than domestic passengers did.
It added: “The retail spend rate of international passengers in the domestic terminal was 6.6 times higher than their spend in the international terminal.”
It was estimated that enabling international passengers to spend more time in domestic terminals could increase their spend rate by about $10 to $12.20.
The authors said domestic terminals had much larger and stronger retail offerings than international terminals.
John Weekes is a business journalist covering aviation and courts. He has previously covered consumer affairs, crime, politics and courts.