Could the New airBaltic Terminal Become the First True Low-Cost Terminal?

Everyone who had air-traveled at least once had got familiar with the traditional order at airport: check-in, baggage drop, security, passport control, boarding, luggage reclaim and so on. But is it really the most appropriate, easiest and cheapest way to get people and their bags on and off the planes? There must be some more up-to-date model because the current system has strong roots in early luxury air travel when traveler numbers were low, ticked prices unaffordable for general public and service standards high.

Current terminal at Riga airport is now considerably crowded at peak times as airBaltic has created a local hub. All of the earlier expansion proposals came from airport itself and were some type of traditional glamorous ‘air-travel temples’ spread all over the world. The project did not move on and airBaltic took over the initiative of building a terminal for 7-8 million annual passengers with expansion possibilities to capacity of 14 million passengers. Terminal must be low cost (~EUR 95m) and satisfy needs of airBaltic. Here come my ideas for the terminal:

Self-Service Luggage Handling

The cheapest and most obvious way to handle luggage is to put this duty on the owner. This means no traditional luggage drop when entering the terminal but one must bring his suitcases as far as the aircraft and put it in trolley for loading onto aircraft. Arriving bags are delivered right near the aircraft and anyone can take them without any delays. Of course, all bags must comply with hand luggage safety standards so no sharp items or liquids can be carried. If all this is introduced luggage handing will cost less so most of restrictions and fees actually could be eliminated.

Problems start with other airports in airBaltic network – the arriving bags at Riga must be cleared as hand luggage not as checked-in luggage so gate baggage drop must be applied for everyone and several airports may not find it acceptable. Luggage transfers from traditional carriers to BT would be impossible and travelers would have to pick-up the bags from reclaim belt and go trough security again. Alternatively such type of luggage could be considered as air cargo and delivered at cargo facilities at RIX (with significantly longer delivery time).

Keeping the Terminal Simple

As terminal would not have a traditional baggage handling system, all the facilities can be located in single floor; there would be no need for check-in counters. Single floor and gate baggage drop don’t go well together with jetbridges so walk and bus gates are the only reasonable option also saving time.

New passenger oriented cargo and mail service must be developed for prohibited items in hand luggage. Sharp items and liquids could be delivered to destination with special mail service (optionally connected to traditional mail). The difference from current checked-in luggage would be earlier check-in times or later deliveries (booth in special offices), smaller item size. These items would not be attached to the particular flight where the owner flies but could be delivered to destination also earlier or later. The packages can be delivered to traveler’s preferred post office as regular mail so avoiding the need of make companies own post offices at all stations.

Maybe this all sound too crazy but just imagine how big savings could give significant airport cost reduction at hub airport for hub and spoke model airline. Hub model was introduced because it is cheaper than point-to-point model; it is multiple times easier to connect each node with one hub rather than each node with all of the others. Paradoxically European point-to-point LCC now can offer cheaper tickets with significantly more expensive network. Hub airlines can blame only themselves for high airport costs coming from starchitect terminals, luggage handling systems, jetbriges and 100m spans over check-in halls. 

Bringing Life to Liepāja Airport

Liepāja airport saw a start of scheduled airBaltic flights in 2007 to Riga, later also to Hamburg and Copenhagen yet already in 2008 all of the routes were dropped. Also Russian Atlant-Soyuz Airlines offered short-lived service to Moscow Vnukovo between 2008 and 2009. This failure on sustaining flights is mainly due the superiority of Palanga airport located about 60km south of Liepāja. Palanga airport have better facilities and – even more important – better catchment area. Palanga itself is a seaside resort and the airport is easily accessible from Klaipeda city in south, Liepāja in north and a number of mid-sized towns in east. airBaltic actually switched Liepāja feeder route to Palanga in 2009 regardless of the existing SAS feeder route to Copenhagen, Norwegian service to Oslo and seasonal UTair link to Moscow. Is there any chance of attracting some services – at least a feeder route to BT hub in Riga? I think – yes. The main idea is to develop the airport as a true city airport with fast connections to all districts of the city and full integration in the transport grid.

The Key – a BRT line from Liepāja to Grobiņa

Grobiņa is the biggest suburban town near Liepāja just about 10km from the CBD. Currently a twice-hourly bus service is the main public transport link between Liepāja and Grobiņa and it runs on the highway by-passing Liepāja airport. My point is that building a 4km brand-new Bus Rapid Transit line and upgrading a number of other roads and streets would allow to substantially speed-up Liepāja-Grobiņa bus service. A secondary effect from this BRT would be notably improved connectivity of Liepāja airport as the station can be built right next to the passenger terminal. The completely new road section for the BRT must be built trough reedy wetlands on the northern side of Lake Liepāja so some environmental concerns may rise but, as this road is dedicated for buses, cyclists and pedestrians, the impacts can be hold under control. This routing also bypasses urban areas so the actual operating speed for vehicles will be higher.

Gateway for Cars and Bicycles

Usually airports are surrounded by Park&Fly car parks but they are not used (at least I haven’t came across) like Park&Ride sites. In the case of Liepāja a win-win situation can be created if those booth facilities are merged. P&R will be based on BRT and the increasing traffic will bringing even better connections to airport. For successful implementation of P&R system some push-back actions like big parking fees in CBD or congestion tax may be applied. The same parking lots can be used for P&R and P&F so more effective use and bigger turnarounds will lower the parking prices.

A cycle line can be built along the BRT line so connecting Grobiņa to Liepāja and also airport to Liepāja. Booth air and road visitors can be easily served by one bicycle rent in the airport and  - cycling used to reach the golden beaches and lively clubs.

The biggest advantage of the listed measures is that ground transport system will be fully independent from level of air traffic which is designed to be more re-active. I believe - if the scheme is realized – a stable air traffic will came back to serve Liepāja from city's closest and the most convenient airport.

A way passengers could handle the luggage by themselves

Lately I came to a conclusion that Ryanair’s idea about passengers handling their own luggage is a genius not an insane idea. Look how I imagine it:
1. Passenger comes to an airport with piece of luggage and goes straight to the security check.
2. Before hand luggage scan and X-rays he puts his “checked-in” luggage on a special conveyor with goes to luggage scans.
3. Right after personal security check passenger goes to a baggage carousel where he gets his scanned and sealed (for instance wrapped in plastic) piece of luggage.
4. Passenger goes straight to the aircraft and gives his luggage to the baggage handler who checks weather the seal is undamaged and nothing has been taken out.
5. After landing passenger gets his piece of luggage right next to the airplane and goes to the city or next flight.
So we could forget about 1) missing luggage; 2) waiting for luggage delivery; 3) most of baggage handlers and handing systems; 5) check-in and check-in counters as ticket and ID checks can be done onboard; 6) gate agents as no bags could travel without owner; 7) all or most luggage restrictions.

Unlike Ryanair’s initial proposal - the luggage is sealed with allows to carry liquids and sharp items. On the other hand – the airports must be fully re-designed – so this system couldn’t be introduced quickly and without investments.