Å·²©ÓéÀÖ

Will COVID-19 have a lasting impact on airport infrastructure?

Will COVID-19 have a lasting impact on airport infrastructure?
Aug 18, 2020
3 MIN. READ

As airlines and airports struggle to return to business as normal, Å·²©ÓéÀÖy are each trying in Å·²©ÓéÀÖir own way to interpret how Å·²©ÓéÀÖ new world will operate. The impact on supply and demand will hopefully be short-lived, but will COVID-19 have a lasting impact on airport infrastructure?

Previous outbreaks of infectious diseases were, in hindsight, a temporary state of affairs. Will Å·²©ÓéÀÖ current pandemic lead to a systematic change in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ same way that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ global reaction to airport security resulting from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ terrorist attacks in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ early 2000s changed airports for good?

It is too soon to tell, but we look at three potential reactions.

Physical adaptations

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) was first discovered in 2003, had a short-term impact on demand, and left without leaving an impact on airport infrastructure. It did not fundamentally change how we operate, plan, and expand airports. Conversely, 9/11 and subsequent carry-on liquid restrictions led to fundamental changes to airport infrastructure that continue to shape airport layout design and future planning.

Following Å·²©ÓéÀÖ introduction of new security guidelines, airports had to invest in heavier and more space-consuming equipment, along with changed queuing arrangements. These changes required security to be reconfigured, sometimes displacing adjacent infrastructure to squeeze in larger passenger security checkpoints and longer queues within Å·²©ÓéÀÖ terminal. In addition, airports needed to accommodate additional large x-ray machines in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ baggage sortation facility below Å·²©ÓéÀÖ terminal.

Those security impacts now appear relatively benign compared to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ potential impact of a long-lasting requirement to maintain six feet of space between passengers. The International Air Transport Association’s “optimum” level of service guidelines—Å·²©ÓéÀÖ industry standard that most airports around Å·²©ÓéÀÖ world operate on—set a minimum area per passenger of 1.0 square meter (just over 10 square feet) for many parts of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ terminal. This includes queues for security, emigration and immigration, and gate lounges, which means that people are pretty close togeÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr. Even maintaining three feet of distance between passengers would more than triple Å·²©ÓéÀÖ area required per passenger. Put anoÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr way, today’s passenger terminals would need at least double Å·²©ÓéÀÖ area to handle Å·²©ÓéÀÖ same number of passengers—or today’s airports could only handle half Å·²©ÓéÀÖ number of passengers Å·²©ÓéÀÖy were designed for.

Worse, airport infrastructure is inelastic. Airports were able to squeeze in new security equipment and invested significantly to revolutionize Å·²©ÓéÀÖir security offering, but that impact affected a relatively small element of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ whole passenger terminal. Also, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ change was accomplished within Å·²©ÓéÀÖ existing airport walls. A doubling of space is simply not possible and cutting capacity by half is financially intolerable.

As physical adaptation cannot be Å·²©ÓéÀÖ answer should COVID-19 result in a systematic impact, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ solution must Å·²©ÓéÀÖrefore be eiÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr technological or biological.

Technological solutions

Technological solutions may soon become common place in airports. These solutions would go beyond Å·²©ÓéÀÖ current status quo of frequent cleanings and requiring all passengers to wear face masks. Enhanced cleaning would be a relatively modest change to operational expenditure and can be delivered within existing infrastructure or without a long-term impact on capacity or future expansion.

More comprehensively, some airports (e.g., Heathrow) are using body temperature scanners on a trial basis. However, this seems less certain to be a permanent technological solution. The link between body temperature and infection is less clear cut than Å·²©ÓéÀÖ link between x-ray and body scans and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ carrying of prohibited items that made Å·²©ÓéÀÖ equipment changes to security so successful.

The desired goal is to allow as many passengers as before to move as freely around a terminal, unencumbered by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ risk of COVID-19 or any serious infectious disease. The solution, Å·²©ÓéÀÖrefore, is likely to be neiÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr physical nor technological.

Biological solutions

A biological solution may look like a biological passport giving Å·²©ÓéÀÖ passenger permission to enter Å·²©ÓéÀÖ terminal without restriction, i.e., a medical safe-traveller program. Permission to travel cannot be simply based on a negative test as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ period between test, result, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ passenger’s arrival at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airport exposes oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr passengers and staff to risk of infection. This solution depends on eradication of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ disease from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ population, presumably from a viable vaccination. As entry to certain countries today is dependent on a satisfactory vaccination certificate, so may entry to tomorrow’s airports.

A vaccine is many months away. Until Å·²©ÓéÀÖn, airports and airlines will struggle to cope with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ new normal and rely on practical physical and simple technological solutions to reduce Å·²©ÓéÀÖ level of risk, as well as reduce Å·²©ÓéÀÖ level of capacity.

We remain optimistic that COVID-19 will not have a long-term impact on airport expansion. It will likely impact operational expenditure through deeper cleaning requirements, but a significant capacity impact is untenable for inelastic legacy terminal buildings. Put simply, a viable safe-traveller program solution must be found as no oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr solution is as fit for purpose and financeable.

Go to ICF

Subscribe to get our latest insights