Bermuda Master Plan December 2006

Bermuda International Airport
Master Plan
December 2006
Submitted by: HNTB Corporation
in association with Cooper and Gardner Architects and Unified Industries Incorporated

Master Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.
INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.6.1
1.6.2
1.6.3
1.6.4
1.6.5
1.7
1.7.1
1.7.2
1.7.3
1.7.4
1.8
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
1.8.4
1.8.5
1.8.6
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.20.1
1.20.2
1.20.3
1.20.4
1.20.5
1.21
1.21.1
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1-1
AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................ 1-1
DELEGATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................. 1-2
EN ROUTE NAVIGATION AIDS ........................................................................................................ 1-2
LOCAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PROCEDURES............................................................................. 1-2
AIRFIELD ............................................................................................................................................... 1-3
Runway.........................................................................................................................................................................1-3
Taxiways.......................................................................................................................................................................1-3
Aprons..........................................................................................................................................................................1-4
Landing Navigational Aids........................................................................................................................................1-4
Imaginary Surfaces and Obstructions......................................................................................................................1-6
PASSENGER TERMINAL BUILDING ................................................................................................. 1-6
Overview and Recent Construction History...........................................................................................................1-6
Ground Floor Level ....................................................................................................................................................1-6
First Floor Level ....................................................................................................................................................... 1-10
Building Services...................................................................................................................................................... 1-11
ACCESS, CIRCULATION AND PARKING....................................................................................... 1-11
Access ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-11
On-Airport Circulation .......................................................................................................................................... 1-12
Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................................................................... 1-13
Curbside Activity ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-13
Public Parking .......................................................................................................................................................... 1-13
Other Parking........................................................................................................................................................... 1-14
EXECUTIVE JET FACILITY............................................................................................................... 1-15
FORMER NATO FACILITY................................................................................................................ 1-15
AIR CARGO SHED .............................................................................................................................. 1-15
COURIER BUILDING ......................................................................................................................... 1-15
FORMER HELICOPTER BUILDING ................................................................................................. 1-16
ARFF FACILITY .................................................................................................................................. 1-16
BERMUDA POST OFFICE FACILITY ............................................................................................... 1-16
ASB/BAS WORKSHOP BUILDING ................................................................................................... 1-16
CATERING BUILDING ...................................................................................................................... 1-18
DAO MAINTENANCE FACILITY ..................................................................................................... 1-18
FUEL STORAGE/ DISTRIBUTION.................................................................................................... 1-18
UTILITIES ............................................................................................................................................ 1-18
Electric....................................................................................................................................................................... 1-18
Water ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-18
Sanitary Sewage........................................................................................................................................................ 1-19
Communications ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-19
Stormwater ............................................................................................................................................................... 1-19
OFF-AIRPORT FACILITIES ............................................................................................................... 1-19
Air Traffic Control Tower ...................................................................................................................................... 1-19

Master Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.21.2
1.21.3
1.22
1.22.1
1.22.2
1.22.3
1.22.4
1.22.5
1.22.6
1.22.7
1.22.8
1.22.9
1.22.10
1.22.11
1.23
1.23.1
1.23.2
1.23.3
1.23.4
Page
Bermuda Weather Service/Ground Electronics Building.................................................................................. 1-19
BAS-Serco Offices.................................................................................................................................................... 1-19
ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY .................................................................................................... 1-20
Study Area................................................................................................................................................................. 1-20
Land Use Plans, Projects and Programs ............................................................................................................... 1-20
Airport Lands ........................................................................................................................................................... 1-21
Lands Surrounding Airport.................................................................................................................................... 1-21
Fresh Water Lens ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-22
Geology ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1-22
Terrestrial Habitat ................................................................................................................................................... 1-23
Marine Habitat......................................................................................................................................................... 1-25
Water Testing ........................................................................................................................................................... 1-28
Air Testing ................................................................................................................................................................ 1-28
Noise Studies ............................................................................................................................................................ 1-29
KEY ISSUES.......................................................................................................................................... 1-29
Non-Conforming Design Standards..................................................................................................................... 1-29
Terminal Development........................................................................................................................................... 1-29
Airport Building Asset Reuse................................................................................................................................. 1-30
Land Use Compatibility.......................................................................................................................................... 1-30
2.
AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECAST .................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.3.6
2.3.7
2.3.8
2.3.9
2.3.10
2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 2-1
HISTORICAL ACTIVITY ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
Passengers ....................................................................................................................................................................2-1
Operations ...................................................................................................................................................................2-3
Air Service....................................................................................................................................................................2-3
Cargo ............................................................................................................................................................................2-7
BASE FORECAST .................................................................................................................................. 2-7
General Forecast Assumptions .................................................................................................................................2-7
Scheduled Passenger Forecast...................................................................................................................................2-8
Load Factor and Seat Departure Forecast ............................................................................................................ 2-12
Scheduled Passenger Carrier Operations and Fleet Mix.................................................................................... 2-12
General Aviation...................................................................................................................................................... 2-16
Cargo ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-20
Military...................................................................................................................................................................... 2-22
Charter ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2-22
Summary of Base Forecast...................................................................................................................................... 2-23
Derivative Base Forecast ......................................................................................................................................... 2-23
ALTERNATIVE FORECAST SCENARIOS ........................................................................................ 2-23
High Forecast Scenario ........................................................................................................................................... 2-26
Low Forecast Scenario............................................................................................................................................. 2-27
ii

Master Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.
Page
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
3.4.6
3.4.7
3.4.8
3.4.9
3.4.10
3.4.11
3.4.12
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.6
3.6.1
3.6.2
3.6.3
3.7
3.8
3.8.1
3.8.2
3.8.3
3.8.4
3.9
3.9.1
3.9.2
3.9.3
3.10
3.11
3.12
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 3-1
DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................... 3-1
ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code ..........................................................................................................................3-2
Approach Minimums.................................................................................................................................................3-2
AIRFIELD CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................... 3-5
Factors Affecting Airfield Capacity..........................................................................................................................3-5
Determining BDA Airfield Capacity .......................................................................................................................3-8
Airfield Delay ..............................................................................................................................................................3-9
AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................................ 3-9
New Runways ..............................................................................................................................................................3-9
Runway Length ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-14
Runway Width ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-15
Runway Strength...................................................................................................................................................... 3-15
Runway Shoulders ................................................................................................................................................... 3-17
Runway Strips........................................................................................................................................................... 3-17
Runway Blast Pads................................................................................................................................................... 3-17
Runway End Safety Areas....................................................................................................................................... 3-19
Clearways .................................................................................................................................................................. 3-19
Stopways.................................................................................................................................................................... 3-19
Taxiway Requirements............................................................................................................................................ 3-19
NAVAIDs ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-21
TERMINAL AND CONCOURSE REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................ 3-22
Demand Levels and Planning Factors .................................................................................................................. 3-22
Facility Requirements.............................................................................................................................................. 3-28
Aircraft Gate Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 3-35
Summary................................................................................................................................................................... 3-36
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS ............................................. 3-36
Airport Access and Circulation ............................................................................................................................. 3-36
Terminal Curbside................................................................................................................................................... 3-38
Parking Requirements............................................................................................................................................. 3-38
AIR CARGO ......................................................................................................................................... 3-41
GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES .................................................................................................. 3-43
GA Terminal............................................................................................................................................................. 3-43
GA Apron Requirements........................................................................................................................................ 3-45
GA Hangar Requirements ...................................................................................................................................... 3-45
Total GA Site Requirements................................................................................................................................... 3-45
SUPPORT FACILITIES ....................................................................................................................... 3-45
Maintenance Facilities ............................................................................................................................................ 3-45
Fuel Storage Facilities.............................................................................................................................................. 3-45
ARFF Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-46
USEFUL LIFE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 3-48
UTILITIES ............................................................................................................................................ 3-48
STORM SURGE PROTECTION ......................................................................................................... 3-50
iii

Master Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.
Page
CONCEPTS ............................................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.5
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.6
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.7
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 4-1
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ........................................................................................... 4-1
OVERALL PLANNING STRATEGY .................................................................................................... 4-2
NEW TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 4-2
Screening Initial Sites .................................................................................................................................................4-2
Evaluation of New Terminal Sites ............................................................................................................................4-2
Replacement Terminal Configuration Analysis.....................................................................................................4-8
Other Airport Facilities Development Concepts ................................................................................................ 4-13
REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING TERMINAL .............................................................................. 4-14
Preliminary Onsite Redevelopment Strategies .................................................................................................... 4-15
Layout and General Phasing Plan for Redeveloped Terminal at Existing Site ............................................... 4-15
Concepts for Other Airport Facilities for Redeveloped Terminal at Existing Site......................................... 4-17
EVALUATION OF TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS ...................................................... 4-17
Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................................................................................. 4-17
Terminal Development Options Evaluation........................................................................................................ 4-19
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION ......................................................................................... 4-25
5.
RECOMMENDED PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.4.5
5.5
5.6
5.6.1
5.6.2
5.6.3
5.6.4
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 5-1
OVERALL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY............................................................................................ 5-1
ON-AIRPORT LAND USE .................................................................................................................... 5-1
AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PLAN ...................................................................................................... 5-2
Airfield..........................................................................................................................................................................5-2
Terminal Area .............................................................................................................................................................5-5
Air Cargo......................................................................................................................................................................5-6
General Aviation.........................................................................................................................................................5-6
Support Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................5-6
PRELIMINARY COST AND PHASING ............................................................................................... 5-7
OFF-AIRPORT LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 5-8
Background............................................................................................................................................................... 5-11
Noise Metrics and Modelling................................................................................................................................. 5-11
Results of Noise Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 5-11
Recommended Off-Airport Land Use Compatibility ........................................................................................ 5-13
6.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS .............................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1
6.2
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
6.2.4
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 6-1
BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 6-1
Revenue Enhancement Assumptions ......................................................................................................................6-2
Alternative Funding Sources.....................................................................................................................................6-4
Projected Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................6-4
Cost Calculations ..................................................................................................................................................... 6-11
iv

Master Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.2.5
6.3
6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.3.5
6.3.6
6.4
6.4.1
6.4.2
6.4.3
6.4.4
6.4.5
6.4.6
6.4.7
Page
Benefit Scenarios...................................................................................................................................................... 6-11
PROJECT DELIVERY OPTIONS........................................................................................................ 6-16
Design, Bid, Build, Operate .................................................................................................................................... 6-16
Agency Construction Manager (CM-at-Fee) ...................................................................................................... 6-17
Construction Manager at Risk ............................................................................................................................... 6-17
Design-Build............................................................................................................................................................. 6-18
Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT).............................................................................................................................. 6-19
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................ 6-19
REVENUE ENHANCEMENT STRATEGIES ..................................................................................... 6-19
Overnight Aircraft Parking Fees............................................................................................................................ 6-20
Consulting Activities............................................................................................................................................... 6-20
Ground Handling .................................................................................................................................................... 6-20
Reuse of Existing Departures Hall......................................................................................................................... 6-20
High-End FBO ......................................................................................................................................................... 6-20
Seek One-Way Cruise ............................................................................................................................................. 6-21
Other Energy Efficiencies ....................................................................................................................................... 6-21
APPENDIX A: ESTIMATED FLIGHT SCHEDULES

APPENDIX B: ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF CROSS-WIND RUNWAY
APPENDIX C: INITIAL NEW TERMINAL OPTIONS IDENTIFIED IN NOVEMBER 2005 MEETING

Master Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 1.3
Table 1.4
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 2.7
Table 2.8
Table 2.9
Table 2.10
Table 2.11
Table 2.12
Table 2.13
Table 2.14
Table 2.15
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Table 3.11
Table 3.12
Table 3.13
Table 3.14
Table 3.15
Table 3.16
Table 3.17
Table 3.18
Table 3.19
Table 3.20
Table 3.21
Table 4.1
Page
Runway Marking, Lighting and NAVAIDS....................................................................................................1-5

Approach Obstructions......................................................................................................................................1-7
Passenger Terminal Area by Function.............................................................................................................1-8
Inventory of ARFF Vehicles ........................................................................................................................... 1-17
Historic Enplanements and Visitors ................................................................................................................2-2
Historic Aircraft Operations by Category.......................................................................................................2-4
Historic Scheduled Seat Departures, Load Factors, and Average Aircraft Size .........................................2-5
Historical Scheduled Seat Departures by Market & Region .........................................................................2-6
Bermuda and Caribbean Historical Scheduled Seat Departures by Region............................................ 2-10
Forecast of Scheduled Enplanements by Region......................................................................................... 2-11
Historical and Projected Load Factors and Seat Departures by Region .................................................. 2-13
Forecast of Scheduled Passenger Aircraft Operations by Aircraft Type.................................................. 2-15
Forecast of General Aviation Operations..................................................................................................... 2-18
Forecast of GA Operations by Aircraft Type............................................................................................... 2-19
Forecast of Cargo Tonnage (Metric Tonnes of Mail and Freight) ........................................................... 2-21
Summary of Annual Aircraft Operations Forecast, by Operation Type ................................................. 2-24
Summary of Overall Airport Activity Peaking Characteristics................................................................. 2-25
Summary of High Forecast Scenario............................................................................................................. 2-28
Summary of Low Forecast Scenario.............................................................................................................. 2-30
Aerodrome Reference Codes ............................................................................................................................3-3
Aerodrome Reference Codes and Representative Aircraft ...........................................................................3-4
Ceiling/Visibility Conditions ............................................................................................................................3-7
Aerodrome Reference Code 4E Dimensional Standards ........................................................................... 3-10
Minimum Separation Distances .................................................................................................................... 3-11
Runway 12-30 Wind Coverage ...................................................................................................................... 3-13
Runway Length Requirements--Commercial Airline Fleet....................................................................... 3-16
Aircraft Classification Number (ACN) ........................................................................................................ 3-18
Existing Terminal Building - Total Area by Function, 2005 ..................................................................... 3-24
Passenger Terminal Building - Planning Factors........................................................................................ 3-25
Passenger Terminal Building - Capacity Analysis, Base Forecast Scenario ............................................ 3-26
Passenger Terminal Building - Facility Requirements 2010, Base Forecast Scenario............................ 3-29
Estimated Gate and Position Requirements ................................................................................................ 3-37
Car Park Requirements................................................................................................................................... 3-39
Air Cargo Requirements ................................................................................................................................. 3-42
General Aviation Requirements .................................................................................................................... 3-44
Fuel Storage Requirements............................................................................................................................. 3-47
Useful Life Analysis of Airport Physical Assets (Except Terminal and Pavements).............................. 3-49
Screening of New Terminal Development Sites.............................................................................................4-4
vi

Master Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Table 4.2
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Table 6.7
Table 6.8
Table 6.9
Table 6.10
Page
Terminal Evaluation........................................................................................................................................ 4-20
CIP Recommended Development Plan Cost in 2006 Dollars ......................................................................5-9
Noise Contour Area......................................................................................................................................... 5-12
Land Use Noise Sensitivity Matrix ................................................................................................................ 5-14
Recommended Land Use Controls for Residential Development............................................................ 5-15
Potential Revenue Enhancement Sources .......................................................................................................6-3
Potential Alternative Funding Sources/Revenue Impacts ............................................................................6-5
Revenue Enhancement Cash Flows - Base Forecast ......................................................................................6-7
Visitor's Share of Total Enplanements.............................................................................................................6-8
Air Visitor Expenditures per Total Visitor Deplanement - High Forecast Scenario................................6-9
Air Visitor Expenditures per Total Visitor Deplanement - Base Forecast Scenario.............................. 6-10
Projected Additional Visitor Expenditures in Constant 2010 Dollars attributable to High Forecast
Scenario ............................................................................................................................................................. 6-12
Discounted Marginal Benefits - High Forecast Scenario versus Low Forecast Scenario ...................... 6-13
Benefit Cost Scenarios - Terminal Only Cost Calculations ....................................................................... 6-14
Benefit Cost Scenarios - Terminal Only Benefit Scenarios........................................................................ 6-15
vii

Master Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
Following
Page
Figure
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 1-3
Figure 1-4
Figure 1-5
Figure 1-6
Figure 1-7
Figure 1-8
Figure 1-9
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-3
Figure 4-4
Figure 4-5
Figure 4-6
Figure 4-7
Figure 4-8
Figure 4-9
Figure 4-10
Figure 5-1
Figure 5-2
Figure 5-3
Figure 5-4
Figure 5-5
Figure 5-6
Figure 5-7
Figure 5-8
Figure 6-1
Location Map and Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................1-1

Existing Airport Layout .....................................................................................................................................1-1
Terminal Area Plan ............................................................................................................................................1-7
Ground Floor Plan..............................................................................................................................................1-7
First Floor Plan....................................................................................................................................................1-7
General Airport Utility Layout ...................................................................................................................... 1-18
Terrestrial Habitats.......................................................................................................................................... 1-23
Marine Habitats ............................................................................................................................................... 1-25
Nesting Turtle Sites ......................................................................................................................................... 1-26
Historical Enplanements and Air Visitors ......................................................................................................2-2
Bermuda versus Caribbean Seat Departures................................................................................................ 2-10
Forecast Annual Passengers, Cargo, and Aircraft Operations .................................................................. 2-24
Average Annual Delay for Existing Airfield ................................................................................................ 3-10
All Weather Wind Rose .................................................................................................................................. 3-13
IFR Wind Rose ................................................................................................................................................. 3-13
Existing Markets .............................................................................................................................................. 3-14
New Terminal SiteOpportunities and Constraints....................................................................................4-1
Terrestrial Environmental Considerations .....................................................................................................4-2
Marine Environmental Constraints .................................................................................................................4-2
General New Terminal Site Locations .............................................................................................................4-2
New Terminal Sites Retained for Further Consideration .............................................................................4-2
New Terminal Site/Layout Options .................................................................................................................4-8
Linear Concourse Concept................................................................................................................................4-9
Pier Concourse Concept ................................................................................................................................. 4-10
New Terminal Section..................................................................................................................................... 4-10
Possible Phasing Option for Redeveloped Terminal at Existing Site ....................................................... 4-15
On-airport Land Use ..........................................................................................................................................5-2
Airport Layout Plan............................................................................................................................................5-2
Terminal Area Plan ............................................................................................................................................5-5
Artist Rendering of Terminal Exterior (Viewed from the South) ...............................................................5-5
Artist Rendering of Terminal Exterior (Viewed from the West) ................................................................5-5
Artist Rendering of Terminal Interior.............................................................................................................5-5
2004 Noise Contours ....................................................................................................................................... 5-11
2025 Noise Contours ....................................................................................................................................... 5-11
Air Visitor Expenditures................................................................................................................................. 6-12
viii

1.
Master Plan
INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter One
INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
1.1
the Airport, a passenger terminal, cargo

facility, executive jet (general aviation)
facility, and various support facilities. These
features are depicted in Figure 1-2. BDA
plays a vital role in the Countrys
transportation infrastructure by providing
aviation facilities and commercial air
service. The Airport is an important factor
influencing
economic
growth
and
development in Bermuda by catalysing
business enterprise, job growth, and
investment.
INTRODUCTION
Bermuda International Airport (BDA),

which is owned by the Bermuda
Government and operated by the
Department of Airport Operations (DAO),
is the only airport in Bermuda. It is located
in the north-eastern portion of the Country.
Bermuda lies approximately 600 statute
miles from the U.S. mainland. (See Figure
1-1). The Airport is on St. Davids Island in
St. Georges Parish, approximately 10 miles
(16 kilometres) east of the Countrys capital
city of Hamilton, as shown in Figure 1-1.
1.2
Construction of Bermudas first land

airport began in 1940 by the U.S. military,
with a significant portion of the facility
being built upon ocean-dredged fill. The
first flight arrived in December 1941. The
original facility was initially known as Fort
Bell, and was renamed in 1942 as Kindley
Field.
Continuous improvements were
made to the facility over the next several
decades, including the construction of a
civilian terminal building on the southwest
side of the Airport. In 1970, the U.S. Navy
took over operation of the field from the
U.S. Air Force. The Navy maintained
control of the field until June 1995 when it
vacated the facility and turned control over
to the Bermuda Government.
AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT
The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) provides en route air traffic control
(ATC) services from its New York Air Route
Traffic Control Centre (ARTCC) for aircraft
within Bermuda air space, while local ATC
service is provided by the Bermudia
Government via an agreement with BASSerco (a provider of aviation support
services at the Airport). According to the
Aeronautical Information Publication issued
by the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA),
ATC services conform to the FAA Air
Traffic Handbook 7110.65.
The Airport comprises 536 acres (217

hectares) and features a 9,713-foot (2,961metre) air carrier runway, a taxiway system
connecting the runway with various parts of
1-1
UN
ITE
D
ST
A
TE
S
BERMUDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
New York City

Philadelphia
Washington, D.C.
Norfolk/VA Beach
AT
0
N
LA
A
CE
IC
Miles
100 200 300
Saint
George
BERMUDA
Bermuda
International
Airport
A T L A N T I C
O C E A N
0 100 200 300

Kilometres
CASTLE
HARBOUR
HARRINGTON
SOUND
Flatts
Village
Somerset
GREAT
SOUND
HAMILTON
Miles
0
0
Figure 1-1
Location Map and Vicinity Map
1
2
3
Kilometres
1.3
Master Plan
point above the ground or fly along a radial

and home in on the station. VORs are often
combined
with
distance
measuring
equipment (DME).
DELEGATION OF AIR
TRAFFIC CONTROL
RESPONSIBILITIES
The BDA air traffic control tower

(ATCT) is operational between 7 AM and 11
PM local time, although hours may be
extended for late scheduled operations.
1.5
Because of the distance between

Bermuda and the eastern seaboard of the
U.S., nearly all aircraft operate under
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), regardless of
weather conditions.
Arriving aircraft
typically approach BDA from the northwest.
In good weather, landing aircraft usually
turn onto final between three to five nautical
miles from the runway end. In poor
weather, aircraft intercept the Instrument
Landing System (ILS) approach course
between 20 and 25 miles out for a straight-in
approach.
The Bermuda Traffic Management Area

(TMA) is established within 180 nautical
miles of the Airport. The vertical limits
extend from 700 feet mean sea level (MSL)
to 50,000 feet MSL (FL 500) within 50
nautical miles, then from 4,000 feet MSL to
50,000 feet MSL (FL 500) within 180
nautical miles of the BDA Aerodrome
Reference Point (ARP). En route and
terminal control service is provided by the
New York ARTCC.
Approaching aircraft are usually handed
off to the BDA Tower at a distance of
between 15 to 25 miles from the Airport.
Departing aircraft are handed off to the New
York Centre soon after departure.
1.4
LOCAL AIR TRAFFIC

CONTROL PROCEDURES
There are no published Standard

Instrument Departure (SID) or Standard
Terminal Arrival (STAR) procedures for
BDA. Aircraft operating under IFR typically
depart the Airport on a runway heading,
with a clearance to climb to an altitude of
25,000 feet (FL 250). Departing aircraft are
turned to their destination beyond three
miles and above 3,000 feet.
EN ROUTE NAVIGATION
AIDS
Navigational aids (NAVAIDs) are

established to maintain accurate en route air
navigation. A variety of ground-based
facilities transmit signals which can be
received and interpreted by airborne
aircraft. The Bermuda VOR/DME (VHF
omni-directional range/Distance Measuring
Equipment) station is located on the
Airport. The VOR is a ground-based
NAVAID which transmits radio signals 360
degrees in azimuth from the station. These
radio signals enable pilots to turn at a given
Restricted Airspace R-3017 restricts

aircraft operations over Bermuda out to
three miles offshore for noise abatement
purposes.
Helicopters are required to
operate above 700 feet MSL; piston engine
aircraft are required to operate above 2,500
feet MSL; turbine-powered aircraft are
required to be at least 5,000 feet MSL. BDA
has no formal noise abatement procedures
for arriving and departing aircraft.
1-2
Master Plan
To minimise taxi time, the BDA Tower

frequently operates the airfield in a head-tohead manner when traffic levels and wind
conditions permit, with arrivals on Runway
30 and departures on Runway 12.
Runway 12 approach threshold. With the

exception of its eastern terminus, Taxiway
Alpha has an asphalt surface and is in very
good condition. The eastern terminus of the
taxiway is concrete and is in poor condition.
Because of the distance and viewing

angle from the Tower, ground control clears
airline push backs on Apron I at the pilots
discretion.
Taxiway Bravo is laid out in a southwest

by northeast orientation and roughly
parallels the passenger terminal apron. It is
75 feet wide with 37.5-foot shoulders. The
taxiways eastern terminus is Apron III.
Taxiway Bravo has an asphalt surface. The
western portion is in very good condition;
the central portion is in poor condition; and
the eastern portion, beyond Runway 12-30,
is in good condition.
1.6
AIRFIELD
The components of the airfield as they

exist in 2005 are summarised in this section.
Included are the airfield pavement system
(comprising the runways, taxiways, and
aprons), landing navigational aids, and
obstacles to air navigation.
1.6.1
Taxiway Charlie is a high-speed exit

taxiway connecting Runway 12-30 with
Taxiway Alpha. It is 75 feet wide. Its surface
is asphalt which is in good condition.
Runway
The existing airfield configuration at

BDA consists of one northwest-by-southeast
runway, designated Runway 12-30.
Taxiway Echo is a right-angle taxiway

connecting the runway with Taxiway Alpha.
It is 75 feet wide with an asphalt surface
which is in excellent condition.
Runway 12-30 is 9,713 feet (2,961

metres) long by 150 feet wide with an
asphalt surface. The pavement has no tire
loading restriction. The pavement was
resurfaced in the spring of 2003 and is in
excellent condition (with the exception of its
western end which is in very good
condition). Runway 12-30 has an effective
gradient of 0.0 percent.
1.6.2
Taxiway Foxtrot is a cross-field taxiway.

Taxiway Foxtrot is 200 feet wide; only the
portion north of the runway is active. It has
an asphalt surface which is in very poor
condition.
Taxiway Golf connects Taxiway Bravo
with the Runway 12 threshold. It is 75 feet
wide. Taxiway Golf has a concrete surface
which is in very poor condition.
Taxiways
Taxiway Alpha is 75 feet wide and

parallels Runway 12-30. It is separated from
the runway by 500 feet. At its northwest
end, Taxiway Alpha terminates at Taxiway
Bravo, approximately 1,800 feet from the
Taxiway Quebec provides access/egress

to Apron II. It is 90 feet wide and has an
asphalt surface. The southern half (closest
to Taxiway Bravo) is in very poor condition,
1-3
Master Plan
Apron II is located directly north of the

passenger terminal, across Taxiway Bravo.
It serves the Executive Jet Facility. Apron II
is roughly 35,100 square yards (29,400
square metres) in area and has an asphalt
surface which is in excellent condition.
while the northern half (closest to Apron II)

is in excellent condition.
Taxiway Romeo extends from Apron I
(which serves the passenger terminal),
crosses Taxiway Bravo, and terminates at
Apron II. Its width varies between 90 feet
and 120 feet. The southern half of its asphalt
surface is in good condition, while the
portion north of Taxiway Bravo is in poor
condition.
Apron III is located on the north side of

the airfield, opposite Taxiway Foxtrot and is
adjacent to the former NATO hangar. It is
approximately 23,700 square yards (19,800
square metres) in area, which includes three
130-foot by 140-foot concrete hardstands.
The apron surface is in good condition.
Taxiway Sierra connects Apron I with

Taxiway Bravo. It is 120 feet wide. Its
asphalt surface is in good condition.
Apron IV lies directly north and runs

parallel to Taxiway Alpha.
Taxiway Tango extends from the

northeast corner of Apron I, crosses
Taxiway Bravo, and terminates at Taxiway
Quebec. It is 120 feet wide and has an
asphalt surface which is in good condition.
Taxiways Uniform and Victor connect
the runway with Apron V.
Taxiway
Uniform is 75 feet wide; Taxiway Victor is
123 feet wide. Both taxiways are in poor
condition.
Apron V is directly south of the Runway

30 threshold. At 166,500 square yards
(139,200 square metres) in area, it is the
largest apron at BDA. The northern portion
of Apron V can be used for aircraft
movements.
This portion is in fair
condition. The south-eastern portion of
Apron V is currently used by the
Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation.
1.6.3
1.6.4
Aprons
There are five aircraft aprons at BDA.

Following is a description of each apron.
Landing Navigational Aids
The existing runway markings, lights,

and landing NAVAIDs are presented in
Table 1.1.
There are five instrument
approach procedures published for BDA:
Apron I serves the commercial passenger

airline terminal. It is approximately 86,200
square yards (72,000 square metres) in area,
including the taxilane. The main concrete
pad in front of the terminal and cargo shed
can accommodate six aircraft; it is in very
good condition. Two additional hardstands
are located directly to the west; these are in
excellent condition.
1-4
Category I ILS/DMERunway 30
(minimums: 257-foot ceiling and mile visibility);
VORRunway 12 (minimums: 589foot ceiling and 1-mile to 1--mile
Master Plan
Table 1.1
Runway Marking, Lighting, and NAVAIDS
Runway 12-30
True Bearing
12
30
101 deg. 27 min. 52 sec.
281 deg. 27 min. 52 sec.
Length (Ft.)
9,713
Width (Ft.)
150
Surface
Concrete/Asphalt
Pavement Classification No. (PCN)

Strength and Surface
PCN 80/F/A/W/U
(No tire restriction in effect)
Threshold Elevation (Ft.)
11.0
12.0
Effective Gradient
0.0%
0.0%
Stopway Dimensions (Ft.)
207 x 150
553 x 150
Clearway Dimensions (Ft.)
950 x 500
553 x 500
9,713
10,663
9,920
9,713
9,713
10,266
10,266
9,713
Non-precision Instrument
Precision Instrument
High Intensity Approach Lighting

System (ALSF-I) (Modified)
High Intensity Approach Lighting

System (ALSF-I) (Modified)
High Intensity Runway Lights
High Intensity Runway Lights
PAPI on right side (4-box)

Glideslope angle: 3 deg. 18 min.
PAPI on left side (4-box)

Glideslope angle: 3 deg.
VOR/DME
Instrument Landing System

(Category 1)
Declared Distances
Take-off Run Available (TORA) (Ft.)
Take-off Distance Avail. (TODA) (Ft.)
Accel/Stop Dist. Avail. (ASDA) (Ft.)
Landing Dist. Avail. (LDA) (Ft.)
Marking
Lighting
- Approach
- Runway edge
- Visual Slope Indicator
NAVAIDS
VOR/DME
Source: Dept. of Civil Aviation Aeronautical Information Publication (2001) & Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2005).
1-5
visibility,
speed);
depending
Master Plan
on
approach
VORRunway 30 (minimums: 608-foot

ceiling and 1-mile to 2-mile visibility,
depending on approach speed);
VOR/DMERunway 12 (minimums
449-foot ceiling and 1-mile to 1--mile
visibility, depending on approach
speed); and
Figure 1-3 shows the terminal area. The

existing two-level facility consists of
approximately 237,000 square feet (22,000
square metres) and is depicted in Figures 14 and 1-5. A summary of the approximate
sizes of the areas within the facility is
provided in Table 1.3.
The passenger terminal building at BDA
has undergone several phases of renovation
since the late 1980s. In 1987, a significant
portion of the west end of the terminal was
renovated and expanded. In 1997, several
other areas within the terminal were
renovated over a period of two phases. This
renovation included rebuilding the Bermuda
Immigration Arrivals area, several Airport
tenant areas, including the Bank of
Bermuda, Airport Police, restaurant and
duty free shops, and the gate holding/
lounges and concession areas at the first
floor (upper) level of the terminal.
VOR/DMERunway 30 (minimums
468-foot ceiling and -mile to 1--mile
visibility, depending on approach
speed).
1.6.5
Imaginary Surfaces and

Obstructions
Obstacle restriction requirements are

defined in ICAO Annex 14, Chapter 4.
Imaginary surfaces vary based on the type of
runway (air carrier, general aviation, etc.) to
which they are assigned. Obstructions for
the two runway ends are listed in Table 1.2.
1.7
1.7.2
The ground level houses the airline ticket

counter functions (ATO), outbound baggage
make-up areas, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (USCBP) pre-clearance area, HM
Customs and Immigration, Airport tenant
spaces, and ground level departure/holding
lounge areas.
PASSENGER TERMINAL
BUILDING
The inventory of existing terminal

facilities was conducted through field
inspections, interviews, surveys, telephone
calls, and collection and analysis of existing
Airport plans, reports, and studies. Major
components of the existing terminal area are
described in this Chapter.
1.7.1
Ground Floor Level
Ticketing (Check-In) Lobby

The ticketing lobby is accessed from the
at-grade roadway curb through seven points
of entry. The standard two-position counter
shells with a baggage well and two baggage
scales are provided between each ticket
counter at the international check-in area.
Single-position ticket counters with a
baggage well and single scale between each
Overview and Recent

Construction History
The BDA passenger terminal is located

in the southwest quadrant of the Airport.
1-6
Master Plan
Table 1.2
Approach Obstructions
Description
Horiz. Dist.
from Runway
Threshold
Horiz. Dist.
from Runway
Centreline
Highest Point
of Elevation
(Ft. MSL)
Height Above
Runway Horiz.
Plane
50
82
105
65
95
80
126
136
90
40
72
95
55
85
70
116
126
80
35
35
40
40
47
40
40
60
25
25
30
30
37
30
30
50
Runway 12 Obstructios
Hill
Hill
Building
Building
Hill
Building
Hill & Mast (Lit)
Hill & Mast (Lit)
Hill
1,950
2,600
2,600
2,700
3,000
3,200-3,650
3,650
3,950
4,850
550 Left
300 Left
300 Left
150 Left
700 Left
200-500 Right
200 Right
200 Right
1,050 Right
Runway 30 Obstructions
Group of 3 Bdgs
Building
Hill
Hill
Building
Hill
Hill
Building
1,550
1,850
1,850
2,250
3,000
3,550
3,550
3,650
550 Right
350 Right
650 Right
600 Right
705 Right
700 Right
700 Right
700 Right
Source: Department of Civil Aviation Aeronautical Information Publication (2005).
1-7
Master Plan
Table 1.3
Passenger Terminal Area by Function
Existing
Space
Terminal Component
Airline Functions
Ticket Counter
Ticket Counter Positions - 40
Ticket Counter - SF
Ticket Counter - LF
Ticket Counter Process & Queuing
Airline Areas
Operations
Maintenance
Storage
Ramp Area
Departure Lounge
Baggage Claim (SF)
Baggage Claim (LF)
No. of Devices - 3
Pct. Of
Total
22,495 sf
9.5%
22,495 sf
247 lf
9.5%
18,107 sf
10,145 sf
2,606 sf
2,177 sf
3,179 sf
19,284 sf
10,284 sf
354 lf
0.0%
7.7%
4.3%
1.1%
0.9%
1.3%
8.2%
4.4%
19,962 sf
562 lf
3,499 sf
6,536 sf
567 sf
100,734 sf
8.4%
0.2%
1.5%
2.8%
0.2%
42.6%
4,636 sf
9,746 sf
2,387 sf
4,197 sf
20,966 sf
2.0%
4.1%
1.0%
1.8%
8.9%
1,431 sf
749 sf
683 sf
532 sf
12,835 sf
14,798 sf
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
5.4%
6.3%
Non-Secure Public Area

Restrooms
Circulation - General
Meeter/Greeter Hall
Subtotal Non-Secure Public area
3,239 sf
18,792 sf
494 sf
22,525 sf
1.4%
8.0%
0.2%
9.5%
International Arrivals and Departure Spaces

HM Customs and Immigrations
Immigration
Customs
Support
US Pre-clear
USCBP
TSA
HBS
Subtotal International Spaces
21,984 sf
4,306 sf
11,678 sf
6,000 sf
21,601 sf
14,834 sf
4,023 sf
2,744 sf
43,585 sf
9.3%
1.8%
4.9%
2.5%
9.1%
6.3%
1.7%
1.2%
18.4%
10,759 sf
14,989 sf
506 sf
883 sf
1,815 sf
4,760 sf
2,079 sf
1,782 sf
0 sf
899 sf
33,712 sf
4.6%
6.3%
0.2%
0.4%
0.8%
2.0%
0.9%
0.8%
0.0%
0.4%
14.3%
236,321 sf
100.0%
Outbound Bag Make-Up (SF)

Outbound Baggage (LF)
Inbound Baggage (SF)
Clubs/VIP Room
Smoking Lounge
Subtotal Airline Functions
Concession Space
Food/Beverage
News/Gift/Sundry
Transit
Other Revenue
Subtotal Concessions Space
Secure Public Area
Security Screening Check-Point
X-Ray Units
Offices
Restrooms
Subtotal Secure Public area
Non-Public Area
Circulation
Airport Administration
Miscellaneous
Maintenance
Police (Substation)
Building Systems
Mechanical
Electrical
Fire Control/P
IT/Spec. Systems
Subtotal Non Public
Total All Areas

Sources: Department of Airport Operations; HNTB analysis.
1-8
Master Plan
and American Airlines). US Airways office

is also located in this area.
counter are provided at the U.S. check-in

area.
Of the 40 total ticket counter
positions, 14 are designated for international and 26 positions are designated for
U.S. pre-clearance check-in. The depth of
the ticket lobby from the face of counters to
the entry points of the facility ranges from
45 feet (14 metres) in the international
check-in area to a depth of approximately 57
feet (17 metres) in the U.S. check-in area.
Ground Floor Passenger Holdrooms

Two hold-rooms located on the east side
of the ground floor of the terminal building
make up Gate A (formerly Gate C). This
gate area is used primarily for international
departures (currently British Airways, Air
Canada, and USA3000). Gate C comprises
6,000 square feet.
There are three baggage screening areas

located within the terminal facility. At the
international check-in area, a baggage
screening x-ray unit is installed in-line with
the outbound conveyor system, directly
behind the ticket counters. After the bags
are checked at the counter, the passenger
proceeds for processing through to the
international security screening checkpoint
area. The other two baggage screening units
are located beyond the USCBP pre-clearance
area, where passengers queue to have their
bags screened and transported to the
baggage make-up area via outbound
conveyors. At this point, the passengers
proceed through the security screening
checkpoint to the departure/holding lounge
area. The areas near pre-clearance counters
and adjacent to the security screening
checkpoint area are the USCBP support
offices.
Outbound Baggage Handling System

Baggage conveyors positioned behind
the airline ticket counters and designated
baggage screening units on the eastern side
transport checked bags via conveyor chases
to the baggage make-up areas.
The
outbound conveyors terminate at sloped
plate make-up devices.
The outbound
make-up area has three make-up devices of
which two are used for the U.S. check-in
counters. One device is shared by US
Airways and Continental Airlines, and the
second device is shared by American
Airlines and Delta Air Lines. The third
device is used to serve the international
counters: British Airways, Air Canada, and
USA 3000. The international and the U.S.
baggage make-up areas are sectioned off by a
chain link fence.
Airline Ticket Offices (ATO)
Immigration Arrivals
Several airline ticket offices are located

behind the international check-in area.
These airlines are British Airways, Air
Canada, Continental, Delta, JetBlue, and
American Airlines. Within the limited west
end area of the terminal, USCBP preclearance is located behind the U.S. check-in
counters (US Airways, Delta, Continental,
All passengers flying into BDA must be

processed through Bermuda Immigration.
HM Customs, which is the collector of
customs, controls the immigration process
at BDA. The arrivals facility is located
between the ground level international
departures holding lounges and the east end
1-9
Master Plan
stair. The gate positions are assigned by the

Duty Officer. During the on-site inspection,
it was indicated by the DAO that the airlines
typically park their aircraft at the same gate
positions. The Airport maintenance shop
and fuel farm are located on the southwest
corner of the ramp and south of gate positions
7 and 8.
of the terminal. HM Customs uses queuing

stanchions to maximise passenger queuing
area within the area, which has an overall
depth of approximately 100 feet (30 metres).
There are 10 agent counter positions in the
immigration area. When the passengers are
checked and cleared at the immigration
counter, they proceed to the arrivals baggage
reclaim area (inbound baggage) to retrieve
their bags. The passengers then proceed to
clear the Bermuda Customs Check area,
where upon receiving clearance, they can
exit to landside.
All aircraft and ramp services are

provided by Bermuda Aviation Services
(BAS). BAS-Serco operates the Airport
Rescue and Fire Fighting Facility, ATC,
GES, Bermuda Weather Service, and is
responsible for airfield maintenance.
Inbound Baggage Handling and Claim

Inbound baggage is a component of HM
Customs Immigration arrivals process. The
inbound or arrival baggage reclaim area is
located at the east end ground level of the
terminal. The inbound baggage area is
accessible after the arriving passenger is
cleared through Bermuda Immigration. The
baggage is presented to passengers at one of
three baggage claim carousels. The three flat
plate units total 354 linear feet (108 linear
metres) of baggage display area. Inbound
bags are transported via tug from the aircraft
into the inbound baggage make-up area.
The baggage carts are unloaded from one
side onto the conveyor section which runs
parallel to the building wall. After the
passengers retrieve their bags, they proceed
to the Bermuda Customs check point where
they are directed to the terminal exit or
Customs search area for secondary search.
1.7.3
First Floor Level
Ramp and Gate Facilities
Airline Office Area
BDA has eight numbered gate positions,

and there are no passenger boarding bridges
at these gates. Passengers enplane and
deplane the aircraft via an aircraft ramp
Delta, American, and United Airlines

have offices located near the DAO on the
first floor level; this area comprises 2,200
The first floor level houses DAO office

space, airline office area, concession areas,
departure/holding lounge areas, HM
Customs offices, and Airport tenant areas.
The first floor level totals approximately
66,000 square feet (6,100 square metres).
Department of Airport Operations
The first floor level DAO offices are
above portions of the ground floor level
outbound baggage and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection areas.
The General
Manager and staff from Finance and
Administration, Air Operations, Terminals,
and Maintenance and Engineering are all
housed in this area. The combined space for
the DAO office area is approximately 15,000
square feet (1,400 square metres).
1-10
Master Plan
generators which, in the event of a power

failure, can operate 90 percent of the
Airports terminal systems.
square feet (204 square metres). The Airport

Joint Investigation Unit (JIU) offices (1,650
square feet150 square metres) are also
located on the first floor. The JIU comprises
the police department, the Central
Investigation Department, and Customs.
Telecommunications
The telephone system at BDA is a Voiceover-IP (VoIP) solution manufactured by
Nortel Network that utilises fibre optic
cabling for interconnecting between
distribution hubs throughout the Airport.
The network handles the Airports voice,
data,
and
wireless
communications
requirements. The system, installed in 2005,
was initially configured to support up to 200
telephones in a multi-tenant configuration
and has the capacity to be upgraded to
support over 1,500 users.
Airline Departure Lounges

Centrally located between the DAO area
and the east end of the first floor level are
departure holding/lounge areas for Gates A
and B. Gate A has 4,960 square feet (460
square metres) and Gate B has 6,500 square
feet (600 square metres).
Other First Floor Space
The east end of the facility houses HM
Customs administrative offices, Airport
Police Manager, and other Airport tenants
such as skycaps, cargo and freight, and
Bermuda Aviation Services offices.
1.7.4
1.8
ACCESS, CIRCULATION
AND PARKING
The Airport is the Nations largest

intermodal facility, rivalled only by the
cruise ship docks in Hamilton and St.
George. About 60 percent of the visitors to
the Island, and nearly all Bermudians, make
the connection between the Islands surface
transportation system and their mode
to/from the rest of the world at the Airport.
Building Services
Heating, Ventilation, and Air

Conditioning
The terminals heating ventilation and
air conditioning (HVAC) is supplied by
various roof-mounted systems, which serve
designated zones within the terminal. The
unit types range from central cooling A/C
units to chiller/condensing units, including
air handlers and split type units.
1.8.1
Access
Traffic approaches the Airport from two

directions:
the Causeway, which leads
to/from portions of Bermuda south and west
of the Airport, including Hamilton, and
Kindley Field Road, which leads to/from St.
George and those points north and east of
the Airport. Both the Causeway and Kindley
Field Road are vital arterials in Bermudas
limited roadway system. They experience
some of the heaviest traffic on the Island.
Electrical
The existing terminal building power
service is provided by the Bermuda Electric
Light Company to 750 and 500 KVA
transformers located on the west end of the
site. The Airport maintains two emergency
1-11
Master Plan
The Causeway includes a swing bridge

which, when open, permits access for boats
to Castle Harbour. In peak season, during
the Airports midday peak, the span opens
typically for five minutes on the hour.
While open, access to and egress from the
Airport essentially ceases, as the queues are
long enough to block traffic through the
roundabout at Kindley Field Road.
Hurricane Fabian in 2003 did significant
damage to the nearly century-old structure
of the Causeway, cutting off access to the
Airport from most of Bermuda for a brief
period.
The Ministry of Works has
underway a project to consider rehabilitation and/or replacement options for the
Causeway.
Figure 1-3 shows the arrangement of the

circulation lanes as they pass the terminal
building. Just west of Ware Lake, the
terminal approach roadway widens to two
lanes eastbound, and then almost
immediately adds a left curb unloading lane.
These three eastbound lanes serve as the
departures curb roadway. At the southeast
corner of the departures hall, the right lane
divides, enabling traffic either to perform a
U-turn to exit the Airport on the westbound
lanes of Cahow Way, or to continue to the
several car parks or the arrivals area. The
right lane then drops into the Short Term
Car Park, leaving two lanes to pass by the
terminal building upstream of the arrivals
area.
The Causeway and Kindley Field Road

meet at a two-lane roundabout, the third leg
of which is the Airport access roadway,
Cahow Way.
Other than the land
reclamation project southeast of the
terminal, there are no other land uses served
by Cahow Way.
The eastern end of the terminal is the

arrivals hall. Circulation in this area consists
of two movements which meet in a short
southbound roadway just west of the arrivals
hall. The dominant movement is the taxi
and bus loading area, which is a set of
westbound lanes which pass the arrival hall
and under the porte cochere. The secondary
movement is from the Short Term Car Park
and the public arrivals curb area which is an
eastbound flow. These meet and turn south,
intersecting with Cahow Way, where traffic
exiting the Airport turns westbound into a
single lane.
1.8.2
On-Airport Circulation
Cahow Way enters the Airport from the

roundabout as a two-lane, bi-directional
road. At the Managers Car Parks just west
of Ware Lake, the eastbound lane divides.
The northern roadway continues past the
terminal as a one-way roadway which
broadens in front of the terminal building to
multiple lanes to accommodate vehicular
movements associated with terminal
activity. The southern branch remains the
two-lane, two-way Cahow Way which
extends past the terminal to the land
reclamation project area. There are no other
roadways providing circulation on the
Airport.
The eastern end of the Airport includes

functions such as the land reclamation area,
the Overflow Car Park, the Taxi Hold Area,
the Air Freight and Cargo Shed, and the
Long Term and Staff Car Parks. Cahow
Way provides access to and egress from each
of these by a series of small driveways which
are defined either by raised curb or by
striping of the broadly paved areas.
1-12
1.8.3
Master Plan
Traffic Volumes
Historical traffic volume data were not

available for Cahow Way. HNTB staff
observed traffic on Cahow Way on July 7,
2005, during the busiest hours of Airport
activity.
These
intermittent
counts,
extrapolated to the full hour, give an
indication of the typical busy day vehicular
traffic levels at BDA.
A pre-arranged bus, van, and taxi

loading area to the east of the arrival hall
doorways, just north of the taxi queue.
The taxi queue is three lanes wide.

Several taxis load simultaneously in the curb
lane adjacent the arrival hall and in the far
lane. The centre lane is for exiting taxis.
The near lane is nominally for taxis headed
towards points on the centre and west end of
Bermuda, and the far lane for the eastern
end destinations. It was not clear that this
pattern is truly followed, but it was observed
that the near lane loaded more taxis in the
same period of time.
Curbside Activity
The departures curb was observed

during the midday period prior to the
departures of the scheduled midday flights.
No difficulties were observed.
The
departures curb appears to be more than
adequate for the peak activity levels with
current flight schedules. Dwell times were
not measured, but the typical phenomenon
was of a reasonably brief period at the curb
for unloading and farewells.
Pre-arranged taxis queue up in a lane of

the Long Term Car Park aisle so as not to
block parked autos. Some pre-arranged
taxis, and pre-arranged vans and buses load
in nominally a four-lane wide area to the
north of the westbound taxi queue roadway.
There is a small curb island which separates
these two areas. While this location was
busy with activity, it seemed clear that the
regular taxi is the dominant mode for
arriving passengers.
The arrivals curb area consists of several

locations, each with an assigned activity:
The taxi queue and loading area in front

of the main arrival hall, and
This area is the busiest and most

congested portion of the landside at BDA;
based on observations of arriving
passengers, it may be confusing to first-time
visitors.
In the midday peak hour, traffic into the

Airport exceeds traffic from the Airport,
with a volume of 369 vehicles in and 257
out. The difference is made up principally
by the volume entering Cahow Way, rather
than passing the terminal. This is traffic to
the various car parks, the taxi holding and
queuing areas, and the land reclamation
area. Traffic to the terminal and out of the
Airport is nearly balanced in the midday
peak, 261 in, and 257 out.
1.8.4
1.8.5
A public arrivals curb to the west of the

arrival hall on the short segment of the
curb roadway which runs north-south,
Public Parking
There are four parking options for those

who choose to drive and park at BDA:
1-13
Short-Term Car Park
Master Plan
Long-Term Car Park
Curb parking (adjacent Short Term and

terminal)
while parked. Parking rates for each of these

facilities are as follows:
Short-term:
Overflow Car Park
Long-term/
Overflow:
Parking lot capacities and observed

occupancies are shown below:
Public Car Park
Occupancy1
(percent)
Capacity
Short-Term
19%
75
Long-Term
72%
107
22%
502
Curb parking
55%
203
Total
45%
252
Overflow
1.8.6
Parking for cycles is provided in the

Short-Term Car Park, though it is not clear
whether these are short-term spaces or
whether they are public or staff. In any
event, the 54 cycle stalls in this car park were
more than full, with the excess cycles spilling
out into the marked pedestrian ways.
Estimated; the car park is not well striped.
Estimated; not all curb spaces are striped.
Other Parking
The Managers Car Parks: Immediately

west of Ware Lake are two small lots, on
either side of Cahow Way. Entering the
Airport on the left is a five-stall car park,
which by observation stays nearly full all
day. It includes a few cycle stalls as well.
On the right is a 23-stall car park, which
also stays nearly full during the course of
the business day.
The Staff Car Park is located east of the

taxi queue, between the queue and the
Taxi Lounge building. It holds 100
spaces which were observed to be 94
percent full midday on July 7, 2005. This
car park also includes 35 cycle stalls.
The Taxi Hold area adjacent the taxi

lounge. When the queue is full, this area
holds taxis. This is also the location
where the driver can leave the vehicle
and use the facilities located in the taxi
lounge building. The taxi hold area
contains about 130 stalls, and was never
observed to be more than approximately
10 percent full.
The Taxi Queue consists of two lanes,

each of which can hold approximately 25
One pays for parking using a Pay and

Display system. The driver inserts a credit
card or cash at a kiosk and receives a receipt
which must be displayed on the windshield
Observed midday on July 7, 2005.
$5.00/day or any part thereof
There are a number of other locations

for vehicle parking, loading/unloading, or
staging at the Airport. These include:
The motorcycle or scooter plays a

significant role in private transportation on
Bermuda. Visitors cannot rent cars, but they
may rent scooters, and there is a scooter
rental agency at the Airport.
$1.00/hr. or any part thereof

up to 2 hr. max.
1-14
Master Plan
taxis. Typical midday queues were 15-20

vehicles, but at times, the queues were
completely full.
opposite the northern end of Taxiway

Foxtrot. It comprises a large apron and
large hangar. The facility was built in 1992.
The area in front of the air freight/cargo

building has 18 loading/unloading
spaces, 12 parking stalls, and seven cycle
stalls.
There are a dozen parking stalls adjacent

the customs building; all were full during
the teams observation period.
The hangar provides a clear span height

of 53 feet (16 metres) and 78,000 square feet
(7,250 square metres) of open storage area.
An additional 59,000 square feet (5,500
square metres) of offices, workshops, crew
quarters, and a plant room is located
adjacent to the hangar. The structure is in
very good condition, with the exception of
several exterior ceiling panels above the east
doors which were blown off during
Hurricane Fabian. Longtail Aviation stores
three aircraft in the hangar. After the
hurricane, the Airports ARFF was
temporarily housed at the former NATO
facility.
1.9
EXECUTIVE JET FACILITY
The Executive Jet Facility, which serves

the general aviation (GA) needs of the
Airport, is directly north of the passenger
terminal area. It consists of a small terminal
building and apron (Apron II) located
immediately south of the flight kitchen. (See
Figure 1-2.) The facility is operated by BAS.
The building comprises approximately 1,100
square feet (100 square metres). The GA
terminal consists of a lobby, office,
restrooms, and customs room.
The apron comprises 23,700 square

yards (19,800 square metres), including
three large hardstands.
1.11 AIR CARGO SHED

Air cargo and Customs processing is
currently handled at a cargo shed east of the
passenger terminal. The shed provides
about 18,600 square feet (150 square metres)
of covered area. Cargo aircraft loading and
unloading cargo generally park on the east
end of Apron I. FedEx and DHL currently
charter one B727-200 from IBC/UPS which
operates one round trip every business day.
Approximately 35,100 square yards

(29,350 square metres) of pavement is
dedicated to the Executive Jet Facility
aviation ramp. The ramp provides parking
area for 12-15 GA aircraft. Nearly all
aircraft using the Executive Jet Facility are
business jets. Overflow GA aircraft parking
is provided on Taxiways Bravo and Romeo.
Automobile parking is provided for between
20-30 vehicles.
1.12 COURIER BUILDING

The courier building is located east of
the air cargo shed.
It provides
approximately 2,600 square feet (240 square
metres) of space.
1.10 FORMER NATO FACILITY

The former North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO) Facility is located on
the north side of the airfield, directly
1-15
Master Plan
1.13 FORMER HELICOPTER

BUILDING
Table 1.4 shows the existing ARFF vehicle

specifications.
A building formerly housing Bermuda

Helicopters Limited is located west of the
passenger terminal across the access road.
The building is 1,700 square feet (160 square
metres).
The Airport operates as an ICAO

Category 9 facility between 7 AM and 11 PM
local time, although it can meet Category 10
requirements. The extra vehicles allow
scheduled maintenance and unscheduled
repairs.
1.14 ARFF FACILITY
There are a total of 18 fire-fighters. At

any given time, there are five fire-fighters on
duty. Maintenance (e.g., grass cutting,
wildlife management) is handled by Airport
personnel to reduce staffing requirements.
Fire-fighting and rescue services are

provided by BAS-Serco.
The Aircraft
Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility consists
of two buildings located on the north side of
the airfield, at the runway midpoint and
directly opposite the northern terminus of
Taxiway Echo.
The Fire Department
building (built in the late 1950s) is 15,250
square feet (1,420 square metres); the chief
training building (built in 1992) is nearly
4,000 square feet (370 square metres). The
facility was severely damaged by Hurricane
Fabian, requiring the temporary relocation
of ARFF services to the former NATO
hangar until September 2005.
1.15 BERMUDA POST OFFICE

FACILITY
The Bermuda Post Office operates a
facility adjacent to the BAS garage on the
north side of the airfield to handle air mail.
The size of the facility is approximately
11,000 square feet (1,020 square metres).
1.16 ASB/BAS WORKSHOP

BUILDING
The refurbished Fire Department

building has two drive-through bays and
two back-in bays. It contains male and
female
restrooms,
showers,
gym,
kitchen/lounge area, a dispatch room, a
room for breathing apparatus, storage space,
and offices. The chief training building
provides a maintenance bay and training
area/offices.
ASB/BAS operates a workshop in a

12,670-square foot (1,180-square metre)
building adjacent to the Post Office Facility
located on the north side of the airfield.
There are six ARFF vehicles: three

Oshkosh T-3000s (two are 10-years old and
one was rehabilitated in 1999), one T-1500,
one light rescue vehicle (two-years old), and
one command vehicle (three-years old).
1-16
Master Plan
Table 1.4
Inventory of ARFF Vehicles
Bumper Turret Roof Turret
Discharge Rate Discharge Rate
(GPM)
(GPM)
Year
Oshkosh T-3000
1995 (3)
3,000
420
500
2,000
300
600/1,250
Oshkosh T-1500
2003
1,500
210
750
1,520
300
375 / 750
Ford F-350 (modified)
2000
--- Light Rescue Vehicle ---
Citroen Dispatch
2001
--- Command Vehicle ---
Notes: (1) Aqueous Film Forming Foam.

(2) Purple-K-Powder (Potassium bicarbonate).
(3) One unit rehabilited in 1999.
Source: BAS-Serco.
1-17
PKP (2)
(Pounds)
Pump
Capacity
(GPM)
No. of
Vehicles
Vehicle
Water
(Gallons)
Capacities
AFFF (1)
(Gallons)
Master Plan
U.S. commercial flights (and some U.S. GA

flights) which can use less expensive Jet-A
fuel (versus Jet-A1) land in Bermuda with
enough fuel for the return flight as a costsaving measure.
1.17 CATERING BUILDING

A 25,900-square foot (2,410-square
metre) flight catering building was
constructed in 1970. It is located on the
north side of the airfield behind the
Executive Jet Facility. The ground floor is
currently occupied by Goddard Catering
Group who provides catering service to
some of the airlines and corporate jets using
the Airport.
1.20 UTILITIES
Figure 1-6 shows the general location of
utilities. Following is a description of
existing utilities serving the Airport.
1.20.1
1.18 DAO MAINTENANCE

FACILITY
Electric
Electricity is provided by the Bermuda

Electric Light Company (BELCO); primary
power is delivered at 4,160 volts to Vault 1E
from Vault USNAS hut, located on the west
end of BDA. BELCO also provides a
secondary source. In the event of a total loss
of power, DAO maintains an emergency
generator capable of producing 650 volts,
which can accommodate all of the Airports
systems except air conditioning.
The DAO maintenance facility is located

on the south side of the airfield, directly west
of the passenger terminal. It includes a
1,750-square foot (160-square metre)
building.
1.19 FUEL STORAGE/

DISTRIBUTION
A total of 150,000 gallons of Jet A-1 is
stored on-airport in six 25,000-gallon tanks
located on the west side of Apron I. These
tanks are topped off twice weekly by two
pipelines from a fuel farm located on Ferry
Reach. A refuellers building is adjacent to
the tanks. It is 3,400 square feet (320 square
metres) in area. 100-LL is not available at
the Airport.
1.20.2
Water
Potable water is provided by roof

catchment and the production of a reverse
osmosis (RO) plant located on the roof of
the terminal facility which has a daily
capacity of up to 7,000 gallons. The RO
plant is fed via a salt-water suction line from
Castle Harbour. The combination of the
roof catchment and the product from the
RO plant exceeds the daily demand from the
BDA complex; therefore, the plants output
is primarily used to top off the underground
tanks. The six underground tanks have a
capacity of approximately 450,000 gallons of
water storage and are located within the
terminal footprint. Prior to distribution
within the Airport complex, the water
Fuelling on Apron I is provided by

hydrants. There are two access points per
aircraft parking position on Apron I, for a
total of 16 access points. Fuelling on Apron
II and Apron III is provided by tanker
trucks.
According to a representative of Shell
Oil and an airline station manager, most
1-18
Master Plan
directed towards the terminal. The east end

of the trench drain empties into Castle
Harbour, while the west end empties into
the Ware Lake. Soak-away pits are located
at the taxis/greeters area, near the
airside/courier building, adjoining Apron I,
and adjacent to the east entry walk.
undergoes a treatment process. A second

RO plant, which is independent of the
Airports facility, is located at the catering
facility.
1.20.3
Sanitary Sewage
The disposal of sanitary sewage is

accomplished through the utilisation of
cesspits and a septic/borehole combination.
These systems are in several locations within
the footprint of the facility, and were added
as the complex expanded over the years.
There are agreements in place assuring
timely pump out in order to maintain the
proper status of the systems.
1.20.4
1.21 OFF-AIRPORT FACILITIES

There are several off-airport facilities
with functions directly related to Airport
functions.
1.21.1
The BDA ATCT is outside Airport

property. It is located more than one mile
northeast of the passenger terminal on a hill
overlooking the airfield. The tower is three
stories tall. The first floor is office space; the
second floor contains the equipment room.
The top floor is the tower cab, which
includes three ATC positions and a
kitchenette.
Communications
The hard wire connection of the BDA

system is through a system of conduits
installed to facilitate the telephone, telegraph
and fire alarm wire routing when the facility
was operated by the U.S. Air Force. Service
to the Airport is provided by conduits that
cross Runway 12 north of its threshold in the
vicinity of Taxiway Golf. The system then
runs generally parallel to Apron II and
Taxiway Bravo. West of Taxiway Romeo the
system turns to run parallel with Taxiway
Romeo, ending at the former Bermuda
Helicopters Limited facility. At a manhole
south of Taxiway Bravo and west of Taxiway
Romeo, a conduit begins which terminates
at the terminal west of Gate 101.
1.20.5
Air Traffic Control Tower
1.21.2
Bermuda Weather
Service/Ground Electronics
Building
The Bermuda Weather Service and

Ground Electronics, both managed by BASSerco, are housed in a 6,435-square foot
(600-square metre) building north of the
control tower.
The building was
rehabilitated in 1998/99.
Stormwater
1.21.3
The Airports stormwater system

consists of two gravity networks in the
vicinity of Apron II, soak-away areas at the
terminal, and a trench drain that intercepts
sheet flow from the tarmac, which is
BAS-Serco Offices
BAS-Serco occupies a one-story office

building east of Apron III and directly north
of Taxiway Alpha. The building is 5,424
square feet (504 square metres) in size and
1-19
Master Plan
was originally constructed in 1959. It was

rehabilitated in 1988/89.
National Parks are designated

legislation and zoned to reflect this.
1.22 ENVIRONMENTAL
INVENTORY
Areas of environmental sensitivity that

fall under the Bermuda Plan 1992 Planning
Statement are zoned Nature Reserve and
National Park. Woodland and open spaces
that fall under the Development Plan for the
Former Military Bases (1996) have preferred
land uses of Recreation and Open Space and
Land Bank.
As part of the Master Plan process, an

inventory
of
known
environmental
constraints and sensitivities was prepared
for the Airport vicinity. The inventory was
prepared to ensure that the recommended
development plan would consider the
regions various biological habitats and
would minimise any impacts.
1.22.1
The land to the east of the Airport

comprising the area known as Coopers
Island comprises the Coopers Island Nature
Reserve (a National Park), as well as the
former NASA tracking station (no zoning or
preferred land use) which together
constitute one of the largest tracts of
undeveloped land in Bermuda. This land is
approximately 77.5 acres (31.4 hectares) in
size and is the subject of the draft Coopers
Island Land Use and Management Proposals
Plan (March 2005). The Plan puts forward
proposals for the future development and
management of Coopers Island and has
been adopted by Cabinet.
Study Area
The Study Area for the environmental

inventory comprises the Airport lands, and
the land and water that abut the Airport.
The majority of the Study Area comprises
the former United States Naval Air Station
(NAS).
1.22.2
by
Land Use Plans, Projects and

Programs
The Development and Planning Act of

1974 provides the legislative authority to
regulate the use of land by enacting a
Development Plan.
The current
development plan in effect for Bermuda is
the Bermuda Plan 1992 Planning Statement.
This Plan applies to all of the lands in
Bermuda except for the City of Hamilton
and the former military bases.
The Bermuda Biodiversity Project (BBP)

was established in 1997 by Government to
create a comprehensive information
management system for Bermudas natural
resources. The BBP prepared the Bermuda
Biodiversity Country Study (May 2001) as
the first step in preparing a Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP). As a
signatory to the 1992 Convention on
Biological Diversity, the BSAP is viewed as
the first step in Bermudas commitment to
the principles of the Biodiversity
Convention. The Country Study is the
primary source of information about the
The lands that comprise the former

military base are governed by the
Development Plan for the Former Military
Bases (1996).
1-20
Master Plan
marine and terrestrial habitats and species

diversity in the Study Area.
thirds of the NAS lands comprise the

Airport, now operated by DAO.
Nonsuch Island, zoned as a Nature

Reserve, has the status of Living Museum
given the presence of rare species on the
Island, and the Government conservation
programs that have been running
successfully on the Island.
The majority of the land that is not

covered by buildings comprises asphalt and
field and constitutes the Airport runway and
taxi areas.
The Airport has two beaches on its
southern boundary, on either side of the
closed runway abutting the waters of Castle
Harbour.
The Bermuda Petrel, or Cahow, thought

to be extinct, was rediscovered in 1951. This
endemic bird is critically endangered, and is
the subject of a Government conservation
program to ensure the survival of the
species. The nesting sites for the Cahow are
located in the Study Area.
The Airport lands are designated Airport

in the Development Plan for the Former
Military Bases (1996).
1.22.4
The Bermuda Turtle Project was started

by Government in 1968 with the objective of
re-establishing a nesting population in
Bermuda. One of the study sites for the
Bermuda Turtle Project, as well as turtle
nesting sites, is located in the Study Area.
North
The majority of the land to the north of
the Airport is also part of the former U.S.
NAS. This land is known as Southside and
falls under the jurisdiction of the Bermuda
Land Development Company (BLDC).
The Bermuda Institute of Ocean

Sciences (BIOS) carries out a variety of tests
of the marine environment for Government
under their Marine Environmental Program
(MEP). As a specific result of the presence
of the Waste Metal Processing Facility in the
Study Area, water testing is carried out in
Castle Harbour.
1.22.3
Lands Surrounding Airport
The BLDC lands run from the Airport

north to the waters of St. Georges Harbour.
The lands that abut the Airport are
designated from east to west, Recreation and
Open Space, Industrial/Airport Industrial,
Business and Technology Park, Community
and Recreation, and Open Space.
Airport Lands
East
The Airport was formerly part of the

NAS and was constructed from 1941-1943
and returned to Bermuda on 1 September
1995. The NAS lands comprise over 1,000
acres (400 hectares) of land, with roughly 60
percent of these lands created by using
ocean-dredged fill. Approximately two-
The lands to the east of the Airport

comprise the former NAS, which includes
the former NASA tracking station and
Coopers Island Nature Reserve. These
lands are known collectively as Coopers
Island and are designated Government and
Recreation and Open Space.
1-21
Master Plan
the Town Hill, the Belmont, the Rocky Bay,

and the Southampton.
Nonsuch Island, Castle Island, Pear Rock

and Inner Pear Rock are located to the
southwest and southeast of the Airport lands
and are designated Nature Reserves.
Each of Bermudas formations is

limestone and comprises similar deposits.
Each formation or package represents a
discrete episode of sedimentation which is
identified by its age relative to other
formations.
South
The majority of the southern boundary
of the Airport land comprises the waters of
Castle Harbour.
The unused runway
protrudes into Castle Harbour and is
designated Landbank.
The Geology Map of Bermuda identifies

the Airport lands as filled land surrounding
former islands. The lands to the north
comprise the Town Hill Formation (Upper
Member and Lower Member).
These
formations are considered to be older
formations for Bermuda.
The Castle Harbour Waste Metal

Processing Facility and land reclamation is
located on the southwest shore of the
Airport lands.
Ash residue (from
incinerated domestic and commercial waste)
is mixed with concrete to form blocks which
are then placed in Castle Harbour. Inert
waste in the form of metals, building debris,
and rubble are flattened or broken down and
deposited in Castle Harbour.
The lands to the east of the Airport

comprising Coopers Island comprise the
oldest formation, Walsingham. The lower
part of Coopers Island, Nonsuch Island, and
the Castle Islands comprise the second
youngest formation, the Rocky Bay
Formation.
West
The lands to the west of the Airport abut
the public road known as Kindley Field
Road. The land and rocky coast located in
between Kindley Field Road and the waters
of Ferry Reach are designated National Park.
1.22.5
Given the exposure of Coopers Island,

Nonsuch Island and the Castle Islands, these
are highly susceptible to erosion. Their
ability to withstand continued erosion
without some form of protection is of
concern to Conservation Services, Ministry
of the Environment. Significant reduction
or complete loss of these islands will impact
the oceanography of Castle Harbour.4
Fresh Water Lens
There is no fresh water lens in the Study

Area. Part of Coopers Island is located
within the Brighton Aquifer, which is
typically brackish.
1.22.6
Geology
4
Personal communication, Director, Conservation Services, Ministry of the Environment, July

2005.
There are five geological formations in

Bermudas Stratigraphical column, which in
order of decreasing age are the Walsingham,
1-22
1.22.7
Master Plan
The beach sand supports a wealth of

organisms. More visible species include the
Ghost and Land Crab, the Tiger and Robe
Beetles, and the Sand Flea. The Bermuda
Skink may also scavenge on beaches.
Terrestrial Habitat
Figure 1-7 illustrates the distribution of

the terrestrial habitats located in the Study
Area. The lands that comprise the airfield
are by necessity kept clear of vegetation.
There is however, diverse and important
habitat supporting important species in the
adjacent Coopers Island and along the lands
that abut the Airport perimeter.
The beaches are backed by low dunes

which support a number of specially adapted
plants, such as Seaside Evening Primrose,
Beach Lobelia, and Darrells Fleabane.
These particular species are abundant on
Coopers Island but relatively rare on the
mainland.
Field and Wayside

This habitat comprises land at the edges
of main roads and un-mown grassed areas.
This habitat is found along the unused
runway, at the very north-eastern edge of the
Airport lands, the grassed area to the north
and southeast of the runway areas, and along
Kindley Field Road (see Figure 1-7).
Beyond the low sand dunes on Coopers

Island are mature dunes that support a
variety of native and endemic tree species
such as Bay Grape, Tamarisk, Bermuda
Cedar, and Madagascar Olive. Invasive
species, particularly the Casuarina, are also
present.
This habitat generally contains a diverse

understorey species; however, the majority
of these are self-propagating introduced
species. The most commonly observed tree
species in this habitat are invasive species
comprising the Fiddlewood, Brazilian
Pepper, Casuarina, Chinese Fan Palm and
Pride of India.
Bird species that forage in this habitat

include the Yellow-crowned Night Heron.
A variety of shore birds, including the
endangered Piping Plover, Sanderlings, and
Ruddy Turnstones are also found in this
habitat.
There are three bird nesting sites located
in this habitat, on the south end of the closed
runway and to the east and west of the
closed runway (see Figure 1-7).
Beach and Dune

The beach and dune habitat exists
primarily in the Coopers Island area but
also on the west and east sides of the unused
runway, as illustrated in Figure 1-7. The
beach and dune habitat located around the
unused runway is sparsely vegetated. The
area is wild seeded and comprises primarily
invasive species. Vegetation is maintained
as necessary to allow for the limited Airport
functions that occasionally occur there.
Rocky Coastal
The Rocky Coastal habitat exists at
Nonsuch Island and Coopers Island. This is
the area between mean high tide and Upland
Coastal and is characterised by cliffs, rock
outcrops and little soil.
1-23
Feet 0
Metres 0
Study Area
Figure 1-7
Terrestrial Habitats
600
200
1200
400
Master Plan
Species that grow in this habitat are salt

spray tolerant, such as Sea Ox-eye,
Buttonwood and Bay Grape.
Bird species that can be found in this

habitat include the Yellow-crowned Night
Heron, and some tropic birds. There are
three bird nesting sites in this habitat.
Many of the bird nesting sites illustrated

on Figure 1-7 are located in this habitat.
Coopers Island has one of the densest
concentrations of tropic bird nests in
Bermuda with an estimated 50-70 breeding
pairs in this habitat.
The endemic Bermuda Skink is also

found in this habitat (see Figure 1-7) on
Nonsuch Island and on the tiny islets
surrounding Coopers Island. The Bermuda
Skink is a critically endangered species.
As a result of continuous conservation

efforts, there are today 60 breeding pairs of
the Bermuda Petrel or Cahow. This species
now lives in the Rocky Coastal habitat where
it is isolated from predators.
Upland Hillside
The Upland Hillside habitat comprises a
significant part of Coopers Island, and there
are pockets of this habitat on the northeast
side of the Study Area (see Figure 1-7).
Although this habitat contains pockets of
native vegetation, including the Bermuda
Cedar, Palmetto, Olivewood, White Stopper,
Jamaica Dogwood, Hackberry, and the
Bermuda Snowberry, the invasive Brazil
Pepper, Casuarina, Fiddlewood, and Jumbie
Bean dominate.
The Land Hermit Crab also lives in this

habitat. It is known to exist in only six
locations in Bermuda.5
Upland Coastal
The Upland Coastal habitat extends
inland from the rocky coast and is an
exposed habitat. Vegetation that is
supported in this habitat is well adapted to
salt spray and wind.
Birds found in the Upland Hillside

habitat include the White-eyed Vireo, Grey
Catbird, Northern Cardinal, Mourning
Dove, Common Ground-dove and the
European Goldfinch. There are five known
bird nesting sites in the Upland Hillside
habitat (see Figure 1-7).
The Upland Coastal habitat is found

primarily in the Coopers and Nonsuch
Islands area, and at the southwest end of the
Study Area, at the Airport entrance (see
Figure 1-7).
Salt Marsh
Native species typically found in this

habitat include Buttonwood, Sea Lavender,
Prickly Pear, Bermuda Cedar and Bay
Grape.
Draft Coopers Island Land Use

Management Proposals Plan, March 2005.
There is one salt marsh in the Study

Area, located at the northern end of
Coopers Island.
It has been partially
destroyed from rubble having been dumped
in the marsh. There is however, a small
population of giant Land Crab living in this
marsh. It is believed that the Mangroves
were destroyed by the rubble dumping.
and
1-24
Master Plan
Despite their protection, the Queen Conch

populations have not recovered.6
Wetland birds, such as Northern

Waterthrush, herons, egrets and Belted
Kingfishers, can be found in the marsh.
Recent surveys have documented the

presence of Queen Conch in four locations
in Bermuda. One of these locations is the
seagrass beds shown on Figure 1-8.
The predominant plant in the marsh is

Sheathed Paspalum.
1.22.8
Marine Habitat
Turtles
Figure 1-8 illustrates the locations of the

coral reefs and the seagrass beds. The land
in the Study Area that is located in between
high and low tide is called the inter-tidal
zone.
There are seven sea turtle species, and all

are on the Endangered Species List.
Although there are historical records of
Loggerhead and Leatherback Turtle species
in Bermuda waters, it is considered rare that
they come to Bermuda. At present, large
numbers of juvenile Green Turtles and a
smaller number of Hawksbill Turtles come
to Bermuda.
Seagrass Beds
Seagrass are marine flowering plants and
are recognised as extremely productive
ecological systems. Seagrass beds support
marine organisms and are a habitat for
many species. In addition to supporting the
Spiny Lobster and such fish as Yellowtail
Snapper, Grey Snapper, Hogfish, Tarpon,
and Bonefish, the seagrass beds serve as
feeding grounds for the Queen Conch and
immature Green Turtles.
Currently, the nesting marine turtle

population that once used the beaches of
Bermuda are extinct. The Bermuda Turtle
Project was started in 1968 with the
objective of re-establishing a nesting
population in Bermuda. The Bermuda
Turtle Project continues today tagging and
collecting data from turtles found in the
local waters. One of the study sites for the
Bermuda Turtle Project is the area of
Coopers Island.
There are four species of seagrass in

Bermuda, and three of the species are found
in the vicinity of the Coopers Island
peninsula.
Between 1967 and 1977 over 25,000

Green Turtle eggs were flown into Bermuda
from Costa Rica and Surinam and buried on
local beaches. The majority were buried on
Nonsuch Island and at Howards Bay on
Castle Point. Of the total eggs buried, over
16,000 hatchlings emerged. It has not yet
Queen Conch
The Queen Conch was once abundant in
Bermuda but was over harvested. In 1978
they were afforded protection by the
Fisheries (Protected Species) Order 1978.
Draft Coopers Island Land Use

Management Proposals Plan, March 2005.
1-25
and
Feet 0
Metres 0
Study Area
Figure 1-8
Marine Habitats
600
200
1200
400
Master Plan
been determined if the population has been

re-seeded; however, two recent events
suggest a possible return of turtle nesting in
Bermuda.
Well Bay Beach and Clearwater Beach

are considered nesting habitat for the
Loggerhead Turtle and possibly other
species. It is considered that the remaining
beaches in the immediate area may also
support sea turtle nests and are closely
monitored by the Bermuda Turtle Project
team members.
In 1990, a Loggerhead Turtle nest with

eggs was discovered on Clearwater Beach
and was exposed by beach erosion. These
eggs were transferred to the Bermuda
Aquarium and three healthy hatchlings were
born. This was the first confirmed nesting
of this species in Bermuda.
Coral Reefs
Bermudas coral reefs are considered to
be in excellent condition; however,
Bermudas northerly location, geographic
isolation and dense population (and
subsequent pollution in the sea) are all
factors that put Bermudas reefs in a very
high risk category.
In June 2005, turtle tracks were

discovered on Well Bay, Coopers Island,
and a nest with eggs was confirmed. This
site is being very closely monitored by the
Department of Conservation Services.7
Recognising their value, local protection

measures for Bermudas reefs have been
taken. Two Coral Reef Preserves were
established in 1966. In 1978, the Fisheries
(Protected Species) Order 1978 was enacted
to ban the harvesting of all corals, thus
essentially making all of Bermuda Coral Reef
Preserve.
Both of the turtle nesting events have

occurred in the vicinity of the Airport lands
(see Figure 1-9).
In addition to the nesting events, the
Bermuda Turtle Project research shows that
Bermuda has one of the worlds healthiest
juvenile Green Turtle populations. In July
2003 at the Coopers Island Study Site,
thirteen turtles were captured, tagged and
released in the vicinity of Nonsuch Island,
four in Annies Bay, and one each in Goat
and Long Bays.
Figure 1-8 shows the location of the

coral reefs in the vicinity of the Study Area.
The majority of the coral reefs are located
well to the east of the Study Area. There are
however, recorded pockets of coral at the
southwest corner of the Study Area, near the
Airport entrance, along the unused runway,
and east along the coast that abuts the
runway out to Coopers Island.
The seagrass beds in the vicinity of the

Airport provide important habitat for
foraging juvenile and immature Green
Turtles.
Twenty species of hard coral have been

recorded in the vicinity of the Airport:
7
Bermuda Turtle Project Coordinator, July
2005.
1-26
Agaricia fragilis
Diploria labyrinthiformis
Feet 0
Metres 0
Study Area
Figure 1-9
Nesting Turtle Sites
600
200
1200
400
Diploria strigosa
Favia fragum
Isophylllia sinosa
Madracis decactis
Madracis mirabilis
Meandrina meandrites
Millipora alcicornis
Montastrea cavernosa
Montastrea faveolata
Montastrea frankesi
Oculina diffusa
Oculina robusta
Porites astreoides
Porites porites
Scolymia cubensis
Siderastrea radians
Siderasrea sidereal
Stephanocoenia michilinial.
Master Plan
considered a delicacy and is harvested

regularly.
The West Indian Top Shell population in
Bermuda was destroyed some time in
between the late Pleistocene and the mid1600s. It was successfully re-introduced in
the early 1980s in Nonsuch Island. By 1989,
the species had spread around Castle
Harbour. Snail abundance increased from
about 25 snails in 1987 to well over 1,500 in
2002.
At present, the species is not
considered extinct in Bermuda, but the long
term stability of the population is not
certain, especially given the illegal harvesting
that occurs in some locations.8
The population structures of the Top
Shell have been continuously monitored
since 2002, at three sites on the east side of
the island, all in the vicinity of Nonsuch and
Coopers Islands. One of these sites is the
end of the unused runway in the Study Area.
Figure 1-8 illustrates where West Indian
Top Shell populations now live in the Study
Area.
Intertidal Zone
The Castle Harbour area is the only in

shore coast where the Top Shell has been
reported.
The intertidal zone is the land that is

located in between high and low water mark.
This zone serves as habitat for marine snails.
Mangroves
West Indian Top Shell
Bermuda is the most northern location

in the world where mangroves grow, and
this makes them unique. Black Mangroves
and Red Mangroves grow in the intertidal
There are significant populations of the

West Indian Top Shell in the Study Area. It
is noteworthy because it is on the World
Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List (2000)
and has been protected locally since 1989
under the Fisheries (Protected Species)
Order 1978. Although the taking of any
snail in Bermuda is illegal, the Top Shell is
Aspects of the Biology of the West Indian

Topsnail, Cittarium Pica (Vetigastropoda, Trochidea)
in Bermuda, Coates, K.A., Meyer, E. , Hickman, C.S.
1-27
Master Plan
Water quality testing is carried out to

detect long-term changes and trends,
particularly in association with eutrophication. The parameters for testing are
ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, phosphate,
silicate, dissolved and particulate organic
carbon and nitrogen, salinity, oxygen, and
chlorophyll. Seawater CO2 has recently
been added to the program.
zone, where wave action is low and

sedimentation occurs. The roots of the
mangrove serve as a nursery for juvenile reef
fish. The canopy of the mangrove supports
many bird species.
The Study Area once contained
significant quantities of mangroves, but
these were all lost when the NAS was
constructed and the area filled with oceandredged fill.
Surface water quality is monitored,

amongst other locations, in Castle Harbour.
This testing has been carried out for almost
30 years continuously except for the years
1998 to 2001 and 2003 to 2004. Bermudas
inshore waters had traditionally been
considered minimally impacted by human
activities.9 Given Bermudas high population
density and changes in land use practice,
there is concern about declining water
quality, and testing has recommenced. This
data is not yet available.
Mangroves exist in one location in the

Study Area, at the northwest end of the site,
where Ferry Reach stretches into St.
Georges Harbour (see Figure 1-7). All
mangroves are afforded protection under
the Heads of Protection in the Development
and Planning Act 1974, and the Bermuda
Plan 1992 Planning Statement.
1.22.9
Water Testing
There is no storm water run-off testing

in the Study Area. There is regular testing
carried out for a variety of research
programs in connection with the marine
environment. Water quality testing at the
Castle Harbour Waste Metal Processing
Facility, which is located in the southeast
end of the study, is also carried out on a
regular basis.
Testing for trace metals has been carried

out at the Castle Harbour Waste Metal
Processing Facility for over 10 years. The
test results have shown elevated levels in the
sediment within three feet (one metre) of the
active face of the facility, indicating very
little measurable impact from this facility.10
1.22.10
BIOS carries out a variety of testing for

Government. This work is carried out under
their BIOS MEP. The objective of the MEP
is research and monitoring towards
identifying potential new sources of
pollution, understanding the significance
and possible consequences of existing
sources, and identifying effects associated
with climate change and non-climate
stresses on the marine environment.
Air Testing
No air testing in the Study Area has been

carried out.
BIOS Marine Environmental Program (MEP)

Annual Report 2004/5.
10
Personal communication, Director, Environmental Protection, Ministry of the Environment,

August 2005.
1-28
1.22.11
Master Plan
First, it is the desire of the Bermudian

Government to provide an attractive
gateway to the Country through its
passenger terminal. Although the terminal
facility has been continuously expanded over
the last 30 years to meet demand, there are
inefficiencies. For example, none of the gate
positions has loading bridge access.
Although some believe this provides an
island atmosphere for visitors, others
believe that passengers would be better
served by loading bridges, eliminating
exposure to inclement weather. Loading
bridges also provide segregation between
arriving and departing passengers, a desire
expressed by HM Customs.
The
Government also desires to reduce the
processing time for arriving passengers at
Immigration
and
HM
Customs.
International gate holdroom capacity
appears inadequate, especially when U.S.bound flights depart after Customs and
Border Protection close at 5:00 PM, forcing
U.S. flights to the international gates.
Holdroom capacity for U.S. flights also may
not be adequate for larger aircraft. Overall,
the terminal may need significant upgrades
to provide improved levels of customer
service. The Master Plan will explore
options for improving flow through these
processes.
Noise Studies
No noise studies in the Study Area have

been carried out; however, base year and
future year noise contours were developed as
part of this study, and the possible impacts
were estimated. (See Section 5.6.)
1.23 KEY ISSUES

Although all major aspects of the
Airports facilities will be examined during
this effort, the focus and direction of the
Master Plan are driven by several key issues.
1.23.1
Non-Conforming Design
Standards
It is a priority of the DAO to provide a

safe and efficient airport facility, and to this
end, it has striven to meet all applicable
design standards. Nevertheless, because the
Airport was originally developed many years
ago by the U.S. military under less stringent
standards, and due to significant site
constraints, there are several Airport
features that do not meet ICAO design
standards. Examples include separation
distances between the runway and parallel
taxiway that are less than specified by ICAO,
wind coverage that is below what is
recommended by ICAO, and airspace
obstructions in the Airport vicinity. The
Master Plan will explore ways of possibly
meeting these design standards as various
development alternatives are identified and
evaluated.
1.23.2
Landside facilities, such as terminal

roadway circulation and parking are
constrained. The terminal footprint is also
constrained physically at its current site,
which could limit future expansion
opportunities.
Finally, at its current
location, the terminal facility is exposed to
significant storm surges from Castle
Harbour (as occurred during Hurricane
Fabian in 2003).
Terminal Development
Several terminal issues will be closely

examined as part of this Master Plan.
1-29
Master Plan
associated with
occupation.
The Master Plan will use a unique Dual

Track approach to explore terminal
development options which will address
these key issues. Under this approach, two
long term plans will be simultaneously
developedan optimal development plan at
the existing site, and an optimal
development plan at a new location. These
two plans will then be evaluated, and a
preferred plan will be recommended.
1.23.3
preparing
them
for
As part of this Master Plan, a useful life

analysis will be conducted for key on-airport
facilities, and options for reuse will be
identified for those structures which have a
viable useful life.
1.23.4
Land Use Compatibility
The DAO desires to be a good

neighbour with local residents; however,
recognising the extremely limited amount of
developable land in Bermuda, ensuring
adequate land use compatibility will be a
challenge. During this Master Plan, the
recommended Airport development plan
will consider impacts to the surrounding
community; the DAO will work with the
BLDC to ensure that Airport development is
as compatible as possible.
Airport Building Asset Reuse
The condition of various on-airport

building assets varies due to their age and
level of damage sustained by Hurricane
Fabian. In addition, some structures are not
being utilised to their greatest potential. It is
the desire of the DAO to assess the
condition of these structures, explore
possible reuses, and gauge the general cost
1-30

2.
Master Plan
AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECAST
Chapter Two
AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECAST
Passenger enplanements,
period when new technologies and changes

in work and recreational practices may have
an unpredictable impact on aviation activity.
For these reasons, the forecasts should be
periodically compared with actual Airport
activity levels, plans, and policies, and
adjusted accordingly.
Enplaned and deplaned cargo tonnage,
2.2
Aircraft operations (passenger carrier,

general aviation (GA), military, charter,
and cargo),
2.2.1
2.1
INTRODUCTION
This Chapter summarises the aviation

forecast (2005-2025) for BDA and includes
projected:
Aircraft fleet mix, and
Peak hour operations and enplanements.
HISTORICAL ACTIVITY
Passengers
Table 2.1 and Figure 2-1 display

historical passenger enplanements at BDA
and annual air visitors (those air passengers
that are not residents of Bermuda) to
Bermuda. Passenger enplanements at BDA
have declined gradually over the last 15
years, from about 602,000 in 1990 to slightly
more than 421,000 in 2004.
The Chapter begins with a review of

historical activity and current air service
patterns at BDA. It then summarises the
Base Forecast and two alternative forecast
scenarios, including the assumptions and
methodology used to derive each forecast
component.
The assumptions outlined
below are based on information provided by
Airport staff, the Bermuda Department of
Tourism, the Bermuda Department of
Statistics,
relevant
literature,
and
professional judgement.
The number of air visitors to Bermuda

has
dropped
more
quickly
than
enplanements and, thus, visitors now make
up a smaller share of enplanements than
they did in the early 1990s.11 As shown in
Table 2.1, air visitors accounted for about 72
percent of enplanements in 1990 but only
about 65 percent of enplanements by 2004.
Forecasting is not an exact science.

Departures from expected trends in the
local, regional, and world economy, and in
the airline business environment may have a
significant effect on the projections
presented herein.
These uncertainties
increase towards the end of the forecast
11
Air visitors as reported by the Bermuda

Department of Tourism. Includes visitors (both
leisure and business) to Bermuda that travelled by air.
Does not include residents of Bermuda that travelled
by air.
2-1
Master Plan
Table 2.1
Historic Enplanements and Visitors
Year
Resident Air
Passengers (1)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
167,197
143,341
111,964
109,146
103,997
113,999
115,687
125,480
111,671
125,601
132,991
132,181
139,747
147,677
149,700
Avg. Annual Growth

1990-2004
Air Visitors (Nonresidents)(2)
-0.8%
434,909
386,178
375,231
413,134
416,990
387,625
391,450
380,790
369,971
354,815
332,191
278,153
284,024
256,576
271,617
-3.3%
Percentage
Visitors
Total
Enplanements (3)
72.2%
72.9%
77.0%
79.1%
80.0%
77.3%
77.2%
75.2%
76.8%
73.9%
71.4%
67.8%
67.0%
63.5%
64.5%
602,106
529,519
487,195
522,280
520,987
501,624
507,137
506,270
481,642
480,416
465,182
410,334
423,771
404,253
421,317
-0.8%
-2.5%
Notes: (1) Figures from 1990 -1996 are from Figure 2-2 in the Bermuda International Airport Draft
Land Use Plan (November 1995), ACI-NA and Bermuda Digest of Statistics, 2000.
Figures for 1997-2004 are from Airport statistics.
(2) Bermuda Department of Tourism. Includes business and leisure visitors to Bermuda
that arrived by air. Does not include Bermuda residents that travelled by air.
(3) Enplanements minus air visitors.
Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.
2-2
650
600
Enplaned Passengers (1000s)
550
500
Total
450
400
Visitors
350
300
250
200
150
Residents
100
50
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Figure 2-1
Historic Annual Passenger EnplanementsResident and Visitors
Master Plan
percent per year. Scheduled passenger

operations have increased even as
enplanements have decreased because both
the average aircraft size and average load
factors at BDA have dropped over the last 10
years (Table 2.3). Load factors have fallen
by about 10 percentage points as
enplanements declined faster than seat
departures.
Bermuda residents travelling for

business and/or leisure make up the
remaining share of enplanements, and as the
share of visitor enplanements has declined,
the share of resident enplanements has
increased. The number of resident air
travellers has dipped slightly over the last 15
years, but has not dropped as much as air
visitors; since the late 1990s, the number of
resident air travellers has actually risen.
2.2.3
The rise in the percentage of resident
travel in recent years is likely attributable to
a shift in the Bermuda economy. In the
early 1990s, tourism was the leading
industry in Bermuda, but over the last
decade
international
business
has
supplanted tourism as the number one
industry.
According to the Bermuda
Department of Statistics, international
business activity accounted for almost 21
percent of Bermudas GDP in 2003, up from
about 14 percent in 1998. Over the same
time
period,
employment
in
the
international business sector jumped about
38 percent while employment in the hotel
industry dropped by almost 28 percent. The
drop in tourist-related air arrivals is
attributed to a combination of factors,
including the high cost of airfare to
Bermuda, the high cost of staying in
Bermuda, growth in cruise ships as
alternative mode of leisure travel, a lack of
consumer awareness of Bermuda as a
vacation destination, and competition from
Caribbean destinations.
2.2.2
Air Service
Overall seat departures have declined

slightly (0.5 percent) over the last 10 years
(Table 2.3 and Table 2.4); however, there
are disparities in the number of seat
departures offered by region. For example,
while seat departures to the U.K. have
climbed more than five percent per year
since 1994, seat departures to U.S. and
Canadian markets have dropped by about
one percent per year over the same time
period.
Historically, non-stop air service to the
U.S. has centred on large East Coast
gateways such as Atlanta (Delta), Newark
(Continental),
Boston
(Delta),
and
Philadelphia (US Airways). Regular nonstop service also has been offered between
Bermuda and two major New York City
airports, LaGuardia and JFK. In 2002, nonstop service was introduced to Washington,
DC (DCA) and, more recently, to Miami,
Chicago, and Detroit.
Miami is an
American Airlines hub and also functions as
a gateway between Bermuda and South
America. Non-stop service to Baltimore has
also been fairly consistent, and low-cost
carrier USA 3000 introduced non-stop
Operations
As shown in Table 2.2, passenger carrier

operations have increased by almost one
percent per year since 1994, and GA
operations have grown by almost eight
2-3
Master Plan
Table 2.2
Historic Aircraft Operations by Category
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 (4)
Avg. Annual Growth
1994-2004
Scheduled
Passenger
Carrier (1)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7,774
7,975
8,242
7,521
7,233
7,318
8,010
6,990
6,860
7,042
8,318
0.7%
General
Aviation (2)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,534
3,151
3,199
3,488
3,574
3,440
3,718
3,756
5,224
5,152
5,241
Military
Cargo
Charter
Total (3)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
276
240
236
270
248
283
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
744
N/A
972
1,340
1,428
1,390
630
546
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
188
200
100
150
68
186
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10,308
11,126
11,441
11,753
10,807
12,194
13,508
12,510
13,894
13,140
14,574
7.5%
3.5%
Notes: (1) Data for 1999-2004 is from Airport statistics. Data for 1994-1998 & 2004 is from OAG multiplied by a 99.1%
completion factor. The 99.1% completion factor reflects the average completion rate for 1999, 2000, and 2002.
The years 2001 and 2003 were omitted from completion rate average because of the flight interruptions after
the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks in 2001 and Hurricane Fabian in 2003.
(2) Data for 1996-2004 is from Airport statistics. Data for 1994 & 1995 is from ACI.
(3) Does not include diversions. Totals for 1994-1998 include only GA and passenger carrier operations.
(4) Estimated from summary Airport statistics (GA, military, and total operations) and tower data (cargo and
charter) for 2004. Scheduled operations are from the OAG adjusted by the 99.1% completion factor.
Sources: Airport statistics, Airport Council International (ACI), and Official Airline Guide (OAG) as published by
BACK Information Services.
2-4
Master Plan
Table 2.3
Historic Scheduled Seat Departures, Load Factors, and Average Aircraft Size
Scheduled Seat
Departures (1)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Avg. Annual Growth
1994-2004
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
701,874
703,097
714,302
662,506
641,908
633,536
705,152
625,483
582,942
597,631
664,427
-0.5%
Scheduled Passenger
Aircraft Departures (2)
Enplanements (3)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,922
4,023
4,158
3,794
3,649
3,705
4,046
3,689
3,444
3,670
4,196
Load Factor (4)
602,106
529,519
487,195
522,280
520,987
501,624
507,137
506,270
481,642
480,416
465,182
410,334
423,771
404,253
421,317
0.7%
-2.1%
Avg. Aircraft Size (5)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
74.2%
71.3%
71.0%
76.4%
75.0%
75.8%
66.0%
65.6%
72.7%
67.6%
63.4%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
179.0
174.8
171.8
174.6
175.9
171.0
174.3
169.6
169.3
162.8
158.3
-1.6%
-1.2%
Notes: (1) Offical Airline Guide (OAG) as published by BACK Information Services.
(2) These figures are slightly higher than those in Table 2.2 because they represent total scheduled departures, whereas those in
Table 2.2 represent departures performed (scheduled * completion factor).
(3) Table 2.1.
(4) Enplanements/Scheduled Seat Departures (no adjustment for completion).
(5) Scheduled Seat Departures/Scheduled Operations (no adjustement for completion).
Sources: Table 2.1 and the Offical Airline Guide (OAG) as published by BACK Information Services.
2-5
Master Plan
Table 2.4
Historical Scheduled Seat Departures by Market & Region
Airport Code
YHZ
YYZ
FRA
LGW
ACY
ATL
BOS
BWI
CLT
DCA
DTW
EWR
FLL
JFK
LGA
MCO
MIA
ORD
PHL
RDU
STL
TOTAL
Market
Halifax, Canada
Toronto, Canada
Frankfurt, Germany
London, England
Atlantic City, NJ
Atlanta, GA
Boston, MA
Baltimore, MD
Charlotte, NC
Washington, DC
Detroit, Michigan
Newark, NJ
Fort Lauderdale, FL
New York, NY
New York, NY
Orlando, FL
Miami, FL
Chicago, IL
Philadelphia, PA
Raleigh, NC
St. Louis, MO
Mainland US
Canada
Europe
TOTAL
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
9,230
53,775
31,244
74,825
135,621
45,812
74,190
120,008
46,206
65,279
45,684
701,874
8,710
56,757
1,345
35,096
75,213
107,834
59,595
30,415
94,441
123,057
47,637
62,997
703,097
6,100
56,270
40,018
88,900
103,193
52,704
28,368
111,595
135,008
35,856
56,085
714,097
4,915
51,777
33,384
5,760
74,275
116,199
52,560
26,352
80,542
142,438
21,744
52,560
662,506
607,625
63,005
31,244
701,874
601,189
65,467
36,441
703,097
611,914
62,370
40,018
714,302
572,430
56,692
39,144
668,266
1999
Annual
Growth
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
MARKET
3,976
3,444
50,642
51,312
42,267
42,449
73,125
72,823
109,527
107,603
52,560
52,560
26,064
26,064
74,184
81,251
138,510
117,688
18,493
18,432
52,560
59,910
641,908
633,536
4,116
53,185
47,268
111,303
106,938
52,704
30,102
82,527
120,516
22,176
68,857
5,460
705,152
4,265
52,965
47,187
72,346
106,185
43,102
23,184
74,018
116,150
23,184
62,897
625,483
3,584
51,615
42,449
72,031
106,645
11,640
10,080
14,902
78,684
114,620
15,120
61,418
582,788
3,668
53,247
42,449
71,444
117,719
10,920
24,840
74,463
1,440
115,580
21,480
60,381
597,631
4,200
52,134
49,259
70,587
96,935
23,376
11,280
26,040
77,372
4,200
135,318
28,672
2,640
2,484
79,776
664,273
3,864
51,716
54,480
67,000
76,182
20,328
12,600
26,040
2,960
89,686
125,342
18,960
1,680
23,384
1,794
86,517
662,533
-0.5%
REGION
545,023
536,331
54,618
54,756
42,267
42,449
641,908
633,536
600,583
57,301
47,268
705,152
521,066
57,230
47,187
625,483
485,140
55,199
42,449
582,788
498,267
56,915
42,449
597,631
558,680
56,334
49,259
664,273
552,473
55,580
54,480
662,533
-0.9%
-1.1%
5.2%
-0.5%
Source: Official Airline Guide (OAG) as published by BACK Information Services. Year 2005 data was pulled in July 2005 and may change slightly over the next six months. Total seat departures in this table
differ slightly from those in Table 2.3 because this table does not include markets to which annual seat departures totaled less than 200 in any given year.
2-6
-7.6%
-0.4%
5.2%
-1.0%
-5.1%
-7.1%
1.7%
0.4%
-7.8%
2.6%
Master Plan
2.3.1
service between Bermuda and Baltimore in

2004.
The Base Forecast is based on the

following general forecast assumptions
regarding anticipated air service trends, fuel
assumptions, the future security environment, and economic trends.
Service to Europe has centred entirely on

the U.K. for the last decade. The only
exceptions to this were non-stop service to
Frankfurt briefly in 1995 and Munich in
2006. Non-stop service to Toronto, Canada
has remained fairly constant over the last 10
years, complemented by less frequent service
to Halifax, Canada.
2.2.4
Anticipated Air Service Trends

It is assumed that factors such as
government regulation and labour union
resistance will prevent any major
consolidation affecting the airlines that serve
BDA.
Although some minor airline
consolidation could continue to occur, no
attempt is made to predict the individual
airlines that would be affected, except as
noted.
Cargo
According to Airport staff and cargo

statistics, significantly more cargo travels
inbound to Bermuda than travels outbound
from Bermuda. Typical cargo includes
perishables (fresh fish, flowers, etc.),
express/overnight packages, mail, and some
household effects. Currently, almost 50
percent of the cargo that travels through
BDA is carried in the belly of passenger
aircraft (including all of the mail that travels
through the Airport). One all-cargo airline,
AllCanada Express, currently operates a
daily (Monday through Friday) flight
between Bermuda and the U.S. using a
Boeing 727. This flight arrives in Bermuda
in the mid-morning and departs for the U.S.
in the evening. A number of large cargo
companies, such as UPS and FedEx, contract
with AllCanada Express to carry their freight
to and from Bermuda.
In 2004,
approximately 8,264 metric tonnes of cargo
were processed at BDA.
2.3
General Forecast Assumptions
Fuel Assumptions
The real cost of fuel is assumed to
increase gradually, in accordance with the
U.S. Federal Aviation Administrations
(FAA) Aerospace Forecast, 2005-2016 and
the
U.S.
Department
of
Energy,
International Energy Outlook 2005. Both
forecasts assume some oil and gas price
volatility in the short-term but then expect a
steady increase in prices over time. No
major price shocks or disruption, as
occurred in the mid- and late-1970s, are
assumed. Also, no major increases in fuel
taxes are assumed.
Future Security Environment
BASE FORECAST
Security issues related to air travel have

changed and will continue to evolve as new
security procedures and technology are
incorporated to improve airport security.
Events that may affect traveller confidence
This section discusses the assumptions,

methodology, and results of the Base
Forecast.
2-7
Master Plan
examined. A large number of forecasts were

reviewed including:
in airport or air travel security cannot be

predicted. It is assumed that there will be no
terrorist attacks during the forecast period
that will affect confidence in the aviation
system to the same extent as 9/11.
The World Travel and Tourism Council

(WTTC), Bermuda Travel & Tourism:
Sowing the Seeds of Growth, The 2005
Travel & Tourism Economic Research;
Airbus, Global Market Forecast 20042023;
Boeing, 2005 Current Market Outlook;
The U.S. FAA, Aerospace Forecasts FY

2005-2016, March 2005;
The World Bank international GDP

projections posted on their website;
The U.S. Congressional Budget Office,

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal
Years 2006 to 2015; and
The U.K. Department for Transport, Air

Traffic Forecast for the United
Kingdom, 2000.
Economic Assumptions
The forecasts also assume no major
downturn in the Bermuda economy.
International economies will periodically
increase and decrease their pace of growth in
accordance with business cycles; however, it
is assumed that, over the 20-year forecast
term, these high- and low-growth periods
will offset each other.
2.3.2
Scheduled Passenger Forecast
Future enplanements at BDA will

depend on four key factors:
1. The strength of the Bermuda economy,
which will affect the number of Bermuda
residents that travel for business and
leisure;
2. The strength of other world economies,
which will affect the tourism and
international business industries in
Bermuda;
The recently published study from the

World Travel and Tourism Council
(WTTC)
includes
projected
tourist
expenditures and tourism-related GDP for
Bermuda. The WTTC forecast is useful for
estimating the future Bermuda tourist
economy; however, tourists make up only
one portion of the enplanements of BDA.
The WTTC growth rates are discussed
further in one of the alternative forecast
scenarios.
3. The attractiveness of Bermuda as a

tourist destination compared to other
tourist markets and the ability of
Bermuda to attract tourists during the
off-season; and
4. The health and future evolution of the
airline industry.
Many of the other forecasts, while useful

for estimating general economic and
industry trends, were too broad in scope
In order to develop assumptions about

these four factors, existing economic, tourist,
and airline industry forecasts were
2-8
Master Plan
(primarily regional scope) to guide the

forecast of enplanements at BDA.
growth in seat departures from Bermuda to

Europe and from Bermuda to the U.S. has
not kept pace with the growth in seat
departures from the Caribbean to these
regions.
Airbus, which offers the most detailed

regional forecast, projects the following
average annual growth in passengers
travelling between the Caribbean and the
U.S. and the Caribbean and Europe:12
Therefore, the Airbus passenger growth

rates were adjusted downwards by the
difference in Caribbean seat departures
growth and Bermuda seat departure growth
to each region (see calculations in Table 2.5).
The following adjusted growth rates
resulted:
Airbus Global Market Forecast 2004-2023

Passenger Traffic Forecast by Sub-market
Sub-markets
Caribbean- U.S.
CaribbeanWestern
Europe
AAGR 2004-23*
4.0%
ADJUSTED Airbus
Passenger Traffic Forecast by Sub-market
6.9%
* Average annual growth rate.
Sub-markets
Bermuda U.S.
Bermuda-Western
Europe
While not part of the Caribbean,

Bermuda and the Caribbean are both leisure
destinations, although Bermuda tends to be
viewed as a high-end destination and has a
strong non-tourism economy (large
international business presence). For this
reason, the Airbus forecast was adjusted for
use in projecting enplanements at BDA. The
process of adjustment implicitly assumes
that the economic and tourist trends in
Bermuda, relative to the Caribbean, will be
the same in the future as they have been over
the past 10 years.
5.9%
* Average annual growth rate.
An
examination
of
year-to-date
passenger data and hotel bookings suggests
that Bermuda had not completely recovered
from the adverse impacts of Hurricane
Fabian in 2004, making 2004 less than ideal
as a base year. Year-to-date passenger data
for 2005 was extrapolated for the remainder
of the year to generate an annual estimate of
458,544 enplaned passengers. The 2005
enplanement estimate was then used as the
base year to which the growth rates were
applied.
The first step in the adjustment process

was to compare the historical trend in
Bermuda passenger activity to the historical
trend in Caribbean passenger activity. To
do this, historical Bermuda and Caribbean
seat departure data was obtained from the
Official Airline Guide (OAG) (Table 2.5
and Figure 2-2). As shown in Table 2.5, the
12
AAGR 2004-23*
0.7%
Table 2.6 displays the results of the BDA

enplanement forecast using the adjusted
Airbus growth rates. As shown, overall
enplanements are projected to increase 1.6
percent per year over the forecast period
from an estimated 458,544 in 2005 to over
623,000 in 2025. These figures do not
Airbus, Global Market Forecast 2004-2023.
2-9
Master Plan
Table 2.5
Bermuda and Caribbean Historical Scheduled Seat Departures by Region
Destination
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Growth
From CARIBBEAN
To Mainland US
9,392,467
9,739,043
9,799,283
9,544,706
9,689,512
10,366,832
10,886,978
10,915,127
10,677,128
11,638,847
11,835,764
12,204,445
2.4%
To Europe
2,083,878
2,484,657
2,613,458
2,787,548
3,107,444
3,550,959
3,980,740
3,940,659
3,847,973
3,853,908
4,045,292
4,017,531
6.1%
From BERMUDA
Mainland US
RATIO (1)
607,625
6.5%
601,189
6.2%
611,914
6.2%
572,430
6.0%
545,023
5.6%
536,331
5.2%
600,583
5.5%
521,066
4.8%
485,140
4.5%
498,267
4.3%
558,680
4.7%
552,473
4.5%
-0.9%
-3.2%
Europe
RATIO (2)
31,244
1.5%
36,441
1.5%
40,018
1.5%
39,144
1.4%
42,267
1.4%
42,449
1.2%
47,268
1.2%
47,187
1.2%
42,449
1.1%
42,449
1.1%
49,259
1.2%
54,480
1.4%
5.2%
-0.9%
ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
Mainland US
from Caribbean
from Bermuda
2.4%
-0.9%
ADJUSTMENT-U.S. (3)
3.3%
Europe
from Caribbean
from Bermuda
6.1%
5.2%
ADJUSTMENT-Europe (4)
1.0%
ADJUSTMENT to AIRBUS FORECAST
Caribbean- U.S.
Unadjusted
Adjusted (5)
4.0%
0.7%
Caribbean Western Europe

Unadjusted
Adjusted (5)
6.9%
5.9%
Notes: (1) Bermuda seat departures to U.S./Caribbean seat departures to U.S.

(2) Bermuda seat departures to Europe/Caribbean seat departures to Europe.
(3) Caribbean average annual growth rate (2.4%) minus Bermuda average annual growth rate (-0.9%).
(4) Caribbean average annual growth rate (6.1%) minus Bermuda average annual growth rate (5.2%).
(5) Airbus growth rate minus adjustment factor.
Sources: Offical Airline Guide (OAG) as published by BACK Information Services and Airbus, Global Market Forecast 2004-2023 .
2-10
Caribbean Seat Departures (millions)
Berm
u
12
da-U
10
n-U
a
e
b
b
ari
.S.
500
400
300
ur o pe
E
n
a
e
b
Carib
200
100
Bermuda-Europe
0
1994
Figure 2-2
600
.S.
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Historic Annual Seat Departures to U.S. and EuropeBermuda vs. Caribbean
2003
0
2004
Bermuda Seat Departures (000)
700
14
Master Plan
Table 2.6
Forecast of Scheduled Enplanements by Region
Year
Bermuda-U.S.
Bermuda-Europe
2004 (2)
2005 (3)
338,071
367,872
38,601
47,802
43,163
42,870
419,835
458,544
2010
2015
2020
2025
381,483
395,598
410,236
425,415
63,775
85,085
113,515
151,446
43,859
44,871
45,906
46,965
489,117
525,554
569,657
623,825
Avg. Annual Growth

2005-2025
0.7%
5.9%
Bermuda-Canada (1) Total Enplanements
0.5%
1.6%
Notes: (1) The Airbus forecast does not include a Caribbean-Canada passenger forecast. The growth rate for
Canadian passengers was derived as follows: U.S. adjusted rate - (Historical growth in U.S./Bermuda
Passengers - Historical growth in Canada/Bermuda Passengers) or 7%-(-0.9%-(-1.1%)). See Table 2.4 for
growth in seat departures from Bermuda to Canada.
(2) Total enplanements are slightly lower than those in Table 2.1 because the figures in this table do not
include charter passengers. Airport records include only the complete regional breakout of schedule
carrier passengers.
(3) Extrapolated from January through March 2005 data using 2004 seasonality factors.
Sources: Bermuda Digest of Statistics, 2000, Bermuda Statistics Department, and Airport statistics.
2-11
include charter passengers which

discussed later in this Chapter.
2.3.3
Master Plan
are
The resulting overall load factor for

Bermuda is expected to increase to about
71.6 percent by 2025, about four percentage
points higher than its 2002-2005 average.
The overall growth rate increases even as
regional growth rates remain constant
because passenger traffic between Bermuda
and Europe (which has a higher load factor)
is forecasted to grow more quickly than
passenger traffic to other regions.
Load Factor and Seat

Departure Forecast
Historically, load factors have been

highest on flights to Europe, averaging 88.1
percent between 2002 and 2005. Canadian
load factors have averaged 77.1 percent
during the same period, while the lowest
load factors have occurred in the U.S.
market, which averaged only 64.9 percent.
(See Table 2.7.)
The lower portion of Table 2.7 displays

forecasted seat departures by region. Seat
departures are estimated by dividing
projected passengers by projected load
factors in each of the forecast years. Because
the overall load factor is expected to increase
gradually over the forecast period, overall
seat departures are expected to grow more
slowly (1.4 percent per year) than
enplanements (1.6 percent per year).
European and Canadian load factors are

already fairly high for the airline industry
and are therefore projected to remain
constant at their above-mentioned averages
over the forecast period. In their most
recent Aerospace Forecast, the FAA predicts
that load factors to the Atlantic travel region
(from the U.S.) will increase slightly in 2005,
dip slightly in 2006, and then remain
constant for the remainder of the forecast
period.13 These trends were assumed for
U.S. load factors for Bermuda.
2.3.4
Scheduled Passenger Carrier

Operations and Fleet Mix
The forecast of passenger carrier

operations is derived from projected seat
departures. First, however, it was necessary
to estimate the share of seat departures that
each airline would provide in future years.
To facilitate this process, each airline
currently serving BDA was given a survey in
which they were asked to estimate future
enplanements and fleet mix. The airlines
also were asked about the possibility of new
non-stop markets.
The load factors in Bermuda-U.S.

markets are lower than the average for most
domestic and international markets. This is
typical for a high-fare market. Were air
fares to fall substantially, load factors would
need to go up for airlines to recover their
operating expenses. The impact of lower
fares and higher load factors is explored in
the High Forecast Scenario.
Almost every U.S. carrier returned a

survey, and this data was used to help
allocate projected seat departures among the
airlines and develop the fleet mix forecast.
Some carriers expect their passenger
numbers to increase more quickly than
13
FAA Aerospace Forecasts FY 2005-2016, March

2005. Table 20: Scheduled Passenger Capacity,
Traffic, and Load Factors By International Travel
Regions.
2-12
Master Plan
Table 2.7
Historical and Projected Load Factors and Seat Departures by Region
Year
U.S. (1)
Europe (2)
Canada (2)
Overall
LOAD FACTORS
2002
2003
2004
2005 (3)
AVERAGE
68.7%
64.0%
60.5%
66.6%
64.9%
95.0%
91.2%
78.4%
87.7%
88.1%
77.3%
77.5%
76.6%
77.1%
77.1%
71.4%
67.2%
63.2%
69.2%
67.7%
2010
2015
2020
2025
66.6%
66.6%
66.6%
66.6%
88.1%
88.1%
88.1%
88.1%
77.1%
77.1%
77.1%
77.1%
69.7%
70.2%
70.8%
71.6%
SCHEDULED SEAT DEPARTURES

2004
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
558,680
552,473
572,915
594,113
616,095
638,891
Avg. Annual Growth in Seat Departures

2005-2025
0.7%
49,259
54,480
72,419
96,617
128,901
171,972
5.9%
56,334
55,580
56,860
58,172
59,514
60,887
0.5%
664,273
662,533
702,194
748,902
804,510
871,750
1.4%
Notes: (1) The U.S. load factors are projected to grow in line with the FAA load factor projections for the
Atlantic travel region.
(2) European and Canadian load factors are projected to remain constant over the forecast period.
(3) Estimated to be equal to estimated enplanements from Table 2.6 divided by scheduled seat departures.
Sources: Offical Airline Guide as published by BACK Information Services, Airport statistics,
FAA Aerospace Forecast 2005-2016, and HNTB analysis.
2-13
Master Plan
aircraft sizes. This is especially true toward

the end of the forecast horizon where the
level of confidence about individual airline
fleet mixes and service patterns is not as
great as in the near term.
others, but most airlines do not expect a

significant change in their service (non-stop
markets, fleet etc.) at BDA.
It is assumed that Air Canada will
remain the primary provider of scheduled
non-stop service between Canada and BDA
throughout the forecast period. In the
European market, British Airways is
expected to remain the sole provider of daily
scheduled service between Europe and BDA
through 2015; however, by 2020, a second
European carrier is projected to begin at
least seasonal non-stop service.
The
Ministry of Transport is actively engaged in
discussions with carriers to add service from
Europe and Canada.
The percentage of older Boeing 757s is

projected to drop gradually over the next 20
years, while the medium-sized Boeing 737800s will make up a larger share of
operations in 2025. Beginning in 2015, the
new Boeing 737-900ER is expected to enter
the fleet mix at BDA as airlines begin to
phase out older aircraft such as the Boeing
757. According to Boeing, the new 737900ER will carry more passengers than the
current model 737-900.
The number of Boeing 777s increases
after 2005 under the assumption that British
Airways will raise the average annual
frequency of their Gatwick service to seven
weekly flights (14 weekly operations).14
After 2015, growth in European seats
departures is expected to come primarily in
the form of new non-stop European service
using an Airbus A330. As noted previously,
the specific aircraft types indicated are based
on the current airline fleet mix, existing
information on aircraft orders, and specific
airline service patterns.
Although the
uncertainty of specific aircraft types in the
forecast fleet mix increases toward the end
of the forecast horizon, there is greater
confidence of the general aircraft size. As
such, it is likely that European service will be
accommodated by ICAO ARC 4E aircraft.
Once future seat departures were

allocated among the airlines, data on aircraft
orders and anticipated air service trends was
used to estimate the most probable manner
in which the airlines would supply the
projected number of seat departures in each
forecast year (i.e., the fleet mix). This step
translates projected seat departures into
projected aircraft operations by airline and
by aircraft. The Base Forecast of scheduled
passenger operations assumes that BDA will
see an increasing share of business travellers
who place greater importance on flight
frequency compared to leisure travellers.
The forecasts of scheduled passenger
aircraft operations and projected fleet mix
are summarised in Table 2.8. Scheduled
passenger operations are expected to
increase from about 8,500 in 2005 to more
than 11,500 in 2025, an average annual
increase of about 1.5 percent per year.
14
The aircraft types shown should be

considered to be representative of general
2006.
2-14
BA operated daily flights during the summer of
Master Plan
Table 2.8
Forecast of Scheduled Passenger Aircraft Operations by Aircraft Type
Aircraft
2004 (1)
2005 (2)
2010
2015
2020
2025
Fleet Mix-Number of Operations by Aircraft Type

ERJ-145
A319
A320
A321
B737-700
B737-800
B737-900
B737-900ER
B757-200
B767-200
B767-300
B777-200
A330
TOTAL
8,318
1,800
1,166
52
890
1,260
2
1,776
1,030
28
480
-
808
1,804
1,466
68
900
1,318
1,870
650
28
730
-
968
1,774
1,568
316
920
1,342
218
1,668
500
28
730
-
1,260
1,734
1,428
560
826
2,260
1,610
200
730
416
1,260
1,534
1,328
950
780
1,700
2,470
1,010
520
8,484
9,642
10,032
11,024
11,552
Fleet Mix-Percent of Operations by Aircraft Type

ERJ-145
A319
A320
A321
B737-700
B737-800
B737-900
B737-900ER
B757-200
B767-200
B767-300
B777-200
A330
TOTAL
0.0%
21.2%
13.7%
0.6%
10.5%
14.9%
0.0%
0.0%
20.9%
12.1%
0.3%
5.7%
0.0%
100%
8.4%
18.7%
15.2%
0.7%
9.3%
13.7%
0.0%
0.0%
19.4%
6.7%
0.3%
7.6%
0.0%
100%
9.6%
17.7%
15.6%
3.1%
9.2%
13.4%
0.0%
2.2%
16.6%
5.0%
0.3%
7.3%
0.0%
100%
11.4%
15.7%
13.0%
5.1%
7.5%
20.5%
0.0%
14.6%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
6.6%
3.8%
100%
Notes: (1) Table 2.2.

(2) Actual scheduled departures as published in the OAG. Not adjusted by completion factor.
Sources: Offical Airline Guide as published by BACK Information Services and HNTB analysis. See text for details.
2-15
10.9%
13.3%
11.5%
8.2%
6.8%
14.7%
0.0%
21.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.7%
4.5%
100%
Master Plan
the booming international business industry

in Bermuda. GA activity at BDA also may
be increasing as business travellers seek to
escape from the commercial aviation hassle
factor associated with heightened security
measures implemented after the September
11th terrorist attacks. Unlike much of the
general aviation industry, GA activity at
BDA did not experience a downturn after
September 11th.
One of the most notable changes to the fleet

mix is the anticipated introduction of
regional jet service to the East Coast of the
U.S. Over the last five years, the number of
regional jet flights between the U.S. and the
Caribbean has more than quadrupled. BDA
is a likely candidate for regional jet service
because the Airport is expected to cater
increasingly to business travellers, a segment
of passengers that tends to place a higher
level of importance on flight frequency
compared to leisure travellers. The smaller
regional jets allow airlines to increase
frequency in a market without incurring the
cost of operating a mainline jet.
GA activity, both world-wide and in the

U.S. is expected to grow steadily over the
next 20 years. Rolls-Royce predicts that the
worldwide
fleet
(deliveries
minus
retirements) of business jets will increase by
more than three percent per year over the
next two decades.15 The number of hours
flown by business jets is expected to increase
even faster, especially given the projected
rise in fractional ownership aircraft which
are often used at twice the rate of traditional
business jets. Honeywells most recent
forecast (which extends to 2014) predicts
that the worldwide fleet of business jets will
increase by more than 3.3 percent per year
over their forecast period.16
The Airbus A380 is not expected to be

part of the BDA fleet mix (except for
possible diversions) over the next 20 years,
because the A380 is designed to serve
relatively high density markets on very longhaul routes. Passenger demand for markets
in which this large aircraft would be
appropriate is not anticipated at BDA.
Overall, the average aircraft size is
expected to drop slightly from about 156
seats in 2005 to about 151 seats in 2025. As
a result, scheduled passenger aircraft
operations are projected to grow at about the
same rate as enplanements, even as overall
load factors increase slightly (Table 2.8).
2.3.5
Between 2004 and 2016, the FAA expects

the number of active business jets registered
in the U.S. to increase by about 5.4 percent
per year and the number of hours flown by
business jets to increase by more than 6.7
percent per year.17
General Aviation
Operations
As shown in Table 2.2, GA activity at BDA

grew by more the seven percent per year over
GA activity at BDA has increased

significantly over the last decade (Table 2.2)
and is composed almost entirely by business
jets.
This historic growth is partially
attributable to the continued popularity of
fractional ownership programs coupled with
15
Rolls-Royce, The Outlook 2005.

Honeywell Aerospace, 13th Annual Business
Aviation Outlook, October, 2004.
17
FAA, Aerospace Forecasts, 2005-2016, March
2005.
16
2-16
Master Plan
including the Dassault Falcon 7X, Cessna

Citation Sovereign, Learjet 40, and
Bombardier Challenger 300, as older
aircraft, such as the Learjet 35 and 55 and
the IAI 1124 Westwind, are gradually retired
from the fleet. Overall, the fleet mix in Table
2.10 reflects a general shift towards larger
GA aircraft. While light and light-to-midsized aircraft will remain part of the GA fleet
at BDA, their share of the fleet is expected to
gradually decline over the next 20 years
the last decadeonly slightly slower than the

growth in U.S. business jet activity experienced
over the same time period. GA activity at BDA
jumped exceptionally between 2001 and 2002,
posting a nearly 40 percent year-over-year
increase. This increase aside, year-over-year
GA growth at BDA has averaged about 4.8
percent per year. This rate is in line with other
industry forecasts and was therefore used to
forecast GA activity at BDA (Table 2.9).
GA Fleet Mix
GA Based Aircraft
Table 2.10 displays the current and
projected GA fleet mix at BDA. The current
fleet mix was derived from 2004 radar data
provided by the BDA air traffic control
tower and a radar sample taken using Flight
Explorer software over a three-week period
in July 2005. Both radar samples include
each daily operation that took place over the
specified period, including aircraft type and
arrival and departure time. The projected
fleet mix is based on the existing fleet mix,
announced aircraft orders, details about
upcoming aircraft models, industry
forecasts, discussions with Airport staff, and
professional judgment.
There are virtually no based aircraft at

BDA. Longtail Aviation operates a small
executive charter service (also providing
some air ambulance services) out of BDA
and owns three aircraft: a Falcon 900B, an
IAI Westwind 1124A, and a Beech King Air.
According to the company website, the King
Air is not available for public transport
flights and is instead used primarily for
company logistics missions.
Longtail
Aviation only recently began operations at
BDA and has not announced the purchase of
any additional aircraft. If their fleet is
assumed to grow at the FAA projected rate
for jets (5.4 percent per year), then the
Longtail Aviation fleet of based aircraft
would increase up to six jets by the end of
the forecast period.18
Fractional jets are expected to make up

an increasing share of the GA operations at
BDA. NetJets is the largest fractional
ownership company in the industry, and
they currently have a large number of
Cessna Citation Sovereigns, Hawker 400XPs,
and Gulfstream 200s on order. Among
others, these aircraft models are projected to
make up an increasing share of the BDA GA
fleet over the next 20 years.
As shown in Table 2.10, the Airports
GA fleet is expected to consist of an
increasing number of newer aircraft,
18
2005.
2-17
FAA, Aerospace Forecasts, 2005-2016, March
Master Plan
Table 2.9
Forecast of General Aviation Operations
Year
Operations
5,241
2004 (1)
6,938
8,765
11,073
13,989
2010
2015
2020
2025
Average Annual Growth
2004-2025
Note: (1) Table 2.2.

Source: HNTB analysis.
2-18
4.8%
Master Plan
Table 2.10
Forecast of GA Operations by Aircraft Type
Aircraft Code
Aircraft Type
(1)
Aircraft Name
Aircraft Size
2004 (2)
2010
2015
2020
2025
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
3%
1%
0%
8%
0%
0%
0%
4%
2%
0%
6%
4%
1%
3%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
3%
13%
5%
0%
16%
2%
0%
1%
6%
0%
1%
2%
3%
3%
0%
1%
2%
0%
1%
3%
3%
1%
2%
8%
3%
1%
2%
0%
2%
1%
8%
3%
0%
2%
1%
3%
2%
2%
0%
1%
14%
5%
1%
16%
0%
3%
0%
2%
2%
1%
1%
3%
0%
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
1%
3%
8%
3%
1%
2%
0%
2%
1%
8%
3%
0%
2%
2%
3%
3%
2%
0%
0%
14%
6%
1%
16%
0%
5%
0%
0%
2%
1%
0%
2%
0%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
2%
3%
0%
5%
7%
3%
2%
2%
0%
2%
2%
8%
2%
0%
2%
2%
3%
4%
2%
0%
0%
14%
6%
1%
15%
0%
5%
0%
0%
2%
1%
0%
2%
0%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
2%
3%
0%
5%
7%
3%
2%
2%
0%
2%
2%
8%
2%
0%
2%
2%
3%
4%
2%
0%
0%
14%
6%
1%
15%
0%
5%
0%
0%
2%
1%
0%
2%
0%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Fleet Mix-Percent of Operations by Aircraft Type

ACJ
ASTR
BBJ/B737
BE40
C550
C560
C56X
C650
C680
C750
Challenger 300
Citation Mustang
CJ3
CL60
CL64
E135
F2TH
F900
FA10
FA50/50EX
Falcon 7X
G300
GALX
GLEX
GLF2
GLF3
GLF4/G400
GLF5/G500/G550
Global 5000
H25B
H25C
Hawker 400XP
LJ25
LJ35
LJ40
LJ45/45XR
LJ55
LJ60
WW24
Airbus Corporate Jetliner

IAI Astra/Gulfstream 100
Boeing Business Jet
Beechjet 400
Cessna Citation Bravo
Cessna Citation Ultra/Encore
Cessna Citation Excel
Cessna III,VI, VII
Cessna Citation Sovereign
Citation X
Challenger 300
Citation Mustang
Cessna CJ3
Bombardier Canadair 600 Challenger
Bombardier Canadair 604 Challenger
Embraer Legacy
Falcon 2000
Falcon 900
Falcon Mystere 10
Falcon Mystere 50
Falcon 7X
G300
Gulfstream 200
Bombardier Global Express
Gulfstream II
Gulfstream III
Gulfstream IV/400
Gulfstream V/500/550
Global 5000
Hawker 800 XP
Hawker 1000
Hawker 400XP
Learjet 25
Learjet 35
Learjet 40
Learjet 45
Learjet 55
Learjet 60
IAI 1124 Westwind
BE20
Beech Super King Air
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Jet
Large
Light to Mid
Large
Light
Light
Light to Mid
Light to Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Light
Light
Mid-Large
Mid-Large
Mid-Large
Mid
Mid-Large
Light
Mid
Large
Mid-Large
Mid
Mid-Large
Mid-Large
Mid-Large
Mid-Large
Mid-Large
Mid-Large
Mid
Mid
Light
Light
Light
Light
Light to Mid
Mid
Light to Mid
Light to Mid
Turboprop
TOTAL
Notes: (1) Single engine piston aircraft currently account for less than one percent of operations and are projected to remain at this level.
(2) 2004 daily radar data and radar from a three week period in July, 2005.
Source: HNTB analysis. See text for details.
2-19
2.3.6
Master Plan
Cargo
cargo) is expected to decline slowly from

about 47 percent in 2004 to about 35 percent
in 2025. Belly cargo was forecasted as
follows:
Table 2.11 shows the air cargo forecast for

BDA. Total cargo is expected to increase by
about four percent per year over the forecast
period, with inbound cargo continuing to far
outweigh outbound cargo. The growth in
cargo is based on the Boeing forecast of
cargo movements between North America
and the Caribbean.19 However, because the
Boeing forecast is fairly broad in regional
scope and does not include a forecast of
cargo movement between the Caribbean and
Europe, the Boeing cargo growth rate was
adjusted for use in estimating future cargo
tonnage at BDA.
1. The current and future cargo capacity of

the passenger carrier fleet was
estimated.20
2. The existing inbound and outbound
cargo load factor for passenger carriers
was calculated. These load factors are
assumed to remain constant over the
forecast period.
3. The load factors in Step 2 were applied
to the estimated capacity for each
forecast year as calculated in Step 1 to
reach the belly cargo tonnage for each
forecast year.
To make this adjustment, the historical

growth in Caribbean/North America cargo
was compared to historical growth in total
Bermuda cargo. The movement of cargo
between the Caribbean and North America
declined slightly (-0.3 percent annually) over
the last 10 years, whereas Bermuda cargo
grew by about 1.4 percent per year over the
same time period. Therefore, the Boeing
growth rate was adjusted upwards by 1.7
percent (the difference between -0.3 percent
and 1.4 percent). Since Boeing projects
Caribbean/North American cargo growing
at about 2.1 percent per year over the next
two decades, the resulting adjusted growth
rate for BDA is 3.8 percent (2.1 percent plus
1.7 percent).
As shown in Table 2.11, belly cargo is

projected to grow at about 2.3 percent per
year. The amount of cargo carried by allcargo aircraft was then estimated by
subtracting projected belly cargo from the
forecast of total cargo in each forecast year.
All-cargo tonnage is expected to grow more
quickly (4.8 percent per year) than belly
cargo as the percent of belly cargo gradually
declines.
All-cargo aircraft operations were
estimated by first calculating the annual all-
The ratio between inbound and

outbound cargo is expected to remain about
the same; however, the percentage of cargo
that is carried by passenger carriers (belly
19
20
The cargo capacity of each passenger aircraft

type is based on capacity information (converted
from short tons to metric tonnes) published by the
FAA in Economic Values for Evaluation of FAA
Investment & Regulatory Decisions, A Guide, 1998.
The cargo capacity of newer aircraft was estimated by
adjusting the capacity of similar aircraft by the ratio
of new aircraft MTOW/similar aircraft MTOW.
Boeing, World Air Cargo Forecast, 2004/2005.
2-20
Master Plan
Table 2.11
Forecast of Cargo Tonnage (Metric Tonnes of Mail and Freight)
Year
Inbound
Belly
Outbound
Total
Inbound
All-Cargo
Outbound
Total
Inbound
Total
Outbound
Total
Percent
Belly
2004 (1)
3,569
334
3,902
3,286
1,076
4,363
6,855
1,410
8,265
47.2%
2010
2015
2020
2025
3,938
3,861
4,810
5,866
353
348
412
488
4,291
4,209
5,222
6,354
4,558
6,221
7,387
8,861
1,493
2,037
2,419
2,901
6,051
8,258
9,806
11,762
8,496
10,082
12,197
14,727
1,846
2,385
2,831
3,389
10,342
12,467
15,028
18,116
41.5%
33.8%
34.7%
35.1%
Average Annual
Growth (3)
2004-2025
2.3%
4.8%
3.8%
Notes: (1) Belly cargo tonnage from Airport statistics by airline for 2004. All-cargo tonnage from T-100 data as published by the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
(2) Tonnage carried in the belly of passenger aircraft. Remaining cargo carried by all-cargo aircraft. All mail carried by passenger carriers. See
text for load factor assumptions. Cargo capacity on U.S. carriers dropped significantly between 2004 and 2005 and is expected to continue to
drop gradually through the forecast period as B757s and B767s are replaced by smaller next generation B737s.
(3) See text for details.
Sources: Boeing World Cargo Forecast 2004/2005 and HNTB analysis.
2-21
Master Plan
cargo capacity in each forecast year (allcargo tonnage in each forecast year divided
by projected load factor in each forecast
year). It is assumed that all-cargo load
factors will increase by about 0.5 percent per
year.21 Once future all-cargo capacity was
calculated, the future fleet mix was projected
using data on aircraft orders and anticipated
cargo trends.
at their 1999-2004 average throughout the

forecast period.
Airport radar data for 2004 and
discussion with staff indicate that the
majority (approximately 75 percent) of
military flights at BDA are C-130 transport
aircraft. The remaining military operations
include a wide variety of aircraft, such as
C17s and C2s, operated by a number of
countries. This fleet is not expected to
change appreciably over the next 20 years.
All-cargo operations are projected to

grow more slowly (2.1 percent per year)
than cargo tonnage as larger all-cargo
aircraft (such as the B757) gradually replace
the aging fleet of smaller B727s. The
frequency of all-cargo flights is expected to
increase from one to two daily flights in the
latter part of the forecast period.
2.3.7
2.3.8
Charter
The number of charter operations at

BDA tends to fluctuate year to year;
however, these annual variations have
generally off-set each other. The Airport
expects new weekly charter service from
Italy beginning in the summer 2006.
Charter operations were assumed to remain
constant at about 210 annual operations
throughout the forecast period.
This
operations level reflects anticipated new
service plus the average number of charter
operations in 1999, 2000, 2002, and 2004.
Charter operations for 2001 and 2003 were
omitted due to the September 11th terror
attacks in 2001 and Hurricane Fabian in
2003. The number of charter passengers is
expected to increase only slightly due to
higher load factors and increased aircraft
size.
Military
On average, about 260 military

operations took place at BDA annually
between 1999 and 2004, reaching a high of
283 operations in 2004 and a low of about
240 operations in 2000 and 2001. Most of
the military aircraft stop at BDA to re-fuel.
Because military operations are related to
national and international political and
institutional factors rather than local
economic conditions, it was assumed that
military operations would remain constant
Charter flights run primarily between

the U.S. and Bermuda, although there is
some charter activity between Bermuda and
the Caribbean. Miami Air operates a B737800 aircraft between Bermuda and several
U.S. destinations such as JFK and MIA. In
addition to their scheduled operations, Delta
also operates some charter flights, using
21
This assumption is based on the Boeing and

Airbus world air cargo forecasts which assume
modest increases in cargo load factor. Airbus
projects that increased aircraft utilization and higher
load factors, by themselves, would account for about
a 1 percent per year increase in freight traffic. If the
increase is split equally among aircraft utilization and
load factor, each would account for about 0.5 percent
per year.
2-22
Master Plan
discussion concerning peaking characteristics may be found in Chapter Three,

Facility Requirements.
mostly B767-400s, between Bermuda and

the U.S. and acts as an agent for Miami Air.
Planet Airways (based in Ft. Lauderdale and
Orlando) and Laker Air (based in the
Bahamas and Ft Lauderdale) also operate an
occasional charter flight to BDA using B727200s. These older B727-200s will likely be
replaced with similarly-sized B737 aircraft
and possibly A320 aircraft as they are retired
by larger scheduled airlines.
2.3.9
2.4
The assumptions used to develop the

forecasts are likely to vary over the forecast
period, and the variations could be material.
One way of exploring the impacts of these
variations is to develop alternative scenarios.
Summary of Base Forecast
Table 2.12 and Figure 2-3 display the

summary annual aircraft operations forecast
by operation type. Overall, operations at
BDA are expected to grow at about 2.9
percent annually over the next 20 years with
GA operations accounting for the majority
of growth.
2.3.10
ALTERNATIVE FORECAST
SCENARIOS
The Base Forecast provides the basis for

determining what additional facilities will be
required at the Airport through 2025. The
Airport, however, must be able to respond to
a range of contingencies that could occur,
taking into account political and economic
changes, technological changes, and changes
in the strategies of individual airlines. The
recommended program must be flexible
enough
to
accommodate
these
contingencies. The scenarios provide a basis
for identifying the extent to which facility
requirements may change, and the type of
prudent planning measures, such as
reserving land for expansion, that the
Airport should take to provide for these
changes.
Derivative Base Forecast
Table 2.13 displays peak enplanements,

deplanements, and total passengers as well
as peak total aircraft operations. Peak hour
passengers are not expected to increase
significantly over the next 20 years since the
airlines are expected to add new flights at
times of the day where no service currently
exists. The small increase in peak hour
passengers is expected to result from the use
of slightly larger aircraft at the latter end of
the forecast period. Appendix A includes
derivative passenger schedules which
contain average weekday, peak month
(AWDPM) operations by airline, aircraft,
origin/destination, and arrival/departure
time.
To address these potential changes, two

alternative forecast scenarios were selected
after consultation with Airport staff. The
scenarios are:
Peak hour aircraft operations are

forecasted to increase from nine in 2004 to
17 operations by 2025.
Additional
2-23
Successful implementation of the

Bermuda Air Services Strategy and
Tourism Plan, resulting in significant
service by low-cost carriers and
expansion of the tourist infrastructure
(High Scenario), and Persistent high fuel
Master Plan
Table 2.12
Summary of Annual Aircraft Operations Forecast, by Operation Type
Year
Scheduled
Passenger (1)
2004
8,318
5,241
2010
2015
2020
2025
9,642
10,032
11,024
11,552
6,938
8,765
11,073
13,989
Average Annual Growth

2004-2025
1.6%
General
Aviation (2)
4.8%
All-Cargo (3)
Military (4)
Charter (5)
TOTAL
546
283
186
14,574
540
622
644
780
260
260
260
260
210
210
210
210
17,590
19,889
23,211
26,791
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
Notes: (1) Table 2.9.

(2) Table 2.10.
(3) Estimated by subtracting all other operations and diversions from Airport count of total 2004 operations. This cargo
estimate is only slight higher than the number of cargo operation reported by the Airport in 2003.
(4) See text for forecast details. 2004 military operations from Airport statistics.
(5) See text for forecast details. 2004 charter operations estimated from U.S. DOT T-100 data and 2004 radar data. Includes
anticipated weekly charter flights from Italy beginning in summer 2006.
Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis.
2-24

Forecast Annual Passenger Enplanements
700
Enplanements (1000)
Historic
Forecast
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2020
2025
Forecast Annual Cargo (Freight + Mail)

Total Annual Tonnes
25
All-cargo
20
Belly
15
10
5
0
Annual Aircraft Operations (1000)
2004
2010
2015
2020
2025
Forecast Annual Aircraft Operations

30
Historic
Forecast
25
20
15
10
Figure 2-3
5
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Forecast Annual Passengers, Cargo, and Aircraft Operations
Master Plan
Table 2.13
Summary of Overall Airport Activity Peaking Characteristics
2004
2010
2015
2020
2025
Passenger Enplanements
Annual (1)
Peak Month (2)
Avg. Day/Peak Month (3)
Peak Hour (4)
419,835
52,077
1,680
593
489,117
60,670
1,957
592
525,554
65,190
2,103
591
569,657
70,660
2,279
597
623,825
77,380
2,496
603
Passenger Deplanements
Annual (1)
Peak Month (2)
Peak Hour (4)
419,835
52,077
1,680
633
489,117
60,670
1,957
656
525,554
65,190
2,103
678
569,657
70,660
2,279
685
623,825
77,380
2,496
691
Total Passengers
Annual (1)
Peak Month (2)
Peak Hour (4)
839,670
104,153
3,360
853
978,234
121,341
3,914
876
1,051,108
130,380
4,206
898
1,139,313
141,321
4,559
973
1,247,650
154,759
4,992
1,047
Total Aircraft Operations

Annual (1)
Peak Month (5)
Peak Hour (5)
14,574
1,577
51
9
17,590
1,909
62
11
19,889
2,158
70
12
23,211
2,519
81
14
26,791
2,907
94
17
Notes: (1) Table 2.6 and Table 2.12.

(2) Peak month percentage applied to annual enplanement, deplanements, and passengers. Peak month percentage based on
2002-2004 passenger data by month from the Department of Tourism.
(3) Peak month divided by 31.
(4) Passenger peak hour estimated from derivative schedules (Appendix A). Values for 2010 and 2020 are interpolated. Peak hour
estimates for 2004 are based on the 2005 OAG schedule.
(5) Operations peak month is based on 1999-2004 airport statistics. Peak hour percentages based on 2004 radar data. Peak
percentages assumed to remain constant over the forecast period.
Sources: As indicated and HNTB analysis.
2-25
Master Plan
costs, resulting in higher airline costs and

fares and reduced world economic growth
(Low Forecast Scenario).
2.4.1
Bermuda yields are about 70 percent higher

than domestic U.S. yields, despite the fact
that average stage lengths are similar.
Lowering air fares typically stimulates
passenger traffic. At other airports, HNTB
has found that each percentage decrease in
fares stimulates traffic between 0.5 and 1.0
percent. If the average is assumed (0.75
percent stimulation), the impact of reducing
travel costs between the U.S. and Bermuda
to the U.S. domestic average would increase
passenger travel in that segment by
approximately 50 percent.
High Forecast Scenario
The High Forecast Scenario is predicated

on the following assumptions:
Successful implementation of the
Bermuda Air Services Strategy: The
Government is assumed to be successful in
using incentives to attract low-cost carriers
such as JetBlue and in lowering fares by
incumbent carriers.
Price information in the Canadian and

European markets is not as readily available,
so a more conservative stimulation factor of
0.25 percent was assumed for these
destinations.
Successful implementation of the 2005

Tourism Plan: Increased promotion of
Bermudas tourist attractions coupled with
continued development of Bermudas tourist
infrastructure, specifically competitivelypriced hotel accommodations, is assumed.
The High Forecast Scenario assumes that

fare parity, along with the resultant
passenger stimulation, will be achieved by
2010. After 2010, it is assumed that the
Department of Tourism will continue to
aggressively market Bermuda so that the
Island will remain competitive with
alternative attractions in the Caribbean. As
a result, it is assumed that Bermuda
passenger traffic will grow at the growth
rates identified in Table 2.5, without
adjustment for the historical difference in
Bermuda and Caribbean growth rates.
Recovery of the Airline Industry: It is

assumed that the airline industry will
recover sufficiently from its existing
financial difficulties to be able to respond to
Bermudas
initiatives
by
increasing
frequencies and opening new routes.
This scenario would result in increased
passenger, cargo and aircraft operations.
The passenger forecast in the High
Forecast Scenario assumes that the
introduction of low-cost carrier service will
allow yields (revenue per passenger mile) on
U.S.-Bermuda routes to achieve parity with
U.S. domestic yields.22 Currently, U.S.-
Passenger growth rates under the High

Forecast Scenario would be similar to the
projected growth rates in hotel room
represent the cost of airline travel, because they net

out the effect of distance. Typically, a flight to a more
distant destination costs more than a flight to a
nearby destination.
22
Yields represent revenue per passenger mile

and are calculated by dividing fares by segment
distance. Yields are often used instead of fares to
2-26
Master Plan
inventory through 2007.23 The assumption

that long-term growth would parallel longterm Caribbean growth rates is similar to the
WTTCs estimate that tourism growth in
Bermuda (3.0 percent) will be similar to
tourism growth in the Caribbean (3.4
percent) through 2015.24
percent from 2004. Calculated from 1990,

however, the average annual increase would
be 2.3 percent.
2.4.2
Low Forecast Scenario
The Low Forecast Scenario assumes

persistent high fuel costs will lead to the
following:
As a result of the Air Services Strategy

and Tourism Plan, it is assumed that charter
activity would also benefit and would grow
as quickly as scheduled passenger activity.
Continued higher costs to the airlines:

The airlines will pass on these costs to
passengers and thereby depress demand.
Air cargo would also increase because of

the additional supplies required to
accommodate the increase in tourists. Since
more belly capacity would be available, the
amount of tonnage carried on all-cargo
aircraft is assumed to be less than in the Base
Forecast.
Continued higher fuel costs to the world:

This will depress economic growth and in
turn depress growth in passenger and air
cargo traffic.
The Base Forecast used the Airbus
passenger projections as a starting point,
which used 2004 as a base year. Between
2004 and August 2005, jet fuel prices
increased by more than 40 percent
according to the Air Transport Association
(ATA).25 If permanent, this increase in fuel
costs would raise total airline operating costs
by 6.5 percent. Assuming these higher costs
are passed on to the passenger, and using the
stimulation factor used in the High Forecast
Scenario, traffic would be depressed by 4.6
percent from the Base Forecast.
The High Forecast Scenario of passenger

aircraft operations is higher than in the Base
Forecast, but by a smaller percentage than
the passenger enplanement forecast. In the
High Forecast Scenario, average aircraft size
is expected to be larger because regional jets
are not cost-competitive with low-cost
carriers and because load factors typically
increase as fares drop.
Table 2.14 summarises the High
Forecast Scenario. Annual enplanements
are projected to increase to 1.3 million by
2025, an average annual increase of 5.7
High oil prices would affect all areas of

the economy, including transportation,
manufacturing, services, and discretionary
23
Department of Tourism, Room Inventory

Projections Summary: 2004-2007.
24
World Travel and Tourism Council, Bermuda

Travel & Tourism: Sowing the Seeds of Growth, The
2005 Travel & Tourism Economic Research.
25
Air Transport Association, Fuel Cost and

Consumption Systemwide Operations, 2005.
2-27
Master Plan
Table 2.14
Summary of High Forecast Scenario
Annual (1)
Peak Month (2)
Peak Hour (4)
Enplanements
Deplanements
Total
Air Cargo Tonnage (1)
Belly
All Cargo
Total
Scheduled Passenger (1)
General Aviation (5)
All-Cargo (1)
Military (5)
Charter (1)
Total
2004
2010
2015
2020
2025
419,835
52,077
1,680
706,767
87,668
2,828
874,188
108,435
3,498
1,083,544
134,403
4,336
1,346,162
166,979
5,386
593
633
853
637
730
1,106
705
808
1,269
790
906
1,473
897
1,028
1,729
3,902
4,363
8,265
5,226
5,549
10,775
5,939
7,354
13,293
8,492
7,986
16,479
11,833
8,712
20,545
8,318
5,241
546
283
186
14,574
10,610
6,938
490
260
237
18,535
12,765
8,765
526
260
285
22,602
15,648
11,073
500
260
350
27,831
19,219
13,989
520
260
430
34,418
Notes: (1) See text for assumptions.

passenger data by month from the Department of Tourism. Used 2002-2004 average percentage.
(4) Based on extrapolation of relationship between peak hour and average day peak month activity from the base case forecast.
(5) Assumed to be the same as in Base Case Forecast.
2-28
Master Plan
consumer spending. It is difficult to

precisely predict the long-term impacts of
high fuel costs on the economy, but it was
assumed that they would depress the annual
growth rate of the world economy by 10
percent, and this would be reflected in a 10
percent reduction in the Airbus and Boeing
passenger and cargo forecast growth rates
used as a basis for the Bermuda forecasts.
Table 2.15 summarises the Low Forecast

Scenario.
Passenger enplanements are
projected to increase 1.2 percent per year to
542,947 in 2025, 13 percent less than in the
Base Forecast. Total projected air cargo
tonnage and aircraft operations are also
lower when compared to the Base Forecast.
2-29
Master Plan
Table 2.15
Summary of Low Forecast Scenario
2004
Annual (1)
Peak Month (2)
Peak Hour (4)
Enplanements
Deplanements
Total
Air Cargo Tonnage (1)
Belly
All Cargo
Total
Scheduled Passenger (1)
General Aviation (5)
All-Cargo (1)
Military (5)
Charter (1)
Total
2010
2015
2020
2025
419,835
52,077
1,680
456,667
56,645
1,827
479,848
59,521
1,920
508,122
63,028
2,033
542,947
67,347
2,172
593
633
853
592
648
862
593
655
885
594
663
912
596
674
946
3,902
4,363
8,265
4,008
6,042
10,050
3,846
8,014
11,860
4,665
9,327
13,992
5,543
10,953
16,496
8,318
5,241
546
283
186
14,574
8,837
6,938
558
260
186
16,779
9,300
8,765
642
260
186
19,153
9,756
11,073
704
260
186
21,979
9,994
13,989
834
260
186
25,263
Notes: (1) See text for assumptions.

passenger data by month from the Department of Tourism. Used 2002-2004 average percentage.
(4) Based on extrapolation of relationship between peak hour and average day peak month activity from the Base Case Forecast.
(5) Assumed to be the same as in Base Case Forecast.
2-30

3.
Master Plan
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Chapter Three
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
3.1
an airport master plan, not the level of detail

suitable for an architectural or engineering
design study. In addition, while the facility
needs are discussed in this Chapter, specific
alternative methods of meeting these
requirements are evaluated in Chapter Four.
INTRODUCTION
This Chapter describes the facilities

required to accommodate the aviation
demand forecasts at Bermuda International
Airport over the course of the planning
period2005 to 2025. Facility requirements
were developed by taking the aviation
demand projections presented in Chapter
Two, applying the appropriate industry
planning and design standards, discussions
with stakeholders, and by performing
demand/capacity analyses on the various
functional Airport areas, including:
Airfield,
Terminal facilities,
Surface transportation and auto parking

requirements,
Air cargo,
General Aviation,
Support Facilities, and
Utilities.
3.2
DESIGN CRITERIA
Annex 14 of ICAO lists the international

design standards and recommended
practices for airports.
The standards
consider safety, economy, efficiency, and
longevity; as such, criteria vary based on an
airports role and the existing and
anticipated type of aircraft expected to
regularly use the airport.
ICAO
distinguishes between design standards and
recommended practices in that states must
conform to design standards; in the event
of the impossibility of compliance, the state
must notify the Council. Recommended
practices are deemed to be desirable; states
should endeavour to conform to them. It
is assumed that the DAO desires to conform
to both design standards and recommended
practices as practicable. The feasibility of
complying with ICAO standards and
recommended practices must be evaluated
for each situation. Where standards and/or
practices are not met, an evaluation should
be undertaken to determine the feasibility of
compliance, and DAO should work with
DCA and ICAO to effect a mutually
agreeable solution.
To ensure a logical sequence of future

developments, facility requirements are
presented in several phases corresponding to
the planning horizon years 2010, 2015, 2020,
and 2025.
The
facility
requirements
were
developed at a level of detail appropriate for
3-1
3.2.1
Master Plan
particular airport, approach minimums vary

by
the
sophistication
of
runway
instrumentation, obstructions, approach
lighting, NAVAIDs, and other factors. In
addition, approach minimums can vary by
aircraft based on its approach speed and onboard
instrumentation.
Approach
minimums are typically expressed as two
values: ceiling (i.e., cloud height), and
visibility (i.e., the forward distance a pilot
can see).
ICAO Aerodrome Reference

Code
The ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code

(ARC) is a coding system established by
ICAO to provide a simple method for interrelating the numerous specifications
concerning the characteristics of aerodromes
so as to provide a series of aerodrome
facilities that are suitable for the aeroplanes
that are intended to operate at the
aerodrome.
Typically, the lower the approach

minimums (i.e., the poorer the weather
conditions in which an aircraft is permitted
to land), the greater the planning and design
dimensions for airfield design. ICAO design
standards group minimum distance criteria
into five types of runways:
The ARC consists of two elements

relating to the aeroplane reference field
length and the wing span/outer main gear
wheel span. The first component, depicted
by a number, is the aeroplane reference field
length. The second component, depicted by
a letter, is the aeroplane design group and
relates to an aeroplanes wing span. The
dimensions associated with each ARC are
summarised in Table 3.1.
Table 3.2 shows typical aircraft types
associated with various ARCs. To determine
the appropriate ARC for BDA, the existing
and forecast fleet mixes were reviewed to
identify the aircraft with the most
demanding operational and physical
characteristics. As shown, the B777 and
other large wide body aircraft are forecasted
to serve BDA through the 20-year planning
horizon. Future facilities at BDA should
therefore be planned to accommodate
aircraft with an ARC of 4E.
3.2.2
Non-instrument
Non-precision instrument
Precision approach category I
Precision approach category II and III,

and
Take-off runway
Runway 30 has precision approach

category I instrumentation, while Runway
12 has non-precision instrumentation.
The design criteria for airfield facilities at
BDA will reflect existing and anticipated
approach minimums. Specific requirements
are described in Section 3.4.
Approach Minimums
Approach minimums refer to the

poorest weather conditions in which an
appropriately-certified aircraft and flight
crew are legally permitted to land. At any
3-2
Master Plan
Table 3.1
Aerodrome Reference Codes
Code Element 1
Code
Aeroplane Reference
Number
Field Length
Code
Letter
Less than 2,600 ft (800 m)
2,600 ft (800 m) up to but

not inc. 3,900 ft (1200 m)
3,900 ft (1200 m) up to but

not inc. 5,900 ft (1800 m)
5,900 ft (1800 m) and over
F
Source: ICAO Annex 14.
3-3
Code Element 2
Outer Main Gear
Wing Span
Wheel Span
Up to but not inc. Up to but not inc.
49 ft (15 m)
15 ft (4.5 m)
49 ft (15 m) up to
but not inc. 79 ft
(24 m)
79 ft (24 m) up to
but not inc. 118 ft
(36 m)
118 ft (36 m) up
to but not inc. 171
ft (52 m)
171 ft (52 m) up
to but not inc. 214
ft (65 m)
214 ft (65 m) up
to but not inc. 262
ft (80 m)
15 ft (4.5 m) up to
but not inc. 20 ft
(6 m)
20 ft (6 m) up to
but not inc. 30 ft
(9 m)
30 ft (9 m) up to
but not inc. 46 ft
(14 m)
30 ft (9 m) up to
but not inc. 46 ft
(14 m)
46 ft (14 m) up to
but not inc. 52 ft
(16 m)
Master Plan
Table 3.2
Aerodrome Reference Codes and Representative Aircraft
Representative Aircraft
B200 King Air
Lear Jet 28/29
Lear Jet 35A/36A
CRJ-200
EMB 145
Gulfstream Aero. G-V
Bombardier Global Express
A300 B2
A318
A319
A320
A321
B717-200
B727-200
B737-300
B737-400
B737-800
B737-900
MD 81/82/83
MD 87
A300-600
B757-200
B757-300
B767-200
B767-300
DC-10-30
MD 11
A330-200
A330-300
A340-300
B747-400
B777-200
B777-300
B787-3 (Prelim.)
B787-8 (Prelim)
B787-5 (Prelim.)
A380
Aerodrome
Reference
Code
1B
2A
3A
3B
3B
4C
3C
3D
4C
4C
4C
4C
3C
4C
4C
4C
4C
4C
4C
4C
4D
4D
4D
4D
4D
4D
4D
4E
4E
4E
4E
4E
4E
4D
4E
4E
4F
Wing Span
(Feet)
(Metres)
54.5
44.0
39.4
69.6
65.6
93.5
94.2
147.1
111.8
111.8
111.8
111.8
93.2
108.0
94.8
94.8
112.5
112.5
107.8
107.8
147.0
124.7
124.7
156.1
156.1
165.3
169.6
197.8
197.8
197.1
211.4
199.8
199.9
165-170
197.0
197.0
261.8
16.6
13.4
12.0
21.2
20.0
28.5
28.7
44.8
34.1
34.1
34.1
34.1
28.4
32.9
28.9
28.9
34.3
34.3
32.9
32.9
44.8
38.0
38.0
47.6
47.6
50.4
51.7
60.3
60.3
60.3
64.9
60.9
60.9
50-52
60.0
60.0
79.8
Length
(Feet)
(Metres)
43.8
47.6
48.7
87.8
98.1
96.3
99.4
175.9
103.1
111.0
123.3
146.0
124.0
153.2
100.1
119.8
129.6
137.5
147.8
130.4
177.5
155.2
178.6
159.1
180.3
181.6
200.8
193.0
208.1
208.8
231.8
209.1
239.8
186.0
186.0
202.0
239.5
13.3
14.5
14.8
26.8
29.9
29.4
30.3
53.6
31.4
33.8
37.6
44.5
37.8
46.7
30.5
36.5
39.5
41.9
45.1
39.8
54.1
47.3
54.4
48.5
54.9
55.4
61.2
58.8
63.6
63.6
70.4
63.7
73.1
57.0
57.0
62.0
73.0
Outer Main Gear

Wheel Span
(Feet)
(Metres)
18.4
8.2
8.2
13.1
15.7
16.7
16.1
35.8
n/a
n/a
28.5
n/a
17.7
22.6
21.0
21.0
23.0
23.0
20.3
20.3
35.8
28.5
28.5
35.4
35.4
41.3
39.4
39.4
39.4
39.4
40.7
42.0
42.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
49.2
Sources: Aerodrome Design Manual Part 2 Appendix 3, aircraft manufacturer websites, and planning manuals.
3-4
5.6
2.5
2.5
4.0
4.8
5.1
4.9
10.9
n/a
n/a
8.7
n/a
5.4
6.9
6.4
6.4
7.0
7.0
6.2
6.2
10.9
8.7
8.7
10.8
10.8
12.6
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.4
12.8
12.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
15.0
Master Plan
AIRFIELD CAPACITY
REQUIREMENTS
aircraft fleet
procedures.
Airfield capacity is defined as the

maximum number of aircraft operations
(i.e., take-offs and landings) that can safely
occur at an airport for a given period of
time. As demand for the airfield increases,
delays usually increase. Initially, when the
number of operations at an airport is well
below that airports capacity, the
relationship among capacity, demand, and
delay is fairly linear: an incremental increase
in demand produces a similar increase in
delay. As demand approaches capacity,
however, delay begins to increase
geometrically, until small increases in
demand result in significant increases in
delay. Ultimately, an airfield can reach
operational gridlock for certain periods of
the day, resulting in arriving aircraft either
being held at their origin airport or placed in
holding patterns near the congested airport;
departing aircraft can also be held at the gate
until a departure slot becomes available.
Airfield Layout
3.3
and
operational
An airfields geometry (i.e., the number,

location, and orientation of runways) is the
most significant factor affecting capacity.
An airports taxiway system also directly
affects its capability to handle traffic. To
efficiently move aircraft on and off runways,
each runway should have a full-length
parallel taxiway with multiple well-placed
turn-offs. At the busiest airports, dual
parallel taxiways may be appropriate.
Runway 12-30 is served by a nearly fulllength parallel taxiway (Alpha) and several
exit taxiways; however, Alpha is on the
north side of the runway, while the terminal
is on the south side, and it is accessed from
the terminal area by a single taxiway
Taxiway Bravo. Departing aircraft heading
toward the runway must frequently wait at
the terminal for arriving aircraft to exit
Taxiway Bravo before continuing to the
departure end of the runway. During east
flow, all arriving aircraft must cross the
runway; during west flow, all departing
aircraft must cross the runway.
This
bottleneck reduces overall airfield capacity.
The calculation of airfield capacity and

delay is essential in evaluating the ability of
the existing runway and taxiway systems to
effectively serve current and future airport
activity levels. This section describes the
factors affecting capacity, how the Airports
capacity was determined, and resulting
aircraft delays.
3.3.1
mix,
ATC Flight Rules and Procedures

The flight rules under which aircraft
must operate affect airfield and airspace
capacity. The FAA, which controls the
airspace around Bermuda, has two basic
types of flight rules: visual flight rules (VFR)
and instrument flight rules (IFR). Specific
in-trail separation standards (i.e., the
minimum distance between one aircraft
following another) and airspace route
Factors Affecting Airfield

Capacity
An airports capacity is affected by

numerous factors, including airfield layout,
ATC flight rules, meteorological conditions,
3-5
Master Plan
influence the separation between aircraft,

including the flight rules under which
aircraft operate, safety considerations,
runway occupancy times, the size and type
of aircraft, and weather conditions. The
increased separation standards between
individual aircraft under IFR procedures
decrease the capacity of both the airspace
and airfield.
assignments are implemented depending on

whether aircraft are operating in VFR or IFR
conditions. These differences have a direct
effect on airfield capacity.
Pilots operating under VFR are
primarily responsible for seeing other
aircraft and maintaining safe separation.
Aircraft operating under VFR typically
navigate by reference to geographic and
other visual references. Aircraft separation
is reduced and airspace and airfield capacity
increases as compared to IFR.
Based on discussions with Airport ATC

and New York Centre staff, a minimum twominute separation standard is required
between aircraft departing BDA to ensure
five miles of in-trail spacing. Arriving
aircraft are also spaced by about five miles.
IFR procedures apply when either the

ceiling falls below 1,000 feet (300 metres) or
visibility decreases to less than three miles.
In addition, most air traffic operations at
commercial airports are conducted using
IFR procedures due to the complexity of enroute airspace structure and the high volume
of air traffic within terminal areas. Subject
to ATC rules, aircraft operating under IFR
are required to fly assigned navigational
routes and altitudes while maintaining
certain longitudinal and vertical separation
minimums from other aircraft throughout
all phases of the flight.
In IFR, the
responsibility for maintaining adequate
separation is provided by air traffic
controllers. Aircraft and crew that do not
meet the equipment and pilot training
requirements for IFR flights may operate
only under VFR.
Meteorological Conditions
The FAA classifies weather conditions
according to two basic types: visual
meteorological conditions (VMC) and
instrument
meteorological
conditions
(IMC). During VMC, pilots can maintain
visual separation, and in-trail distances may
be reduced, increasing capacity. IMC occurs
when visibility or cloud ceiling falls below
the minimums prescribed for VMC. During
IMC, IFR procedures apply and spacing
between aircraft is increased to ensure safe
operations.
Based on eight-year meteorological data
(January 1997 through December 2004),
VMC occurs approximately 98.0 percent of
the year at BDA, while IMC occurs about 1.9
percent of the year (as shown in Table 3.3).
Conditions below IMC (i.e., below a 200foot ceiling and/or -mile visibility) occur
about 0.1 percent annually.
When
conditions fall below this level, aircraft may
be delayed until conditions improve or may
IFR procedures are also required for

operations above 18,000 feet mean sea level
(MSL) which is typically the altitude above
which turbojet aircraft operate.
Generally, the closer the spacing between
aircraft, the greater the capacity of the
airport to handle air traffic. Many factors
3-6
Master Plan
Table 3.3
Ceiling/Visibility Conditions
Meteorological
Condition
Percent
VMC (1)
IMC Category 1 (2)
IMC Below Category 1 (3)
Total IMC
Grand Total
98.02%
1.93%
0.05%
1.98%
100.00%
Notes: (1) Ceiling greater than 1,000 feet and

visibility greater than three miles.
(2) Ceiling between 200 feet and 1,000
feet and/or visibility between 1/2mile and three miles.
(3) Ceiling less than 200 feet and
visibility less than 1/2-mile.
Sources: Bermuda Weather Service;
HNTB analysis.
3-7
Master Plan
operate on the airfield in a 60-minute

period. Annual capacity is the number of
aircraft operations that can be accommodated on an annual basis at a given level
of delay.
be required to return to their origin airport,

or to divert to another airport.
Fleet Mix
An airports aircraft fleet mix affects
capacity in several ways. First, different
groups of aircraft have different approach
speeds. The greater the variation in these
speeds among arriving aircraft and the less
ability controllers have in segregating
various aircraft, the greater the amount of
separation is required and the lower the
airports capacity.
The capacity of BDAs airfield was

estimated by considering the factors
described in Section 3.3.1, use of FAA AC
150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay,
discussions with ATC staff, and professional
judgement.
Hourly Capacity
In addition, wake turbulence considerations also affect capacity.

Wake
turbulence is produced by larger aircraft,
and is caused by strong cyclonic streams of
air currents off the ends of their wings.
Wake turbulence can create a safety concern
for smaller aircraft following too closely
behind larger aircraft. In general, there are
three weight classes: small, large, and heavy.
While aircraft within the same weight
category may be separated by as little as 2.5
to 3 nautical miles, separation standards
increase up to six nautical miles between a
small aircraft following a heavy aircraft (i.e.,
aircraft weighing 255,000 pounds or more)
to reduce the effect of wake turbulence.
Based on the forecast of operations shown in
Chapter Two, wake turbulence issues will
not affect long-term capacity at BDA.
ATC staff noted that the FAA ARTCC

requires a two-minute spacing interval
between departing aircraft for IFR to
provide a five-mile in-trail separation
standard, which translates into a departure
capacity of about 30 per hour. As discussed
in Section 3.3.1, the Airports taxiway system
also reduces capacity because a single
taxiway connects the terminal area with the
main parallel taxiway, causing many aircraft
to wait until Taxiway Bravo is cleared.
Based on the existing airfield layout, fleet
mix, and operational practices, the existing
capacity for BDA was determined to be
approximately 20-30 operations per hour.
This estimate of hourly capacity was also
confirmed by ATC.
3.3.2
The ICAO Airport Master Planning

Manual provides general estimates of annual
capacity using the Annual Service Volume
metric developed by the FAA. The FAA
developed ASV to provide a reasonable
estimate of an airports annual capacity
accounting for differences in runway use,
aircraft mix, weather conditions, and other
Annual Capacity
Determining BDA Airfield

Capacity
Airfield capacity can be defined in

several ways. The two most common
measures of capacity are hourly capacity and
annual capacity. Hourly capacity is the
maximum number of aircraft that can
3-8
Master Plan
Figure 3-1 shows the average annual

delay the Airport will likely experience in the
future as the number of operations
increases.
Currently at 15,000 annual
operations, average annual delay per aircraft
operation is less than 0.2 minutes. By 2025,
under the Base Forecast or Low-Fare Airline
Scenarios (i.e., 26,800 to 34,400 annual
operations), average annual delay is forecast
to remain below 0.5 minutes.
factors as they occur over a years time.

Implicit to the ASV methodology is the
assumption that when annual demand at an
airport equals the airports ASV, the average
delay per operation is equal to
approximately 3.5 minutes. Annual capacity
for BDA was determined by taking the
estimated range in hourly capacity
previously established and using FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5060-5 Airport
Capacity and Delay to calculate the Airports
ASV. The ASV for BDA is approximately
80,000 to 90,000 operations.
3.3.3
3.4
AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS
Runway and taxiway requirements are

planned according to the recommendations
in Volume I of ICAO Annex 14. Based on
the forecast fleet mix, the controlling ARC is
4E (e.g., B747, B777, etc.), which includes all
aircraft with wing spans up to but not
including 214 feet (65 metres). Tables 3.4
and 3.5 summarise key dimensions and
separation standards.
Airfield Delay
Aircraft delay is directly related to the

capacity of an airport to handle air traffic
demand. Flight delays caused by airport
congestion can result in significant costs to
aircraft operators in operating expenses and
lost productivity.
Aircraft delay is
commonly defined as the additional travel
time over unimpeded time that an aircraft
must take to move within a specific route
due to the presence of other aircraft in the
system.
3.4.1
New Runways
The orientation and the number of

runways
in
the
ultimate
airfield
configuration are based primarily on wind
coverage, capacity requirements, and other
factors.
Aircraft delay is typically measured in

terms of average annual delay, which is
determined by dividing the total cumulative
minutes of delay throughout a year by the
annual number of aircraft operations.
Wind Coverage
Aircraft generally land and take-off into
the wind. In addition, pilots prefer to land
with as little cross-wind as possible. The
cross-wind component is the wind direction
and velocity vector at a right angle to the
runway. Each aircraft type is certified to
operate within a maximum cross-wind
component; larger, faster aircraft generally
are able to operate with higher cross-winds
than smaller, slower aircraft.
Individual aircraft operating in the peak

hour could experience delays up to five to 10
times greater than the average annual delay.
This means that an average annual peraircraft delay of about 3.5 to 4.0 minutes
suggests that aircraft operating in the peak
hour would experience delays of 20 to 40
minutes.
3-9
10.0
10.0
9.0
9.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
Begin planning for

additional capacity
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
Year
2025
High
Scenario
3.0
2.0
Year
2004
Year
2010
Year
2020
Year
2015
3.0
t
you
a
ld L
e
i
f
r
i
ing A
t
s
i
x
E
Year
2025
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Annual Operations (000s)

Figure 3-1
Average Annual Delay for Existing Airfield
70
80
90
100
Avg. Delay per Operation (min.)
Avg. Delay per Operation (min.)
Master Plan
Table 3.4
Aerodrome Reference Code 4E Dimensional Standards
Facility Dimension
Feet
Metres
--(1)--
Runway Length
Runway Width
150.0
45.0
Width of Rwy+Shoulders
200.0
60.0
Length of Rwy Strip before/beyond

threshold or stopway
200.0
60.0
1,000.0
300.0
300.0
790.0
90.0
240.0
Width of Rwy Strip

Runway End Safety Area Length
Minimum
Recommended
Runway End Safety Area Width
--(2)--
Clearway Length
--(3)--
Clearway Width
500.0
150.0
Stopway Width
150.0
45.0
Blast Pad Width
--Width of Rwy + Shoulders--
Blast Pad Length
400.0
120.0
Taxiway Width
75.0
23.0
144.4
44.0
Twy Width+Shoulders
Notes: (1) Length should be adequate for operational requirements

of the aeroplanes for which the runway is intended.
(2) Should be at least be equal to width of runway + strip.
(3) Clearway length should not exceed half the length of
the take-off run available.
Source: ICAO Annex 14, Aerodromes Volume I.
3-10
Master Plan
Table 3.5
Minimum Separation Distances (Centre Line-to-Centre Line) (1)
Aerodrome Reference Code 4E & Precision Approach Category I
Facility
Feet
Metres
Runway Centre Line to Holding Bay, RunwayHolding Position, or Road-holding Position
300.0
90.0 (2)
Taxiway to Runway (Centre Line)
600.0
180.0
Taxiway to Taxiway
270.0
80.0
Taxiway to Object
160.0
47.5
Aircraft Stand Taxilane to Object
140.0
42.5
Notes: (1) It may be permissible to operate with lower separation

standards at an existing aerodrome if an aeronautical study
indicates that such lower separation distances would not
adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity
of operations of airplanes.
(2) This minimum distance may need to be increased to avoid
interference with radio navigation aids.
Source: ICAO Annex 14.
3-11
Master Plan
As specified in Section 5.2 of ICAOs

Airport
Planning
Manual,
it
is
recommended that airports provide 95
percent wind coverage in both all-weather
and IFR conditions. For aircraft with a
reference field length of less than 1,200
metres (3,900 feet), the recommended crosswind component should be 10 knots (19
km). For aircraft with a reference field
length of between 3,900 feet (1,200 metres)
and 4,900 feet (1,500 metres), the
recommended cross-wind component is 13
knots (24 km/h). For aircraft with a
reference field length of 4,900 feet (1,500
metres) or more, a 20-knot (37 km/ht) crosswind component is desirable. As shown in
Table 3.6 and illustrated in Figure 3-2 and
Figure 3-3 with a single runway, BDA
provides 97.4 percent wind coverage in allweather conditions, assuming a 20-knot
cross-wind component and 89.5 percent in
instrument conditions.
productive passenger time because their

flights were cancelled, and 2) avoidance of
lost utilisation by the airlines of their fleet.
The cost of the cross-wind runway would
chiefly be its construction cost, including
planning, engineering, land acquisition and
land reclamation (if required), materials,
labour, and environmental mitigation (if
required).
The analysis indicates the existing single

runway system exceeds the ICAOs guideline
of at least 95 percent wind coverage in allweather conditions; however, in IFR, wind
coverage is only 89.4 percent assuming a 20knot cross-wind component.
When
considering IFR conditions and winds of 20
knots or greater, approximately two-thirds
of time the wind comes from the southwest.
A preliminary analysis was therefore
undertaken to determine if a cross-wind
runway would be feasible at BDA.
Appendix B documents this analysis and its
underlying assumptions.
The approximate annual monetary

benefit from the cross-wind runway was
estimated to be about $712,000.26 The
approximate amortized annual cost of the
cross-wind runway project would therefore
have to be less than this value in order for
the project to have a positive benefit-cost
ratio. An amortized cost of $712,000 is
roughly equivalent to a total project cost of
between $7 million to $9 million. Since the
cost of a new runway would likely be
significantly greater than this range, a crosswind runway does not appear to be costjustifiable, and options for a cross-wind
runway were not pursued in the Master
Plan.
Although ICAO recommends a 20-knot

maximum cross-wind component for
planning purposes, information provided by
the airlines and a review of aircraft
performance literature indicate that a 30knot cross-wind component more closely
matches
the
threshold
for
flight
cancellations. Based on this higher crosswind component, it was estimated that on
average about 14 additional round trip
flights would be able to operate annually
were a cross-wind runway in-place.
The benefit of a cross-wind runway

would primarily be avoidance of costs due to
flight cancellations from the lack of a crosswind runway, including: 1) avoidance of lost
26
3-12
See Appendix B.
Master Plan
Table 3.6
Runway 12-30 Wind Coverage
Cross-wind
Component
AllWeather
IMC (1)
19 km/h (10 kt)
74.1%
52.0%
24 km/h (13 kt)
85.4%
65.8%
37 km/h (20 kt)
97.4%
89.4%
Note: (1) Ceiling less than 200 feet and/or visibility less than mile.
Sources: Bermuda Weather Service; HNTB analysis.
3-13
+
26
+
25
+
+
+
+
+
+
21
+
.1
20
+
+
.1 .1
.1
.2
.1
+
.1
17
.2
.1
16
.2 .2
+
.2
.3
.4 .2 14
.1
.2
.4
.2
13
.2
.3
.1
.4
.2
.2
.1
.3 .3 11 .4 .4
.4
.4
.3
.3
10
.3
.3
.4
.2
.9 .9 .6 .8 .8
.4
.3
+
.4
.4
.8.6
.7 .7
.1
.4
.4
.4
6
.6
.7
.4
.5
5
.7
.7
.5
.4
+
.4
.2
.8
.9
.4 .4
.4 .2
.8
.9
Calm
.3 .2
.3
.7
+
.4 .5 .8
.1
1.1
.9
16.8
.8
.4
.7
.2
1.2
.9
.2
.5
.9
1.3
.4
.1
.9
.3
.7
1.7
.8
.4
.7
.2
1.1
1.0
.7
.3
.2
1.41.3
.9
.7
.8
.1
1.0 .8 1.11.0
.4
.8
.6
.1
.7
.2
1.1
.4
1.0 .7
.8
.2
+
.3
.5
.4 .6 .5
.1
1.1
.3
1.1
.3
.1
.8
.6 .4 .5
.3
+
.8
.2
.8
.2
+
.3
.5
.3 .3
+
.1
.4
.5
.1
.2
.3
.2
+
.2
+
.3
.4
.2
.3
.2
.2
.3
.2
.3
.1
.1
.1
.2
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
2-30
20 Kt
s
13 Kt
s
10 Kt
s
.1
Rwy 1
+
.2
.1
.1
.1
All Weather
Figure 3-2
All Weather Wind Rose
.0
.0
.1
.2
26
.1
25
.0
.0
.0
.2
.1
.2
.1
21
.0
.0
20
.0
.2 .0
.1
.1
.0
.2
.1
17
.5
.2
16
.1
.2
.0
.2
.2
.0
.2
.2
14 .0 .2
.2
.0
13
.2 .2
.1
.2
.0
.0
.8
.1 .1 11
.2
.2
.0
.1
.2
10
.0
.2
.0
.1
.6
.0
.2 .2 .2 .5
.2
.2
.3
.3
.1
.5 .5
.2 .4
.3
.2
.3
.0
.7
6
.2
.3
.2
.2
.5
.4
5
.2
.1
.5
.0
.2
.4
.7
.2
.2
.3 .1
.5 .5
.2
Calm
.4
.7
.4
.2 .2
.2
.5 .5 1.3
.2
.9
.2
5.8
1.8
.2
.3
.8
.2
.5
1.4 2.0
1.7
.4
.0
.0
.9
.5
2.1
.5
.2
.3
.7
.0
.5
.2
.9
1.6
.4
1.21.4
.2
1.7
.2
.7
.5 .4 .7 .9
1.0
1.6
.1
.2
.8
.3
1.1
.3
1.5
.0
1.8 .8 .5 .5 .2
1.1
.3
.1
.3
1.4
.1
.3
1.9
.5
.0
2.7
1.6
1.7 .5 .7
.4
.2
.8
.1
3.0
.2
2.5 1.1
.7
.2
.2
.8
.6
1.3
.2
1.4
.3
.2
.2
.0
1.1
.1
.2
1.0
.3
.9
.3
.5
.2
.1
.3
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.1
.2
.2
.0
2-30
.1
.3
Rwy 1
.2
20 Kt
s
13 Kt
s
10 Kt
s
.0
.2
IFR
Figure 3-3
IFR Wind Rose
Master Plan
Secondly, because different aircraft types

have different performance characteristics,
runway length requirements should consider
the existing and projected fleet mix expected
to use the airport. Only aircraft types that
are anticipated to regularly operate at the
airport (i.e., at least 500 annual operations)
should be considered.
Airfield Capacity
The estimated annual capacity of the
Airport under its current airfield layout is
estimated at 80,000 to 90,000 annual
operations assuming an average annual
delay of about four minutes per aircraft
operation. Recognising that the 20-year
activity forecast will reach 26,400 under the
Base Forecast and 34,400 under the High
Forecast Scenario, average aircraft delay is
expected to be less than 0.4 minutes per
operation; therefore, no additional airfield
capacity is required.
3.4.2
Finally, runway length requirements are

directly affected by the amount of payload
and fuel an aircraft is carrying. (The
additional fuel required to travel longer
distances increases an aircrafts take-off
weight, requiring more runway length.)
Runway Length
Runway length requirements for BDA
therefore considered the Airports elevation
at sea level, a mean maximum temperature
of 86 degrees Fahrenheit, the forecast fleet
mix found in Chapter Two of this Report,
existing and anticipated stage lengths (i.e.,
trip lengths) ranging from 1,000 to 4,000
statute miles, a full passenger load, and a 50
percent cargo load. Figure 3-4 shows
markets currently receiving non-stop service
from BDA. Based on Governments Air
Services Strategy report, all scheduled
markets of interest are within the U.S. and
the Caribbean and are within 4,000 statute
miles of BDA. The Government is also
pursuing service by charter operators to the
U.S., Canada, and Europe. Most of Western
Europe is within 4,000 statue miles of BDA.
Although it is anticipated that Bermuda will
not likely receive regular (i.e., more than 500
annual operations) non-stop service from
markets greater than 4,000 statute miles, for
planning
purposes,
runway
length
requirements at maximum take-off weight
were also determined assuming a balanced
According to Section 3.1.6 of Chapter 3

of ICAO Annex 14, the length of a primary
runway should be adequate to meet the
operational requirements of the aeroplanes
for which the runway is intended. Section
Note 1 of this section states that this
specification does not necessarily mean
providing for operations by the critical
aeroplane at its maximum mass. Section
6.2.16 of Part 1 of ICAOs Airport Planning
Manual recommends computing runway
length requirements based on anticipated
equipment, loads, and stage length.
Runway length requirements are based
on several factors. The first set of factors
relates to an airports elevation and climate.
The higher an airports elevation above sea
level, the more runway length is required for
take-off. Also, the warmer the ambient air
temperature, the more runway length is
required. For this reason, runway length
requirements should consider airport
elevation and the mean maximum
temperature for the hottest month of the
year.
3-14
London
Detroit Toronto Halifax

Chicago
Boston
Philadelphia New York
Washington Baltimore
Charlotte
Atlanta
Miami
Figure 3-4
Existing Markets
1000 sm
2000 sm
Orlando
3000 sm
4000 sm
Master Plan
field length.27 The results are summarised in

Table 3.7. Based on the runway length
requirements shown, the Airbus A330-200 is
the critical design aeroplane (i.e., the aircraft
anticipated to complete at least 500 annual
operations and having the greatest runway
requirement), requiring a length of 8,900
feet (2,710 metres) for a stage length of 4,000
statute miles with a full passenger load and a
50 percent cargo load.
some aircraft, including the B727-200, the

B747-400, B777 models and the A340 and
A330 models would require additional
length. The use of declared distances would
provide additional length for take-off
calculations. Declared distances can be
published by airport operators who provide
additional pavement length on the departure
end of the runway (stopway) and ensure that
no obstructions exist within a clearway
which extends beyond the pavement.
Runway 12-32 is 9,713 feet (2,960

metres) long. As such, it should be long
enough to accommodate all future flight
requirements, including the A330-200. No
aircraft operating under its anticipated
normal service envelope will require more
than the 9,713 feet provided by Runway 1230 at a trip length of up to 4,000 statute
miles.
The results of this analysis therefore

indicate that the current length of Runway
12-30 is sufficient to accommodate existing
and foreseeable anticipated operational
requirements within the 20-year planning
horizon. In addition, through the use of
declared distances, unusual circumstances
requiring additional take-off length may be
accommodated in most situations. Sections
3.4.9 and 3.4.10 discuss clearway and
stopway design standards, respectively.
Although discussions with the airlines

currently serving BDA did not indicate the
anticipation of service outside of the
parameters identified above, it is desirable to
both provide service flexibility by the
airlines and to recognise Bermudas unique
geographic position and its occasional use
for unscheduled or emergency operations
(e.g., during the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attaches in the U.S.). Therefore, it is
important to consider instances where
aircraft may require additional runway
length. Although most aircraft will, in fact,
be able to depart BDA at their maximum
take-off weight with 9,713 feet available,
3.4.3
Runway Width
Runway 12-30 is 150 feet (45 metres)

wide. This dimension meets the existing
and future requirements for ARC 4E.
3.4.4
Runway Strength
Annex 14 notes that, a runway should

be capable of withstanding the traffic of
aeroplanes the runway is intended to serve.
ICAO reports pavement strength using the
ACN/PCN method. ACN is the aircraft
classification number; PCN is the pavement
classification number.
The ACN/PCN
method is designed for reporting pavement
27
The balanced field length is defined as the

amount of runway required to either safely complete
a take-off roll upon reaching V1 with one engine out,
or safely stopping the aircraft.
3-15
Master Plan
Table 3.7
Runway Length Requirements--Commercial Airline Fleet (1, 2, 3)
Aircraft Type
EMB145 (4)
B717
A319 (4)
A320 (4)
A321 (4)
B737-300
B737-400
B737-700 (4)
B737-800 (4)
B737-900 Winglets (4)
MD88
B727-200 (4)(5)
B757-200 (4)
B757-300
B767-200ER (4)
B767-300ER
B747-400
B777-200 (4)
B777-300
A330-200 (4)
A330-300
A340-300
B787-8 (6)
Take-off with 100 Pct. Passenger Load & 50 Pct. Cargo Load
Stage Length (Statute Miles)
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,700
4,900
4,500
6,100
6,700
5,100
5,300
4,100
5,700
6,200
5,500
6,800
5,100
6,100
4,900
4,900
-4,600
6,400
6,600
6,200
6,300
5,000
6,900
5,800
4,800
7,000
7,800
6,300
6,300
4,800
6,200
7,300
7,000
9,000
6,000
7,000
5,400
5,300
-5,100
7,200
6,800
6,400
6,600
5,400
--5,500
---8,400
5,500
7,500
8,300
--7,800
8,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
5,600
8,100
7,400
7,000
6,900
5,700
--------------6,800
6,600
6,900
6,200
9,000
8,900
8,400
7,200
6,200
Take-off at
Maximum
Takeoff Wt.
7,100
5,800
9,500
7,300
7,800
7,900
8,900
6,800
8,700
9,000
8,100
10,500
7,900
8,900
8,100
9,400
11,000
11,700
11,100
12,300
11,600
10,700
10,000
Landing at Max. Landing Weight

Dry Runway
Wet Runway
(est.)
4,700
4,700
4,600
5,100
5,600
4,600
5,200
4,200
5,200
5,500
5,000
5,000
4,700
5,600
5,000
5,200
6,800
5,200
6,000
5,700
6,000
6,500
N/A
5,400
5,400
5,300
5,900
6,500
5,300
5,900
4,900
6,100
6,300
5,700
5,700
5,400
6,400
5,600
6,000
7,800
6,000
7,000
6,600
6,900
7,500
N/A
Notes: (1) Based on mean maximum temperature of 86 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level; calm wind; estimated typical fuel reserves.
(2) Typical mixed-class seating configuration and engine types.
(3) For planning purposes only; accurate to within approximately 200 feet.
(4) Aircraft in forecast fleet mix. (See Table 2.8.)
(5) Freighter--assumes 85% useful load.
(6) Preliminary.
Sources: Aircraft characteristics for airport planning manuals from manufacturers; Jane's All the World's Aircraft (various years); HNTB analysis.
3-16
Master Plan
The runway strip must extend before the

threshold and beyond the end of the runway
or stopway by a distance of at least 200 feet
(60 metres) for a Code Number 4 strip. Its
minimum width is 984 feet (300 metres)
where practicable.
strength in publications and is not intended

for designing or evaluating airfield
pavements.
As noted in Table 1.1, Runway 12-30 has
a pavement classification number of
80/F/A/W/U, which means the runway has
an average PCN (a value of 80 is midway
between 1a weak pavement and 130very
strong pavement), has a flexible loadbearing surface (F), a high sub-grade
strength (A), a high tire pressure category of
W (i.e., no tire pressure limit).
The
pavement load-bearing capacity was
determined based on experience with actual
aircraft (hence the code, U). Table 3.8
provides the ACN for various aircraft. As
shown, all values are below 80, the PCN for
the runway.
3.4.5
No fixed object, other than visual aides

required for air navigation purposes and
satisfying relevant frangibility requirements,
should be placed within 200 feet (60 metres)
of the runway centre line of a precision
approach runway where the code is 4.
The south side of the Runway 12-30 strip
does not meet the ICAO-recommended
dimension, as the shore of Castle Harbour
comes within 300 feet (90 metres) of the
runway centreline.
The cost and
environmental impact of providing a full
strip for Runway 12-30 will be examined in
Chapter Four.
Runway Shoulders
Shoulders provide a transition between

the runway pavement and the adjacent
surface.
They should be designed to
improve safety measures, enhance drainage,
and provide jet blast protection. Runway
12-30 has 25-foot (8-metre) paved
shoulders, which meet ICAO criteria.
3.4.6
3.4.7
Runway Blast Pads
Blast pads are areas designed to prevent

erosion of surfaces adjacent to the ends of
runways which are subjected to sustained or
repeated jet blast. The area can be either
paved or turf.
Runway Strips
Appendix 2 in Part 2 of ICAO
Document 9157 AN/901, Aerodrome Design
Manual recommends that blast pads should
be at least as wide as the runway and
shoulders and extend 400 feet (120 metres)
beyond the runway end. The west (12) end
has about 500 feet (150 metres) of paved
surface beyond the runway threshold that
serves as a blast pad, whilst the east (30) end
has about 260 feet (80 metres) of paved
surface that serves as a blast pad.
A runway strip is a defined area

including the runway and stopway, if
provided, intended to reduce the risk of
damage to aircraft running off a runway and
to protect aircraft flying over it during takeoff or landing operations.
It should
therefore be capable of supporting aircraft
and ARFF vehicles under normal
conditions.
3-17
Master Plan
Table 3.8
Aircraft Classification Number (ACN) (1)
Aircraft Type
ACN
A330-200
B747-400ER
B777-200LR
B727-200F
B767-300
B737-800
B737-900
MD-88
A320-200
B737-700
B757-200
62
62
61
52
44
43
43
39
37
36
34
Notes: (1) At maximum gross weight, unlimited tire

pressure, and high load-bearing capacity
for flexible pavements.
Sources: Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 3; Transport
Canada; various aircraft planning manuals.
3-18
3.4.8
Master Plan
3.4.9
Runway End Safety Areas
Clearways
Clearways are a defined rectangular area

on the ground or water under the control of
the appropriate authority, selected or
prepared as a suitable area over which an
aeroplane may make a portion of its initial
climb to a specified height. Their origin is at
the end of the take-off run available.
Clearways should not exceed half the length
of the take-off run available. A clearway
should extend laterally at least 250 feet (75
metres) on each side of the extended centre
line of the runway. Clearways should be
clear of obstacles.
Runway End Safety Areas (RESAs) are

symmetrical about the extended runway
centre line and adjacent to the end of the
strip primarily intended to reduce the risk of
damage to an aeroplane undershooting or
overrunning the runway.
The minimum RESA length according to
Annex 14 is 300 feet (90 metres). The
recommended runway end safety area for
Code Number 4 facility should extend 800
feet (240 metres) beyond the end of the
runway strip. It should be at least twice as
wide as the runway, i.e., 300 feet (90 metres).
As noted in Section 1.4.2, the full length

of a runway should be available for take-off.
However, recognising the Airports strategic
location, it is recommended that the existing
clearway be maintained to provide the
option of departing at higher take-off
weights.
The RESA at the west of the runway

extends approximately 500 feet (150 metres)
beyond the end of the runway due to a
barrier that traverses the safety area. This
distance meets the minimum requirement
established by ICAO, although it is 300 feet
(90 metres) less than the recommended
length. According to a representative of the
DCA, options for extending the RESA were
considered when a new ILS was installed.
The analysis indicated that extending the
RESA on the west end would be costprohibitive. The use of engineered materials
arresting system (EMAS) is one option for
providing an improved safety margin on the
west end of the runway. These systems have
recently been approved by the FAA to meet
their stringent safety area design standards.
Should ICAO standards change, this option
could be explored in a future study.
3.4.10
Stopways
A stopway is a defined rectangular area

on the ground at the end of take-off run
available prepared as a suitable area in which
an aircraft can be stopped in the case of an
abandoned take-off. It should be able to
support an aeroplane that would typically
use the runway without inducing structural
damage. A stopway should have the same
width as the runway. It is recommended
that the existing stopway be preserved to
provide the option of departing at higher
take-off weights.
The RESA on the east end of the runway

is 1,000 feet (300 metres) long and meets
ICAO recommendations.
3.4.11
Taxiway Requirements
Taxiways are designed to connect

various locations of the airfield with each
3-19
Master Plan
ATC staff representative, there is an

agreement with DCA that, should one ARC
4E aircraft be operating on the runway while
a second ARC 4E aircraft is taxiing on
Alpha, ATC will make a reasonable effort to
keep them from passing each other. Should
this situation arise, ATC pulls aircraft onto
Aprons III or IV.
other and to runway ends, and provide

access/egress points along runways.
Taxiway requirements at BDA for runwayto-taxiway, taxiway-to-taxiway, and taxiwayto-fixed or movable object are based on
ICAO standards as specified under Volume I
of Annex 14.
The existing taxiway system at BDA was
reviewed and compared to the following
criteria:
Provide for full-length parallel taxiway

for the runway;
Allow direct routing between airfield

locations to the extent feasible;
Provide bypass capability or multiple

access to runway ends;
Minimise runway crossings;
Provide ample curve and fillet radii;
Provide good ATC line-of-site; and
Avoid traffic bottlenecks.
Airfield Circulation Improvements

Although BDA is considered by ICAO to
have a low level of operations,28 projects
designed to improve airfield circulation
should be identified and evaluated. As
noted previously, the terminal and general
aviation facilities are connected to the
runway by a single intersecting taxiway
(Taxiway Bravo). Even at existing traffic
levels, aircraft are occasionally unnecessarily
delayed as they wait for conflicting traffic
travelling in the opposite direction on this
taxiway to clear. Assuming the terminal
remains on the south side of the Airport, it
would be prudent to identify possible
improvements.
There are several options for
ameliorating this situation. First, the north
end of Taxiway Tango could be re-opened.
(Its alignment may need to be adjusted to
provide clearance of the localizer critical
area and the adjacent road.) A second
option is to construct a holding pad along
Taxiway Bravo which would permit aircraft
to hold closer to the runway as they wait for
opposite-bound traffic to pass along
Taxiway Bravo.
A third option is
Following is a discussion of taxiway

requirements for BDA.
Runway 12-30 Centre Line to Taxiway
Alpha Centre Line Separation
Taxiway Alpha is separated from
Runway 12-30 by 500 feet (150 metres),
which is 100 feet (30 metres) less than
recommended by ICAO design standards
for ARC 4E airports. The easternmost 500
feet (150 metres) of Taxiway Alpha is
canted, further reducing separation between
the taxiway and the runway to about 420 feet
(130 metres). Based on discussions with an
28
Chapter 2 of ICAO Document 9157 AN/901,

Section 2.1 defines low levels of aerodrome activity as
less than approximately 50,000 annual operations.
3-20
Master Plan
aircraft. Following is a brief summary of

existing NAVAIDs and recommendations
for upgrade. The recommendations also
incorporate input from ATCT staff.
constructing a parallel taxiway system on the

south side of the airfield. These and other
options are obviously constrained by limited
land area, topography, and airspace
clearance requirements. Chapter Four of
this Report will evaluate the various airfield
improvements.
Runway 30 is equipped with a Category I

ILS, which provides minimums of a 257-foot
ceiling and -mile visibility, compared to
the standard Category I minimums of 200
feet and mile. Discussions with a DCA
representative indicated that the reason for
the higher minima is not clear, although it
was thought to be due to the possibility of
the St. David Lighthouse being an
obstruction.
Summary of Recommended Airfield

Improvements
There are several airfield issues where
the existing airfield layout either does not
meet ICAO-recommended design standards
or does not provide optimal operational
efficiency. These constraints may become
increasingly problematic as traffic levels
return to previously high levels. Following
is a summary of recommended airfield
improvements.
Runway 12 has a VOR/DME approach

with minimums of a 459-foot ceiling and
visibility minimums ranging from one mile
to 1 miles, depending on the approach
speed of the aircraft.
Provide full runway strip width (which

would require filling in a portion of
Castle Harbour);
Provide improved safety margin for

aircraft overruns on the north end of
Runway 12-30; and,
Provide a taxiway and/or hold pad on

the west side of the airfield to improve
circulation for aircraft travelling between
the terminal area and the runway.
Based on discussions with airline

representatives, the number of flight
cancellations attributed to ceiling and/or
visibility
conditions
below
existing
minimums has been fewer than 10 per year.
Lowering the minima for the ILS to the
standard 200-foot ceiling and -mile
visibility would increase coverage by 0.06
percent (or only four more landings per
year).
The Bermuda Department of Civil
Aviation is working with Jeppesen to
develop RNAV approaches; one of the
objectives of the RNAV approaches is to
improve the instrument approach to
Runway 12.
These improvements will be evaluated in

Chapter Four.
3.4.12
NAVAIDs
The Airports existing complement of

navigational and visual landing aids,
described in Chapter One, provides
adequate air navigational capabilities to all
3-21
3.5
Master Plan
Demand Levels
TERMINAL AND
CONCOURSE
REQUIREMENTS
The passenger demand levels directly

affecting terminal building functions at BDA
are as follows:
Terminal facility requirements for BDA

were determined through analysis of existing
terminal plans, local service characteristics,
activity forecasts, the consultants planning
data, and industry planning guidelines.
Facility requirements were projected for the
years 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2025 based on
forecast demand levels (presented in
Chapter Two, Aviation Activity Forecasts)
and planning factors specifically developed
for BDA.
This section begins with a discussion of
the passenger demand levels and planning
factors used in assessing the capacity of the
terminal building. The planning factors
were then applied to the demand levels to
calculate the capacity of existing facilities
and future facility requirements for the
planning years.
3.5.1
Demand Levels and Planning

Factors
Demand levels such as peak passengers

affect total square feet of building by placing
a demand on the terminal and its associated
building systems. Planning factors are
units of facility necessary to adequately
serve a unit of demand, such as a
passenger or aircraft. Planning factors are
developed and used to assess the capacity of
existing facilities as well as to determine the
required size of future facilities.
Peak Hour Enplaning Passengers

(PHEP) - the hour during which the
greatest number of passengers depart on
both air carriers and regional carrier
aircraft.
Peak Hour Deplaning Passengers

(PHDP) - the hour during which the
greatest number of passengers arrive
from both air carrier and regional carrier
aircraft.
Peak Hour Passengers (PHP) - the hour

during which the Airport experiences
the largest number of both arriving and
departing passengers from both air
carrier and regional carrier aircraft.
Annual Enplaning Passengers (ANNEP) the total number of passengers boarding

air carrier of regional carrier aircraft
during a specific year.
Annual enplanements and peak hour

passenger levels were taken directly from the
forecast data in Chapter Two (Table 2.13).
Functional components of the terminal
building must respond to passenger demand
levels. For example, ticket counters and
outbound baggage facilities primarily serve
PHEP, whereas baggage claim facilities serve
only PHDP. Concession areas serve all
passengers but are usually evaluated in terms
of ANNEP, rather than PHP, since their
economic viability is typically based on a
total annual volume of patronage.
3-22
Master Plan
selected representing a moderate to high

level of service for the Airport. The selected
planning factors presented in Table 3.10 also
provide a means for developing a capacity
analysis of the existing terminal building.
Capacity, in this instance, is considered to be
the demand level above which the terminals
level of service degrades.
BDA demand levels for the year 2004 are

shown in Table 3.9 along with the existing
terminal building functional areas to which
they primarily apply.
Planning Factors
Planning factors were developed
specifically for BDA based on operational
characteristics such as flight scheduling,
exclusive vs. common use facilities,
processing technologies and carrier services.
The planning factors recommended for use
in developing future facility requirements
are summarised in Table 3.10.
The
recommended planning factors have been
developed, taking into account passenger
and operational characteristics as described
below:
Table 3.11 includes comparisons

between recommended planning factors and
existing size. Existing size factors were
developed by dividing applicable passenger
or operation demand from 2004 and
factoring these demand levels against the
appropriate functional terminal areas.
Functional terminal areas were previously
tabulated under the inventory of existing
terminal building functional areas.
Peak
operational
periods
were
determined based on current airline
flight scheduling characteristics for
BDA.
Specific
space
and
operational
considerations used to develop planning
factors of the major component areas are
described in additional detail below.
The 2005 published commercial airline

flight schedule for BDA was used to
determine the planning day flight
schedule characteristics.
Ticketing
Planning day load factors were assumed

to be 80 percent.
Peak passenger demand periods caused

by departing (enplaning) and arriving
(deplaning) passengers are based on
flight scheduling characteristics, which
recognise that passengers do not arrive
simultaneously nor uniformly to check
in for departing flights.
Total ticket counter length significantly

affects the length and depth of a terminal.
Ticketing facilities consist of standard ticket
counter positions. Ticket counter length
drives the ticketing queue areas, airline
ticket office space, ticket lobby circulation,
and in some cases outbound baggage
handling areas. As depicted in Table 3.10,
4.375 square feet per peak hour enplaning
passenger was calculated as the existing
ticket counter size factor. This factor is
considered to be in the range of comparable
airports and was therefore the selected
planning factor for the ticket counter area.
A range of planning factors was

considered, and ultimately, one set was
3-23
Master Plan
Table 3.9
Existing Terminal Building - Total Area by Function, 2005
Space
LF
Airline Functions
Ticket Counter - SF
Ticket Counter - LF
Ticket Counter Queuing
Airline Ticket Office
Curbside Baggage Check
Departure Lounge (Gates)
Baggage Claim (SF)
Baggage Claim (LF)
Baggage Service/Storage
Outbound Baggage
Inbound Baggage
Operations/Maintenance/Storage
Clubs/VIP Room
SF
2,594
247
4,970
9,518
15,326
10,284
354
Concessions Space
Food/Beverage
News/Gift/Sundry
Rental Car
Other Revenue
950
19,962
3,499
7,639
9,230
83,972
5,301
9,746
6,584
21,631
Existing, 2005
Existing Factor
593
593
593
593
6
633
633
633
593
633
419,835
2
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
Gates
PHTP
PHTP
PHTP
PHEP
PHTP
ANNEP
Clubs
4.37
0.42
8.38
16.05
2,554
16.25
0.56
1.50
33.66
5.53
0.0182
4,615
SF/PHEP
LF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/Gate
SF/PHTP
LF/PHTP
SF/PHTP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHTP
SF/ANNEP
SF/Club
419,835
419,835
419,835
ANNEP
ANNEP
ANNEP
ANNEP
0.0126
0.0232
0.0157
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP

Customs/Immigrations/Support
US Customs and Border Protection
US Pre-clear
Subtotal HM and US Customs
21,984
633
PHTP
35
21,601
43,585
593
PHEP
36
Secure Public Area

Security
Circulation
Restrooms
Other
Subtotal Secure Public Area
1,432
12,835
1,055
15,322
3
6
853
-
Checkpoints
Gates
PHP

Circulation - Ticketing
Circulation - Baggage Claim (Included in HM Cust. & Immig
Restrooms
Other
Subtotal Non-Secure Public Area
14,931
18,792
3,239
494
37,456
593
419,835
853
419,835
Non-Public Area
Circulation
Police Station
Maintenance & Miscellaneous
Mechanical/Electrical/Building Systems
Subtotal Non-Public Area
16,155
10,759
1,815
1,389
4,237
34,355
16,155
10,759
1,815
1,389
4,237
Total All Areas

Source:
236,321
% of Total
1.10%
2.10%
4.03%
6.49%
4.35%
0.40%
8.45%
1.48%
3.23%
3.91%
35.53%
2.24%
4.12%
0.00%
2.79%
9.15%
9.30%
SF/PHEP
9.14%
18.44%
477
2,139
1.24
-
SF/Chkpt
SF/Gate
SF/PHP
SF/ANNEP
0.61%
5.43%
0.45%
0.00%
6.48%
PHEP
PHTP
ANNEP
PHP
ANNEP
25.18
0.0448
3.80
0.0012
SF/PHEP
SF/PHTP
SF/ANNEP
SF/PHP
SF/ANNEP
6.32%
0.00%
7.95%
1.37%
0.21%
15.85%
As Required
As Required
As Required
Total SF
Total SF
16,155
10,759
1,815
0.59%
1.79%
SF
SF
SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
6.84%
4.55%
0.77%
0.59%
1.79%
14.54%
100.00%
HNTB analysis of BDA terminal plans, July 2005.
3-24
Master Plan
Table 3.10
Passenger Terminal Building - Planning Factors
Factor
Remarks
Airline Functions
Ticket Counter - SF
Ticket Counter - LF
Departure Lounge
ERJ 145 (Regional Jets) [50 Pax]
A319/320/321/B737-700,800,900 [134-177 Pax]
B757 [186 Pax]
B767 [269 Pax]
A330/B777 [293, 305 Pax]
Baggage Claim (SF)
Baggage Claim (LF)
Baggage Service
Outbound Baggage
Inbound Baggage
Clubs/VIP Room
4.37
0.42
8.38
16.50
2,700
600
2,000
2,200
3,200
3,600
18.00
0.80
2.00
34.00
10.00
0.0200
3,500
SF/PHEP
LF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/Gate
SF/Gate
SF/Gate
SF/Gate
SF/Gate
SF/Gate
SF/PHTP
LF/PHTP
SF/PHTP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHTP
SF/ANNEP
SF/Club
10.5 feet deep (Industry standard)

Assumes: 6 foot counters; 3.5 to 4 minute processing time
20 feet deep
27.3 feet deep (existing)
N/A
Varies - Average based on forecast fleet mix, load factor and 15 SF/passenger
Based on 80% load factor and 15 SF/passenger
Flat plate baggage claim device with 15 feet around devices
Flat plate claim device displaying 70% of bags during peak 10-20 minute interval
Existing Factor = 1.5
80 -110 feet deep
25 feet minimum depth x width of baggage claim area
Comparable airports
Comparable airports
Concessions Space
Food/Beverage
News/Gift/Sundry
Rental Car
Other Revenue
0.0126
0.0030
0.0020
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
Comparable airports
Comparable airports
N/A
Comparable airports

US Pre-clear
45.00
SF/PHTP
Comparable airports
45.00
SF/PHEP
Comparable airports
Secure Public Area

Security
Circulation
Restrooms
Other
1,400
2,100
3.80
-
SF/Chkpt
SF/Gate
SF/PHP
SF/ANNEP
Processes approximately 200 people/hr/chkpt

Comparable airports
N/A

Circulation - Baggage Claim
Restrooms
Other
8.00
0.0300
3.80
0.0012
SF/PHEP
SF/PHTP
SF/ANNEP
SF/PHP
SF/ANNEP
20 feet deep
Included in HM Customs and Immigrations
Comparable airports
Comparable airports
Existing factor
Non-Public Area
Circulation
Airport Police
Mechanical/Electrical/Bldg. Systems
6.50%
4.00%
0.77%
0.59%
10.00%
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
See Note 1.
See Note 2.
Existing percentage of total area.
Existing percentage of total area.
Comparable airports
Notes: (1) Existing area increase of Administration area over planning period is assumed to be less proportional to increase in total building area.
(2) Existing area increase of Non-Public Circulation over planning period is assumed to be less proportional to increase in total building area.
Source: HNTB analysis, October 2005.
3-25
Master Plan
Table 3.11
Passenger Terminal Building - Capacity Analysis
Base Forecast Scenario
Space
Airline Functions
Ticket Counter - SF
Ticket Counter - LF
Departure Lounge (Gates)
Baggage Claim (SF)
Baggage Claim (LF)
Outbound Baggage
Inbound Baggage
Clubs/VIP Room
Concessions Space
Food/Beverage
News/Gift/Sundry
Rental Car
Other Revenue
LF
274
SF
Planning Factor
2,594
0
4,970
9,518
15,326
10,284
0
950
19,962
3,499
7,639
9,230
83,972
4.37
0.42
8.38
16.50
2,700
18.00
0.80
2.00
34.00
10.00
0.0200
3,500
SF/PHEP
LF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/Gate
SF/PHTP
LF/PHTP
SF/PHTP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHTP
SF/ANNEP
SF/Club
5,301
9,746
6,584
21,631
0.0126
0.0030
0.0020
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
Existing Capacity Based on

Planning Factors
594
653
594
577
6
Existing Demand
0
572
588
350
381,950
3
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
Gates
PHTP
PHTP
PHTP
PHEP
PHTP
ANNEP
Clubs
593
593
593
593
6
633
633
633
593
633
419,835
2
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
Gates
PHTP
PHTP
PHTP
PHEP
PHTP
ANNEP
Clubs
420,715
3,248,667
3,292,000
ANNEP
ANNEP
ANNEP
ANNEP
419,835
419,835
419,835
ANNEP
ANNEP
ANNEP
ANNEP

US Pre-clear
21,984
45.00 SF/PHTP
489 PHTP
633 PHTP
21,601
43,585
45.00 SF/PHEP
481 PHEP
593 PHEP
Secure Public Area

Security
Circulation
Restrooms
Other
1,432
12,835
1,055
15,322
1,400
2,100
3.80
-
SF/Chkpt
SF/Gate
SF/PHP
SF/ANNEP
2
7
278
-
3
6
853
-

Circulation - Baggage Claim (Included in HM Cust.)
Restrooms
Other
14,931
18,792
3,239
494
37,456
8.00
0.0300
3.80
0.0012
SF/PHEP
SF/PHTP
SF/ANNEP
SF/PHP
SF/ANNEP
1,867
626,400
853
411,667
PHEP
PHTP
ANNEP
PHP
ANNEP
Non-Public Area
Circulation
Police Station
16,155
10,759
1,815
1,389
4,237
34,355
6.50%
4.00%
0.77%
0.59%
10.00%
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
248,539
268,975
235,715
235,424
42,370
SF Facility
SF Facility
SF Facility
SF Facility
SF Facility
Total All Areas
236,321
3-26
Checkpoint
Gates
PHP
ANNEP
593
419,835
853
419,835
16,155
10,759
1,815
1,389
4,237
Checkpoints
Gates
PHP
0
PHEP
PHTP
ANNEP
PHP
ANNEP
As Required
As Required
As Required
Total SF
Total SF
Master Plan
assumed depth of the baggage handling area

is approximately 80 to 110 feet. Since BDA
is a U.S. pre-clearance site, the baggage
screening process will likely occur in a
separate area of the terminal to satisfy U.S.
Customs and Border Protection passenger
processing and facility requirements.
Baggage Claim and Inbound Baggage

Handling
Baggage claim areas also affect the length
and depth of a terminal and have a direct
impact on the inbound baggage drop-off
areas as well as baggage claim lobby
circulation. Baggage claim facilities consist
of bag claim carousels and passenger
waiting/circulation surrounding each claim
device. The estimates of space requirements
for the area are based on the number of
baggage claim devices required to
accommodate the peak arrival period, depth
for active and passive baggage claim, and
depth for passenger circulation.
The
selected factor for the baggage claim area is
18 feet per peak hour terminating passenger.
Passenger Screening
The security screening checkpoint
(SSCP)
consists
of
x-ray
units,
magnetometers and inspection areas to
screen passengers prior to access to the
concourse or departure gate area.
Placement of the SSCP delineates secure and
non-secure areas of the facility. Demand on
the SSCP is a result of peak hour enplaning
passengers and simultaneous enplaning
operations. Facility requirements for the
SSCP were based on the following:
The inbound baggage handling area

consists of off-load conveyors, baggage cart
positions and circulation.
Space
requirements for inbound baggage handling
are primarily based on the operational needs
of the ground handling operator to off-load
baggage from carts onto conveyors. The
operational needs include the length of
conveyor to accommodate the proper
number of carts and sufficient through lanes
for unconstrained movement of carts. The
assumed inbound baggage area depth is
twenty-five feet minimum by the width of
the baggage claim area.
Primary SSCP
200 people /hour/ unit
1,000 square feet/unit (x-ray

including unit and wanding area)
100 square feet/unit (personal item

divest area)
lane
Selectee Screening
50 square feet/inspection station (prescreen queue area)
300 square feet/station (inspection area)
Outbound Baggage Handling and Hold

Bag Screening
The outbound baggage handling area
consists of baggage accumulation devices,
cart staging positions and baggage cart
circulation lanes. The selected planning
factor for this area of the facility is 34 square
feet per peak hour enplaning passenger. The
Departure Lounges (Holdrooms)

Departure lounge area is allocated for
each gate required to accommodate
aggregate peak carrier operations. Average
3-27
Master Plan
Airline Function
size of the departure lounge is determined

by the forecast fleet mix and the ability to
maintain occupancy flexibility for various
sizes of aircraft and operations.
This category includes both non-secure

and secure functions such as ticket counters,
ticket counter queuing, airline ticket offices
and operations, departure lounges/gates,
baggage claim, outbound and inbound
baggage areas, and clubs/VIP area.
The average size of departure lounges are

based on the following criteria:
Number of seats per aircraft based on

forecast fleet mix, and
Facility Requirements
By the year 2010, an additional 8,300

square feet of space will be required in the
airline functional area category. At the end
of the planning period, 16,800 additional
square feet will be required to meet the
projected passenger demand.
Facility requirements for BDA were

derived by applying the forecast demand
levels to the selected planning factors.
Facility requirements were projected for the
years 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2025.
Comparing the aggregate total projected
facility requirements to the aggregate total
existing
facility
quantities,
facility
deficiencies were generated to predict at
which point during the planning period
specific areas would need expansion. The
facility requirements are shown in Tables
3.12 through 3.15.
All airline functional areas relating

specifically to enplaning (departing)
passengers were projected based on PHEP
demand levels. Comparing the existing
ticketing area to the projected facility
requirements, there is sufficient ticket
counter area and ATO area. At the end of
the planning period, a minimal amount of
six linear feet of additional ticket counters
and 432 square feet of ATO area will be
required, resulting in a total of 253 linear
feet and 9,950 square feet of ticket counters
and ATO area, respectively.
Terminal Building
Facility requirements for departure

lounges were calculated as a function of the
forecasted fleet mix, gate requirements, and
required square feet per passenger.
Deficiencies of approximately 900 square
feet are projected to occur within the next
five years and are projected to remain at that
80 percent load factor and 15 square

feet/passenger.
3.5.2
The terminal building houses a wide

range of functions and spaces. These
functions and spaces are divided into six
main
categories:
airline
functions,
concessions space, secure public area, nonsecure public area, non-public area, and the
HM Customs and Immigration/U.S.
Customs and Border Protection areas. A
detailed discussion of each category follows.
3-28
Master Plan
Table 3.12
Passenger Terminal Building - Facility Requirements 2010
Space
Demand Level
Planning Factor
SF
% of Total
2,588
0.96%
4,961
9,768
0
21,600
11,799
1.84%
3.62%
0.00%
8.00%
4.37%
1,311
20,128
6,555
9,783
9,230
97,723
0.49%
7.46%
2.43%
3.62%
3.42%
36.20%
6,163
1,468
0
979
8,610
2.28%
0.54%
0.00%
0.36%
3.19%
29,498
10.93%
26,640
56,138
9.87%
20.80%
# SF/Chkpt
# SF/Gate
# SF/PHP
# SF/ANNEP
4,200
16,800
3,327
0
24,327
1.56%
6.22%
1.23%
0.00%
9.01%
Airline Functions
Ticket Counter - SF
Ticket Counter - LF
Departure Lounge (Gates) (1)
Baggage Claim (SF)
Baggage Claim (LF)
Outbound Baggage
Inbound Baggage
Clubs/VIP Room
592 PHEP
592 PHEP
592 PHEP
592 PHEP
- PHEP
8 # Gates
656 PHTP
656 PHTP
656 PHTP
592 PHEP
656 PHTP
489,117 ANNEP
3 Clubs
4.37
0.42
8.38
16.50
2,700
18.00
0.80
2.00
34.00
10.00
0.0200
3,500
# SF/PHEP
# LF/PHEP
# SF/PHEP
# SF/PHEP
# SF/PHEP
# SF/Gate
# SF/PHTP
# LF/PHTP
# SF/PHTP
# SF/PHEP
# SF/PHTP
# SF/ANNEP
# SF/Club
Concessions Space
Food/Beverage
News/Gift/Sundry
Rental Car
Other Revenue
489,117
489,117
489,117
489,117
0.0126
0.0030
0.0020
#
#
#
#

US Pre-clear
656
592
ANNEP
ANNEP
ANNEP
ANNEP
PHTP
LF
249
525
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
PHEP
45.00 # SF/PHTP
#
45.00 # SF/PHEP
Secure Public Area

Security
Circulation (1)
Restrooms
Other
3
8
876
489,117
Chkpt
Gates
PHP
ANNEP
1,400
2,100
3.80
-

Circulation - Baggage Claim (2)
Restrooms
Other
592
489,117
876
489,117
PHEP
PHTP
ANNEP
PHP
ANNEP
8.00
0.0300
3.80
0.0012
#
#
#
#
#
SF/PHEP
SF/PHTP
SF/ANNEP
SF/PHP
SF/ANNEP
4,736
0
14,674
3,327
587
23,324
1.75%
0.00%
5.44%
1.23%
0.22%
8.64%
Total SF
Total SF
Total SF
Total SF
Total SF
6.50%
4.00%
0.77%
0.59%
10.00%
# Of Total SF
# Of Total SF
# Of Total SF
# Of Total SF
# Of Total SF
17,797
10,952
2,097
1,604
27,380
59,830
6.59%
4.06%
0.78%
0.59%
10.14%
22.16%
269,952
100%
Non-Public Area
Circulation
Police Station
Total All Areas
Notes: (1) Assumed gate requirements are based on anticipated peak period requirements and input from DAO.
(2) Non-secure Public Circulation -Baggage Claim is included in HM Customs and Immigration.
3-29
Master Plan
Table 3.13
Space
Airline Functions
Ticket Counter - SF
Ticket Counter - LF
Baggage Claim (SF)
Baggage Claim (LF)
Outbound Baggage
Inbound Baggage
Clubs/VIP Room
Concessions Space
Food/Beverage
News/Gift/Sundry
Rental Car
Other Revenue
US Pre-clear
Subtotal HM and Customs
Demand Level
591
591
591
591
Planning Factor
8
678
678
678
591
678
525,554
3
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
Gates
PHTP
PHTP
PHTP
PHEP
PHTP
ANNEP
Club
4.37
0.42
8.38
16.50
2,700
18.00
0.80
2.00
34.00
10.00
0.0200
3,500
525,554
525,554
525,554
525,554
ANNEP
ANNEP
ANNEP
ANNEP
0.0126
0.0030
0.0020
678
591
PHTP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/Gate
SF/PHTP
SF/PHTP
SF/PHTP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHTP
SF/ANNEP
SF/Club
#
#
#
#
LF
PHEP
% of Total
2,583
0.93%
4,953
9,752
0
21,600
12,204
1.79%
3.52%
0.00%
7.80%
4.41%
1,356
20,094
6,780
10,512
10,500
100,334
0.49%
7.25%
2.45%
3.79%
3.79%
36.22%
6,622
1,577
0
1,052
9,251
2.39%
0.57%
0.00%
0.38%
3.34%
30,510
11.01%
26,595
57,105
9.60%
20.61%
248
543
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
45.00 # SF/PHTP
#
45.00 # SF/PHEP
SF
Secure Public Area

Security
Circulation (1)
Restrooms
Other
3
8
898
525,554
Chkpt
Gates
PHP
ANNEP
1,400
2,100
3.80
-
#
#
#
#
SF/Chkpt
SF/Gate
SF/PHP
SF/ANNEP
4,200
16,800
3,413
0
24,413
1.52%
6.06%
1.23%
0.00%
8.81%

Circulation - Baggage Claim
Restrooms
Other
591
3,921
525,554
898
525,554
PHEP
PHTP
ANNEP
PHP
ANNEP
8.00
0.0300
3.80
0.0012
#
#
#
#
#
SF/PHEP
SF/PHTP
SF/ANNEP
SF/PHP
SF/ANNEP
4,728
0
15,767
3,413
631
24,539
1.71%
0.00%
5.69%
1.23%
0.23%
8.86%
Total SF
Total SF
Total SF
Total SF
Total SF
6.50%
4.00%
0.77%
0.59%
10.00%
#
#
#
#
#
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
18,258
11,236
2,163
1,657
28,089
61,403
6.59%
4.06%
0.78%
0.60%
10.14%
22.16%
277,045
100%
Non-Public Area
Circulation
Police Station
Total All Areas
3-30
Master Plan
Table 3.14
Space
Airline Functions
Ticket Counter - SF
Ticket Counter - LF
Baggage Claim (SF)
Baggage Claim (LF)
Outbound Baggage
Inbound Baggage
Clubs/VIP Room
Concessions Space
Food/Beverage
News/Gift/Sundry
Rental Car
Other Revenue
US Pre-clear
Demand Level
597
597
597
597
Planning Factor
9
685
685
685
597
685
569,657
3
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
Gates
PHTP
PHTP
PHTP
PHEP
PHTP
ANNEP
Club
4.37
0.42
8.38
16.50
2,700
18.00
0.80
2.00
34.00
10.00
0.0200
3,500
SF/PHEP
LF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/Gate
SF/PHTP
LF/PHTP
SF/PHTP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHTP
SF/ANNEP
SF/Club
569,657
569,657
569,657
569,657
ANNEP
ANNEP
ANNEP
ANNEP
0.0126
0.0030
0.0020
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
685
PHTP
45.00
LF
SF
% of Total
2,609
0.90%
5,003
9,851
0
24,300
12,321
1.73%
3.40%
0.00%
8.40%
4.26%
1,369
20,298
6,845
11,394
10,500
104,490
0.47%
7.01%
2.37%
3.94%
3.63%
36.11%
7,178
1,709
0
1,140
10,027
2.48%
0.59%
0.00%
0.39%
3.47%
30,803
10.65%
251
548
SF/PHTP
`
597
PHEP
45.00
SF/PHEP
26,865
57,668
9.28%
19.93%
Secure Public Area

Security
Circulation (1)
Restrooms
Other
3
9
963
569,657
Chkpt
Gates
PHP
ANNEP
1,400
2,100
3.80
-
SF/Chkpt
SF/Gate
SF/PHP
SF/ANNEP
4,200
18,900
3,658
0
26,758
1.45%
6.53%
1.26%
0.00%
9.25%

Restrooms
Other
597
685
569,657
963
569,657
PHEP
PHTP
ANNEP
PHP
ANNEP
8.00
0.0300
3.80
0.0012
SF/PHEP
SF/PHTP
SF/ANNEP
SF/PHP
SF/ANNEP
4,776
0
17,090
3,658
684
26,208
1.65%
0.00%
5.91%
1.26%
0.24%
9.06%
Total SF
Total SF
Total SF
Total SF
Total SF
6.50%
4.00%
0.77%
0.59%
10.00%
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
19,086
11,745
2,273
1,742
29,362
64,208
6.60%
4.06%
0.79%
0.60%
10.15%
22.19%
289,359
100%
Non-Public Area
Circulation
Police Station
Total All Areas
Source: HNTB analysis
3-31
Master Plan
Table 3.15
Space
Airline Functions
Ticket Counter - SF
Ticket Counter - LF
Baggage Claim (SF)
Baggage Claim (LF)
Outbound Baggage
Inbound Baggage
Clubs/VIP Room
Concessions Space
Food/Beverage
News/Gift/Sundry
Rental Car
Other Revenue
US Pre-clear
Demand Level
603
603
603
603
Planning Factor
9
691
691
691
603
691
623,825
3
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
PHEP
Gates
PHTP
PHTP
PHTP
PHEP
PHTP
ANNEP
Club
4.37
0.42
8.38
16.50
2,700
18.00
0.80
2.00
34.00
10.00
0.0200
3,500
SF/PHEP
LF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHEP
SF/Gate
SF/PHTP
LF/PHTP
SF/PHTP
SF/PHEP
SF/PHTP
SF/ANNEP
SF/Club
623,825
623,825
623,825
623,825
ANNEP
ANNEP
ANNEP
ANNEP
0.0126
0.0030
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
SF/ANNEP
691
0.0020
PHTP
45.00
LF
SF
% of Total
2,636
0.89%
5,054
9,950
0
24,300
12,438
1.71%
3.36%
0.00%
8.21%
4.20%
1,382
20,502
6,910
12,477
10,500
106,149
0.47%
6.93%
2.33%
4.22%
3.55%
35.86%
7,861
1,872
0
1,248
10,981
2.66%
0.63%
0.00%
0.42%
3.71%
31,095
10.50%
253
553
SF/PHTP
`
603
PHEP
45.00
SF/PHEP
27,135
58,230
9.17%
19.67%
Secure Public Area

Security
Circulation (1)
Restrooms
Other
3
9
1,027
623,825
Chkpt
Gates
PHP
ANNEP
1,400
2,100
3.80
-
SF/Chkpt
SF/Gate
SF/PHP
SF/ANNEP
4,200
18,900
3,903
0
27,003
1.42%
6.39%
1.32%
0.00%
9.12%

Restrooms
Other
603
691
623,825
1,027
623,825
PHEP
PHTP
ANNEP
PHP
ANNEP
8.00
0.0300
3.80
0.0012
SF/PHEP
SF/PHTP
SF/ANNEP
SF/PHP
SF/ANNEP
4,824
0
18,715
3,903
749
28,191
1.63%
0.00%
6.32%
1.32%
0.25%
9.52%
Total SF
Total SF
Total SF
Total SF
Total SF
6.50%
4.00%
0.77%
0.59%
10.00%
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
Of Total SF
19,467
11,979
2,298
1,755
29,949
65,448
6.58%
4.05%
0.78%
0.59%
10.12%
22.11%
296,002
100%
Non-Public Area
Circulation
Police Station
Total All Areas
3-32
Master Plan
feet. They are projected to remain at that

level throughout the remainder of the
planning period.
level up through year 2015. However, by the

end of the planning period in 2025, an
additional 2,700 square feet will be required
to meet the projected passenger demand.
In summarising the airline functions

category, the areas that significantly
contribute to the additional 8,300 square feet
requirements by year 2010 and requirements
throughout the planning period, are baggage
claim, inbound baggage, and the
operations/maintenance/storage areas.
Peak hour terminating passengers

demand levels were used to calculate facility
requirements for baggage claim, baggage
service, and inbound baggage areas. Based
on the forecasted facility requirements,
approximately 170 linear feet of new
baggage claim frontage and an additional
1,500 square feet of claim area will be
required to accommodate the projected
demand in 2010. By the end of the planning
period, facility deficiencies of 200 linear of
claim front and 2,150 square of claim area
are expected.
Concessions Space
Concessions space includes food and
beverage establishments, news/gift/sundry
stands and shops, duty free shops, and other
revenue-generating
space
such
as
telephones, advertisement kiosks and
ground transportation service areas. Facility
requirements for these areas were projected
using a detailed concessions planning
approach that focuses on enplaned
passenger levels, and their propensity to
shop while in an airport. The projected
facility requirements for food and beverage
concessions yield a deficiency of
approximately 87 square feet by 2025.
However, news, gifts and sundry items, and
other revenue generating concessions areas
are projected to be in excess of required area
by as much as 2,900 square feet in 2010,
decreasing to a surplus of nearly 900 square
feet by 2025. A deficiency in other revenueproducing space (advertising, travel agency,
other services) of approximately 3,200
square feet is expected by 2025. In all, a
deficiency of approximately 2,400 square
feet in concessions space is expected by
2025.
The inbound baggage drop area is

directly related to the width of the baggage
claim device or the configuration of the
baggage claim area.
A deficiency of
approximately 3,000 square feet is projected
by the 2010 planning period, and a total
deficiency of 3,400 square feet may be
expected by the end of the planning period.
The need for airline operation space is
dependent on individual airline operational
procedures. As these operational spaces are
difficult to predict, the requirements have
been determined based on annual enplaning
passengers. By the planning year 2010, an
additional 2,100 square feet of airline
operations space will be needed. By the end
of the planning period, a total deficiency of
approximately 4,800 square feet will exist.
Deficiencies in the airline clubs and
special waiting rooms are not expected to
occur until 2015, by which point they are
projected to be approximately 1,270 square
3-33
Master Plan
major renovations. A major renovation or

upgrade generally involves an addition to
the passenger processing capability, while
minor renovations, of which compliance is
evaluated by USCBP on a case-by-case basis,
is defined as a simple upgrade or
refurbishing of an existing facility.
HM Customs and U.S. Customs

HM Customs and Immigration process
BDA international arrival passengers. The
facility requirements for this area were based
on the level of peak hour terminating
passengers.
Based on the forecasted facility
requirements, an additional 7,500 square
feet of HM Customs and Immigration area
will be required to accommodate the
projected demand in 2010. This is a 34
percent projected increase in area, indicating
possible current deficiencies. Beyond 2010,
an additional 1,500 square feet of area will be
required.
Secure Public Area

Secure public area includes the security
checkpoints, secure circulation, public
restrooms and other miscellaneous areas
located in the concourse area of the terminal
facility.
Facility requirements for security
checkpoints were based on a processing rate
of 200 passengers per hour per station.
Facility requirements for secure circulation
were based on the average square feet of
concourse circulation area needed per
aircraft gate. Secure side public restroom
facility requirements were based on the peak
hour passenger demand levels. To provide
the recommended level of service,
approximately 2,700 square feet of
additional security screening, 1,800 square
feet of secure public circulation and
approximately 2,800 square feet of secure
public restroom area will be required within
the 20-year planning period.
USCBP is the pre-clearance operation

for the U.S. bound passengers. Facility
requirements for this area were based on
peak
hour
enplaning
passengers.
Deficiencies of approximately 5,000 square
feet of USCBP area are expected to occur by
the year 2010. A minimal addition of 500
square feet of area will be required by the
end of the planning period.
These
deficiencies reflect an overall requirement of
approximately 25 percent increase in
USCBP area. It should also be noted that a
higher planning factor was applied to these
areas
in
determining
the
facility
requirements. The existing size factors for
these areas are considerably lower than those
at other airports having similar peak hour
passenger activity levels, and were therefore
increased to an average comparable
planning factor.
Specifically, for U.S.
Customs, additional facility area will be
required to meet new mandatory design
standards for pre-clearance processing.
These standards apply to all new preclearance sites and sites contemplating

This category includes such areas as
ticketing area circulation, restrooms,
vestibules, and vertical and horizontal
circulation.
Facility requirements for
ticketing lobby circulation are a direct
function of the amount of ticket counters
required and are based on peak hour
enplaning passengers.
Ticketing lobby
3-34
Master Plan
Airport administration office space is

projected to reach deficiencies of
approximately 2,000 square feet by the end
of the planning period with requirements of
approximately
18,100
square
feet.
Maintenance/miscellaneous and mechanical/
electrical/building systems will require an
additional 21,000 square feet by the year
2010, and a total deficiency of 23,900 square
feet is projected by the end of the planning
period.
circulation is considered to be that

circulation area which occurs in front of the
ticket counter, excluding passenger queuing
space. Other circulation space at this level is
considered general circulation.
Facility
requirements for the baggage claim lobby
circulation were based on peak hour
deplaning passengers, and were included in
the facility requirements for the HM
Customs and Immigration area. Facility
requirements for other non-secure public
areas were based on annual enplaning
passengers, except public restrooms, which
were based on peak hour passengers.
It should be noted that the facility

requirements for the mechanical/electrical/
building systems significantly increase
throughout the planning period. A larger
planning factor of 10 percent of the total
square feet of building area was applied to
this category. In comparison, the existing
size factor for mechanical/electrical/building
systems at BDA is 1.79 percent of the total
square feet of building. This number is
attributed to most of the buildings
components being located on the roof, with
minimal areas on the interior of the facility.
The average percentage of mechanical/
electrical/building systems for this building
type typically ranges from 12 to 15 percent
of total area. The 10 percent factor was
chosen because it is assumed at this point
that climatic conditions of Bermuda would
require something less of the typical systems
used in airports located elsewhere, and any
upgrade or new facility systems would
require more space within the facility.
It is projected that throughout the

planning period, growth will need to occur
in two areas under the non-secure public
category. These areas are the restrooms and
the greeters arrival area, while the ticketing
and general circulation are projected to be in
excess of required area by as much as 10,200
square feet and 4,100 square feet,
respectively in 2010. Ticketing circulation is
projected to remain at this same level
throughout the planning, while general
circulation is projected to be in excess of
approximately 77 feet by the end of the
planning period.
Non-Public Area
Non-public areas include Airport
management, Airport operations, Airport
security and police, employee support
facilities, maintenance functions, and
mechanical and electrical rooms.
3.5.3
Facility requirements for each of these

functions were calculated as a percentage of
total building area and assumed to grow as
the Airport grows in total area.
Aircraft Gate Requirements
Gate requirement projections were

developed for the air carriers for the Base
Forecast Scenario. Gate requirements were
developed for narrow body and wide body
aircraft categories.
3-35
Master Plan
The length of time required at the gate

for each aircraft was estimated from the
2005 Official Airline Guide schedule for
BDA. The estimate of gate requirements
varies depending on the assumptions
developed regarding preferential or
common use.
A summary of gate
requirements based on these various
assumptions is presented in Table 3.16.
whether or not it is feasible to remain in the

existing terminal or to develop a new
terminal platform. These issues will be
addressed by the project team in the concept
development section of this master plan.
An exact forecast of future gate

requirements would require knowledge of
future airline schedules.
Since that
information is not available, it was assumed
that gate requirements will increase at the
same rate as peak hour aircraft operations,
because the number of aircraft at the
terminal in a given hour will increase in
accordance with the level of aircraft
operations in that hour. Gate requirements
for each aircraft category were adjusted
proportionally to remain consistent with the
fleet mix forecast. The gate requirements
shown in Table 3.16 reflect peak period
requirements and input from DAO.
This section presents the requirements

for access, circulation, and car parks.
3.5.4
3.6
3.6.1
SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION AND
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Airport Access and Circulation
The Airport will continue to need access

from the Causeway and Kindley Field Road.
The Causeway includes a swing span bridge,
which, when opened, constrains access to
the Airport from all directions.
The
Ministry of Works project to replace or
reconstruct the Causeway will need to be
coordinated with the Airport in order to
ensure that the quality of access remains
adequate. If that is successful, even with
forecasted growth, additional roadway
capacity for Airport access is not anticipated
to be required.
Summary
The analysis of the existing capacity and

future terminal requirements for BDA
indicates that most terminal components
will need to expand to maintain the
Airports moderate level of service. The
overall terminal building size will need to
increase approximately 13 percent by 2010,
15 percent by 2015, 18 percent by 2020, and
approximately 20 percent by 2025.
The Ministry of Transport is considering

high-speed ferry service which potentially
could serve the Airport directly. Additional
modes of service such as ferry can be useful
in providing alternatives to roadway access
in the case of another bridge outage. As
well, during its season of operation, a ferry
could potentially reduce requirements for
roadways and parking.
In terms of facility requirements,

deficiencies of up to 34,000 square feet are
projected by the year 2010 and approximately 60,000 square feet by the year 2025.
These deficiencies should be evaluated as to
3-36
Master Plan
Table 3.16
Estimated Gate and Position Requirements (1)
Common Use
Preferential
Existing Gates/
Positions
2010
2015
2020
2025
8
-
6
8
6
8
6
9
6
9
Note: (1) Based on projected peak period requirements and input from DAO.
Source: HNTB analysis. Projection of Gate requirements based on 2005 OAG schedule and derivative schedules
in Forecast Appendix A.
3-37
Master Plan
The taxi queue and loading area, and the

pre-arranged bus, van, and limo loading
areas are the busiest portions of the arrivals
curb roadways at Bermuda International.
The manner in which they are arranged and
operated provides a sequence, starting with
the taxi hold area (with significant available
space for all anticipated growth), then the
taxi queue, and finally the taxi loading area.
As additional loading spaces are required,
they would be taken from the queuing area,
and those displaced vehicles in turn would
use the significantly underutilised hold area.
Thus, as a system, there does not seem to be
a need for additional space for taxis. The
same argument is true for pre-arranged
vehicles,
though
greater
real-time
management of this operation may be
necessary to provide less congestion.
Cahow Way is the on-airport circulation

roadway, one lane in each direction. Oneway forecast traffic volumes by 2025 will
reach more than 500 vehicles per hour in the
peak hour. The capacity of a single lane of
Cahow Way is estimated to be 800 vehicles
per hour, resulting in a ratio of volume to
capacity of 0.63. This reflects a good level of
service for traffic in the peak hour on Cahow
Way. Thus, additional roadway capacity is
not required.
3.6.2
Terminal Curbside
The terminal has a traditional curbside

only for departures.
This area is
approximately 430 feet (130 metres) long
and three lanes wide.
Under existing
demand, the curb is more than adequate for
the peak hours. The curb will continue to
operate well throughout 2025. The expected
ratio of volume-to-capacity in 2025 in the
busiest hour is no greater than 0.60, which
reflects a good level of service.
3.6.3
Parking Requirements
Car park facilities at the Airport include

public car parks and other car parks for
employees and taxi holding. Table 3.17
displays facility requirements for the various
car parks at the Airport. A discussion of
facility requirements by type is found below.
The curbside for arrivals pick-up by

private auto is closely connected to shortterm parking. By observation, its use is
highly connected to the utilisation of shortterm parking which is immediately adjacent.
The short-term car park will continue to be
more than adequate through 2025, and thus
there would be no apparent reason to
require additional curb space for private
vehicle pick up of arriving passengers. The
only exceptions to this, based upon reports
from staff, are the situations where arriving
flights are significantly delayed, causing
closely-packed arrivals. Unless the Airport
believes this to be a frequent enough
occurrence to warrant remediation, it is
recommended that adjustments in facilities
not be made for such situations.
Public Car Parks

There are several public car park
locations at the Airport: short-term, longterm, overflow, and curb car park. All other
things being equal, demand for these
facilities will grow at the same rate as
passenger enplanements at the Airport. This
assumes the same relative pricing,
availability, and convenience of modes of
access, including the price of parking.
3-38
Master Plan
Table 3.17
Car Park Requirements
Existing
Capacity (1)
Spaces
SF
Public Car Park
Short Term Car Park
Long Term Car Park
Cycle spaces (adj. STCP)
Overflow (3)
Curb (linear feet, not SF)
Other Car Park
Staff Car Park
Managers Car Park
Taxi Hold
2005
Spaces
SF (2)
2010
Spaces
SF
Required
2015
Spaces
SF
2020
Spaces
SF
2025
Spaces
SF
75
107
54
100
20
35,925
49,093
2,450
35,000
300
75
107
54
100
11
33,750
48,150
2,160
45,000
(165)
82
117
70
109
12
36,900
52,650
2,800
49,050
(180)
89
127
87
118
13
40,050
57,150
3,480
53,100
(195)
96
137
103
127
14
43,200
61,650
4,120
57,150
(210)
103
147
120
137
15
46,350
66,150
4,800
61,650
(225)
100
28
130
34,474
13,327
23,262
100
28
50
35,000
9,800
10,000
110
31
54
38,500
10,850
10,800
120
35
59
42,000
12,250
11,800
131
39
63
45,850
13,650
12,600
142
43
69
49,700
15,050
13,800
Notes: (1) Existing Capacity and 2005 base year data from July 2005 HNTB field observations.
(2) Space requirements assume 350 SF per space for Staff, Managers, and Overflow Car Parks; 450 SF per space for
Short Term and Long Term Car Parks; 200 SF per space for Taxi Hold; and 15 LF per space for Curb.
(3) The area of the Overflow Car Park could not be determined. Number of spaces was estimated during July 2005 HNTB field observations.
3-39
Master Plan
overages, there are enough cycle spaces

for perhaps 80 percent of the demand.
Since cycles are a preferred mode of
Airport access, providing adequate cycle
parking is a significant need. Future
needs will grow with passenger demand.
The basis of Airport parking requirements relates to the current adequacy of

each car park type. The car parks were
observed, and their occupancy counted,
during the midday of a mid-week day in July
2005. While this condition is reasonably
representative of the situation upon which
one might base a facility requirements
estimate, requirements typically would be
based on a review of detailed data by hour of
the day and day of the week for the entire
busy season at the Airport. At Bermuda
International, however, there is not a central
parking revenue control system which can
provide such data, and thus the facility
requirements are based on anecdotal
information and professional judgement.
Long-term Car Park:

Observations
showed the lot to be roughly 75 percent
full in July, but anecdotal evidence
suggests that it frequently reaches
capacity. Requirements are linear with
passenger demand.
Overflow Car Park: There was no

overflow condition observed due to the
season. An overflow facility is typically
sized based on available land, as the
objective is to not turn away any vehicle
desiring to park at peak holiday times.
Anecdotal data on overflow utilisation is
that it is approximately half full during
the major holidays. The requirement is
based on that assumption.
Curb spaces: These spaces are used for

delivery, service vehicles, those doing
business with the Airport and its
concessionaires,
and
occasionally
passenger-related functions.
The
requirements are based on observed
utilisation.
The following should be noted in

reviewing the requirements for each type of
car park:
Short-term Car Park: Field observations

in July showed the car park mostly
empty at the peak midday period.
Reports are that it fills perhaps two or
three times per month when flights are
delayed and vehicles associated with
departing passengers overlap with
vehicles associated with arriving
passengers.
HNTBs experience
elsewhere is that requirements are
typically not set by these aperiodic
events. We conclude, therefore, that the
car park is adequately sized for
automobiles, and will need to grow
proportionately with future passenger
demand.
As seen in Table 3.17, additional spaces

are currently required for cycle spaces and
for short-term and long-term car parks. The
shortfalls increase over time. For overflow
and curb spaces, however, there is adequate
room to handle demand through the
planning horizon.
Cycle spaces:
Cycle parking by
observation and anecdote is not
adequate today. Based on observed
3-40
Master Plan
terminal building. This section presents

combined cargo requirements, including
freight and mail.
Other Car Parks

The Staff Car Park and Managers Car
Park have reached capacity at the Airport,
while demand for staff and managers
parking will undoubtedly increase through
2025. Demand for Airport employee car
parks tends to grow at the same rate as total
aircraft operations. In Bermuda, based upon
the fact that general aviation activity is
segregated on the north side of the Airport,
away from the existing terminal complex,
demand for terminal-area employee car
parks should increase proportionately with
total operations less general aviation
operations. This is reflected in Table 3.17.
The measure used to define building

requirements of cargo facilities is the
building utilisation rate. Building utilisation
rates are expressed as square feet (or square
metres) of building are per annual ton (or
tonne) of freight. Based on 2004 freight
tonnage at BDA, the existing facilities have a
building utilisation rate of 2.3 square feet per
ton (0.24 square metres per tonne).
A recent survey of 70 international (nonU.S.) airports showed that the average cargo
building utilisation rate for airports is
approximately 2.2 square feet per ton (0.22
square metres per tonne). Because this
average is similar to the building utilisation
rate of BDA, it appears that the Airports
cargo facilities are well-utilised and would
require expansion to accommodate future
increases in cargo demand. Assuming a
building utilisation rate of 2.2 square feet per
ton, the Airport will require nearly 44,000
square feet (4,100 square metres) of cargo
building space in 2025, as shown in Table
3.18.
Taxi holding demand is projected to

grow at the same rate as passenger
enplanements at the Airport. The current
requirement in the holding area is based on
the assumption that the holding area needs
to minimally provide the same number of
taxis as can be stored in the two taxi queues,
or roughly 50 taxis. Existing capacity at the
Airport is therefore more than sufficient to
meet future demand through 2025.
The most critical parking requirement is
not for automobiles, but for scooters. The
spaces marked for scooters in most locations
are currently filled in peak times. Providing
more scooter parking, or replacing some
automobile spaces with scooter spaces
would be beneficial, as it would encourage
the use of this more efficient mode of
transport.
3.7
Cargo apron requirements reflect typical

cargo apron layouts and the future peak
period fleet mix. The apron requirements
include room for a 50-foot to 100-foot (15metre to 30-metre) marshalling area
between the cargo building and the nose of
the aircraft, 25-foot (8-metre) wingtip
clearance between aircraft, a 24-foot (7metre) two-lane tug road, and space for an
ICAO Code Letter D aircraft and taxilane.
The total depth of the cargo apron would
AIR CARGO
Cargo activities (including air freight

and mail) occur at the cargo shed on the
west side of the airfield, directly east of the
3-41
Master Plan
Table 3.18
Air Cargo Requirements
Facility Type
Building
Square Feet
Square Metres
Ramp
Aircraft Positions
ICAO Code Letter C (2)
ICAO Code Letter D (3)
Total
Area (4)
Square Yards
Square Metres
Site (5)
Acres
Hectares
Existing
2004/05
2010
21,200 (1)
1,972 (1)
1
0
1
25,070
2,332
1
0
1
Required
2015
30,220
2,810
2
0
2
2020
36,430
3,388
1
1
2
2025
43,920
4,085
1
1
2
16,530
13,819
6,190
5,175
11,300
9,447
15,740
13,159
15,740
13,159
5.3
2.1
3.1
1.2
5.2
2.1
6.7
2.7
7.7
3.1
Notes: (1) Includes cargo shed and courrier building.

(2) Equivalent to FAA ADG-III aircraft.
(3) Equivalent to FAA ADG-IV aircraft.
(4) 2004/05 estimate includes apron immediately behind cargo shed and courrier building.
(5) Includes building, ramp, taxilane, truck dock, auto parking, and buffer.
3-42
Master Plan
3.8.1
therefore be approximately 400 feet to 450

feet (120 metres to 140 metres).
Based on a review of hourly activity at

BDA during a busy month (July 2004),
approximately six GA operations occur
during a typical peak hour on a busy day.
This
translates
into
about
63
crew/passengers passing through the GA
terminal in a busy peak hour.29 The current
GA Executive Jet Terminal is 1,076 square
feet (100 square metres), or about 23 square
feet per peak hour passenger. A terminal
serving a similar demand level on the
mainland would be about twice as large,
based on a typical industry standard of 49
square feet per peak hour crew/passenger.
Recognising the unique service pattern at
BDA and the fact that the existing facility
appears to be adequately sized to
accommodate current activity levels, future
terminal size requirements were calculated
by applying the current ratio of 23 square
feet per peak hour crew/passenger levels to
future peak hour crew/passenger levels.
As shown in Table 3.8, assuming the

apron behind the existing cargo shed and
courier building is available for cargo
aircraft parking, no additional ramp would
be needed, assuming that cargo facilities
would remain in their current location.
The overall area required for cargo
processing, including airside, building, lorry
docks, car park, and buffer area would
increase to approximately 7.7 acres (3.1
hectares) by 2025.
3.8
GA Terminal
GENERAL AVIATION
FACILITIES
GA facility requirements are identified

based on the projections of GA demand
presented in Chapter Two, as well as
discussions with DAO staff.
Unlike GA facilities in the U.S., the
Executive Jet Facility does not cater to small
GA aircraft, as they cannot safely or
efficiently traverse the significant over-water
distance.
For this reason, the facility
primarily serves medium-size and large-size
business jet aircraft. Additionally, based on
discussions with DAO staff, GA aircraft are
either typically flown in and parked while
the crew leave the Airport to stay at a nearby
hotel, or aircraft quickly depart from the
Airport (as is often the case with fractional
ownership aircraft). Since the overall level
of GA services is limited, a full-service GA
terminal is not warranted.
By 2025, the Executive Jet Terminal will

need to be doubled in size to approximately
2,200 square feet (206 square metres). (See
Table 3.19.) It is likely that the space
allocated to Customs will have to increase to
meet future peak hour demand, while the
space allocated to other functions would not
need to be expanded significantly.
29
The estimate of peak hour passengers is based

on an average occupancy of 6.8 crew/passengers for
small business jets, 8.3 crew/passengers for mediumsized business jets, and 12.0 crew/passengers for large
business jets. These occupancy values are based on
typical seating configurations and a 75 percent load
factor.
3-43
Master Plan
Table 3.19
General Aviation Requirements
Existing
2004/05
Location/Facility
GA Terminal Building
Square Feet
Square Metres
2005
2010
Required
2015
2020
2025
1,076
100
1,076
100
1,090
101
1,388
129
1,751
163
2,212
206
25
15
15
19
24
31
375
310
380
320
484
400
610
510
771
640
3
11
1
15
3
11
1
15
4
15
1
20
5
19
1
25
6
24
2
32
8
30
2
40
35,100
29,344
39,000
32,600
52,160
43,610
61,320
51,260
75,720
63,300
87,500
73,150
8,800
820
8,800
820
11,000
1,020
13,200
1,230
15,400
1,430
880
740
880
740
1,100
920
1,320
1,100
1,540
1,290
N/A
10
12
14
N/A
N/A
150
130
200
170
250
210
300
250
350
290
Total GA Site Requirements (6)

Acres
N/A
Hectares
N/A
9
4
12
5
15
6
18
7
21
8
Auto Parking
Spaces
Lot Size
Square Yards
Square Metres
625 (1)
520
Transient Tie-down Apron

Positions
ICAO Code A
ICAO Code B
ICAO Code C
Total
Square Yards (2)
Square Metres (2)
Based Aircraft Facilities

Hangar (Inc. storage and maint.)
Square Feet
(3)
N/A
Square Metres
N/A
Adjacent Ramp
Square Yards
Square Metres
(4)
Auto Parking
Spaces
(5)
Area
Square Yards
Square Metres
Notes: (1) Based on 25 square feet per space.

(2) Assumes 533 square yards for small GA jets, 711 square yards for mid-size GA jets/turboprops, and 2,500
square yards for large jets. Also includes room for ICAO Code C taxilane and space for ground support
vehicles.
(3) Assumes 2,200 square feet per hangared aircraft and 2,200 square feet per maintenance position.
(4) Assumes one square yard of apron per square foot of hangar space.
(5) Assumes two spaces per aircraft and 25 square yards per space.
(6) Total area of facilities listed above, plus a 10 percent buffer.
3-44
3.8.2
Master Plan
3.8.4
GA Apron Requirements
Total GA Site Requirements
According to DAO, the existing GA apron is

insufficiently sized to accommodate current
demand, which typically reaches 15 aircraft.
As a result, aircraft are regularly parked
along Taxiway Bravo and occasionally along
Taxiway Romeo.
Combining the areas needed for the GA

facilities discussed above results in a total
site area requirement of approximately 21
acres (8 hectares).
A review of daily GA activity during a

busy month (July 2004) confirmed the
immediate parking requirements indicated
by DAO.
Support facilities include airfield

maintenance, fuel storage, and aircraft
rescue fire fighting.
3.9
3.9.1
The future number of aircraft parked on

the GA apron is expected to increase at the
same rate as overall GA operations. By
2025, it is projected that the apron be sized
to accommodate 40 GA aircraft, as shown in
Table 3.9. Based on the anticipated change
in the GA fleet mix, the size of the apron
would need to be approximately 87,500
square yards (73,150 square metres).
3.8.3
SUPPORT FACILITIES
Maintenance Facilities
The DAO has a 1,750-square foot (160square metre) building for an office and
workshop for terminal-related maintenance.
The Airport is currently constructing
two 7,000-square foot (650-square metre)
buildings, one near the former post office
and kitchen area and a second near the BASSerco buildings to store all airfield
maintenance equipment. The two facilities
are scheduled for completion in the next
several months. Recognising that no new
significant airfield improvements have been
identified, these two facilities should be
sufficient to accommodate 20-year airfield
maintenance needs.
GA Hangar Requirements
There are currently three based aircraft

at BDA owned by Longtail Aviation, with
the forecast of based aircraft presented in
Chapter Two showing a total of six based
GA aircraft at BDA by 2025. Recognising
current practice, Bermudas climate, and the
significant investment made on these
aircraft, it is assumed that all based aircraft
will be stored in a conventional hangar.
Hangar space should also be provided for
light maintenance activity.
3.9.2
Fuel Storage Facilities
Annual Jet A-1 fuel flowage has declined

from about 12 million gallons in 1990 to
about five million gallons, according to a
representative of Shell Oil. BDA has a
storage capacity of 150,000 gallons of Jet A-1
fuel, excluding tanker trucks. Based on
discussions with a fuelling representative
from Shell Oil, this translates into a six- to
seven-day supply. During the peak month,
Table 3.9 shows hangar requirements for

future based aircraft storage and aircraft
maintenance requirements. By 2025, hangar
requirements will total 15,400 square feet
(1,430 square metres).
3-45
Master Plan
minute, 6,400 gallons (24,300 litres) of

Performance Level B foam at a discharge
rate of 2,400 gallons (9,000 litres) per
minute, and 1,000 pounds (450 kilograms)
of dry chemical powder.
it is assumed that existing capacity is

adequate for about a five-day supply, which
is a desirable margin of reserve.
Future fuel storage requirements were
based on the forecast growth rate of GA
operations (which currently receive about 27
percent of the fuel) and non-U.S.
commercial seat departures. (As noted in
Chapter One, most U.S. flights ferry enough
fuel to Bermuda for their return trip.)
As noted in Chapter One, Section 1.14,

BDA has four fire fighting vehicles which,
when combined, exceed these requirements.
Chapter 9 of Annex 14 also prescribes
recommended vehicle response times.
Response times are defined by ICAO as the
time between the initial call to the rescue
and fire fighting facility and the time when
the first responding vehicle(s) is (are) in
position to apply foam at a rate of at least 50
percent of the rates specified above. The
operational objective is to achieve a response
time not exceeding two minutes to any point
of a runway and three minutes to any other
part of the movement area in optimum
visibility and surface conditions. Any other
vehicle required to deliver the amounts of
extinguishing agents specified above should
arrive no more than one minute after the
first responding vehicle(s).
Based on the analysis above, fuel storage

requirements for BDA are forecast to
increase 150,000 gallons to 324,000 gallons
by 2025, as shown in Table 3.20.
The existing site comprises about 0.5
acres (0.2 hectares), including the refuellers
building. Based on a review of sites for
similarly-sized storage volumes at other
airports, an additional half acre (0.2
hectares) will be required to accommodate a
doubling of fuel storage capacity.
3.9.3
ARFF Facilities
Chapter 9 of ICAO Annex 14 provides

guidance for rescue and fire fighting
facilities. Based on its existing fleet, BDA is
an Aerodrome Category 9 between the
hours of 7 AM and 11 PM, although it can
meet Aerodrome Category 10 requirements.
Based on discussions with the BAS-Serco

representative directing ARFF operations,
the existing complement of vehicles meets
the ICAO response times described above.
Based on current ICAO safety standards
and existing ARFF facilities at the Airport,
no additional improvements will be
necessary to meet future aviation activity
levels. A desire was expressed, however, that
the bays should ideally face the airfield (they
are currently parallel to the field) and that
the existing fence line be moved behind the
facility.
Based on the existing and forecasted fleet

mix, BDA is anticipated to remain a
Category 8 facility.
The minimum amount of extinguishing
agents required for a Category 9 facility
includes 9,600 gallons (36,400 litres) of
Performance Level A foam at a discharge
rate of 3,600 gallons (13,500 litres) per
3-46
Master Plan
Table 3.20
Fuel Storage Requirements
Based on Five-day Peak Month Reserve
Existing
Capacity (Gallons)
GA
Air Carrier
Total
Site Requirement
Acres
Hectares
40,500 (1)
109,500 (2)
150,000
8,265
0.5
0.2
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
40,500
109,500
150,000
53,600
123,800
177,400
67,700
146,600
214,300
85,600
176,600
262,200
108,100
216,200
324,300
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.2
12,467
0.7
0.3
0.8
0.3
1.0
0.4
Notes: (1) Assumes 27 percent requirement for GA, based on discussions with Shell Oil representative.
GA fuel storage requirement forecast to increase at same rate as GA operations.
(2) Assumes 73 percent of total requirement for air carrier based on discussions with Shell Oil
representative. Air carrier requirement forecast to increase at same rate as non-U.S. seat
departures.
3-47
Master Plan
prohibitively expensive, and replacement

is recommended.
3.10 USEFUL LIFE ANALYSIS

Facility requirements cannot be accurate
without also considering the useful life of
existing assets. Measuring growth in activity
permits the calculation of requirements, but
it does not calculate additional requirements
that exist because facilities will wear out or
require rehabilitation. Because these events
also require capital, it is important to
identify their timing.
Table 3.21 presents the estimated useful
life of Airport assets for which data are
available. In general, most Airport assets
have a useful life that extends to or beyond
the end of the planning period. This is due
in many cases to rehabilitation that was
required after Hurricane Fabian. Those
facilities that will require replacement or
rehabilitation during the planning period
are:
Wind Socks (New Asset #1092 and

#1093): It is estimated that these will
require replacement in approximately 10
years. It is not expected, however, that
these will require a measurable amount
of capital.
Transformer Vault (Old Asset #1058):

This assets estimated life extends to
2015. Rehabilitation at that point is
possible.
Taxi Operator Building (New Asset

#0631): Life expectancy of this building
is 2012. Rehabilitation is expected to be
Customs Warehouse (New Asset #0643):

This assets useful life extends to
approximately 2015, when rehabilitation
will likely be possible.
Guard House (New Asset #1094): This

assets useful life is expected to extend to
approximately 2020, at which time,
rehabilitation should be possible.
When determining overall facility

requirements, it is recommended that
rehabilitation or replacement of these
facilities be included.
3.11 UTILITIES
Since the utilities serving the existing
terminal area accommodated activity levels
that are higher than forecasted as part of this
Master Plan, they should be adequate to
accommodate long-term demand.
Emergency Generator Building (Old

Asset #114): This assets estimated life
extends to 2018. Rehabilitation at that
point is possible.
Any reconfiguration of the existing

terminal area is not expected to require
major revision to these utility systems from a
standpoint of size and routing. However,
the construction of a new terminal,
depending on its location, would require the
construction of conduits and pipelines to
connect with the existing utilities.
Alternative utility layouts will be considered
in the Alternatives Phase of the Master Plan
to ensure the most cost-effective
development strategy is selected.
3-48
Master Plan
Table 3.21
Useful Life Analysis
of Airport Physical Assets (Except Terminal and Pavements)
Asset Number
(Old)
(New)
114
115
116
330
0637
331
0639
341
0629 (1)
397
443
444
446
706
0628
956 (2)
966 (2)
967 (2)
968 (2)
1014
0627
1035
1092
1038
1095
1039
1096
1048
1093
1058
1076
1079
1101
1104
1162
0638
1166
0652
1421
1438
0642
1439
0644
1574
0630
2
0631
0632
0633
0634
0635
0636
0640
0641
0643 (3)
0645
0646
0647
0648
0649
0650
0651
1089
1090
1091
Name
EMER GENERATOR F/WEATHER
ELECT DISB. FOR WEATHER
WEATHER RADAR
FIRE CRASH RESCUE (CFR)
BAS SERCO OFFICES
ATC TOWER
EMER PWR PLT/TRANSFORMER
ANTENNA
ANTENNA
ANTENNA
ANTENNA FARM AND GENERATOR
ACFT WASHRACK-PAVEMENT
ACFT PUMP STATION
ACFT WASHRACK TANK
ACFT PUMP STATION
HELICOPTER BUILDING
WIND SOCK 12 END
STD BY GEN/TRANSFORMER
APPROACH LIGHTING 30 END NAV AIDS
WIND SOCK 30 END
TRANSFORMER VAULT 75KVA
EMERGENCY GENERATOR BUILDING
AIR OPS/NOCF
AVIONICS BUILDING/SUPPLY GND E
TV VAULT 375 KVA
COMBINED FIRE/RESCUE BLDG
HANGAR BUILDING/GENERATOR
AIR SURVEILLANCE RADAR-7
ILS BUILDING/ANTENNA
INST APPLIED GLIDE SLOPE/ANTENNA
MET OFFICE/GES OFFICES
TAXI OPERATOR BUILDING
ASB/BAS WORKSHOP
AIRPORT KITCHEN
CAT AIR COURIER BLDG
CAT SECURITY GATE 102
CAT DAO MAINTENANCE
REFUELING BUILDING
MAIN TERMINAL BUILDING
CUSTOMS WAREHOUSE
TRANSFORMER VAULTS AND AIR
TERMINAL GENERATORS
AIRFIELD LIGHTING TRANSFORMER
VAULT AND GENERATOR
POST OFFICE SORTING BUILDING
ATC VAULT/GENERATOR
S DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR
SITE/VAULT
BELCO TRANSFORMER VAULT
SECURITY GATE 103
OLD WEATHER RADAR ANTENNA/
BUILDING/VAULT
4 ANTENNAS AT RTR SITE
VOR BUILDING/GENERATOR BUILDING
Year
Built
1957
N/A
1957
1959
1959
1953
1953
1968
1968
1968
1955
1959
1988
1988
1988
1959
1988
1965
1988
1954
1966
1942
1990
1957
1992
1992
1973
1975
1975
1981
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2004
2004
1980s/2004
2005
2005
2000/2004
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Additional
Rehabilitation
Possible?
Yes
N/A
No
Yes
Yes
Sched. For 2006
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
BLDC
BLDC
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2004
Yes
Year
Rehabilitated
2003
N/A
1987/2005
1998/2003
1990
1987/1999
1987/2003
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2005
est. 1988
2004
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2005
N/A
2005
N/A
N/A
Sched 2006
N/A
N/A
1955
1987
2003
N/A
2003
N/A
1094
331 GUARD HOUSE
1988
2003
Notes: (1) Depending upon future development, may be an obstruction and relocation would be required.
(2) Facilities 956, 966, 967, and 968 are currently leased to Bermuda Youth and Sports.
(3) Due to other planning issues, may be relocated prior to end of useful life.
Source: Department of Airport Operations.
3-49
2015
Unit Type Dimensions

Unit Type LxWxH in FT.
Utility
23x16x10
Utility
N/A
Utility
0x0x251
Public Safety 125x122x25
Office
113x48x14
Utility
43x32X60
Utility
28x16x10
Utility
N/A
Utility
N/A
Utility
N/A
Utility
69x36x10
N/A
170x145x0
N/A
17x8x7
N/A
N/A
N/A
34x16x10
Utility
49x54x20
Utility
N/A
Utility
47x23x11
Utility
Utility
N/A
Utility
17x10x9
Utility
N/A
Utility
170x120x15
Utility
148x100x30
Utility
16x10x9
Public Safety
76x52x27
Industrial
504x256x55
Utility
24x24x25
Utility
12x8x9
Utility
12x8x10
Utility
85x76x11
Public Transp 39x19x16
Industrial
171x61x30
Industrial
285x102x
Industrial
63x42x30
Public Safety
60x45x14
Industrial
20x20x20
Utility
89x42x20
Public Transport
Industrial
178x102x30
2025
Utility
2025
Utility
Yes
2030
Industrial
Utility
Yes
2030
Utility
Yes
Yes
2030
2030
Utility
Public Safety
Yes
2025
Utility
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
2030
2030
2020
Utility
Utility
Utility
Public Safety
Yes
Yes
Estimated
Life End
2018
N/A
N/A
2040
2038
2030
2030
N/A
N/A
N/A
2030
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2035
2015
2025
2030
2015
2015
2025
2025
2045
2025
2040
2035
2035
2030
2012
2025
2010
2015
2030
2025
2025
Construction
Materials
Conc Block/Conc Roof
Conc Block/Steeldeck Roof


Steel Frame/Steel Cladding
Prefabricated Steel Unit
Prefabricated Steel Unit
Conc Block/BDA Slate Roof
and Self Contained Unit
140x87x29

17x17x15
23x21x40/
11x9x8
5x5x9
Steel Frame/Steel Cladding

Metal Pass-Through Unit
Master Plan
3.12 STORM SURGE

PROTECTION
Recognising Bermudas susceptibility to

tropical cyclones, Airport facilities should be
designed and laid out in such a way as to
minimise potential damage from storm
surges and wave action.
Surge elevations observed or calculated

from observations of Hurricane Fabian are:
Location Elevation/Hurricane Fabian (1)
Departure Terminal
10.9 ft. (3.31 m)
Taxi Office
6.3 ft. (1.94 m)
At Taxiways
8.2 ft. (2.50 m)
Ferry Reach
9.6 ft. (2.93 m)
According to the Bermuda Weather

Service, since 1900, Bermuda has been either
directly hit or has been brushed by nearly 50
tropical storms or hurricanes. The Bermuda
Government commissioned the preparation
of two reports entitled, Cahow Way
Shoreline Stabilisation Preliminary Report
and Coastal Protection and Development
Planning Guidelines for Bermuda. These
reports address the impact of Hurricane
Fabian and put forth mitigation measures
for the shoreline along Cahow Drive. The
passenger terminals proximity to the waters
of Castle Harbour subjects it the danger of
flooding when severe storms such as Fabian
pass over Bermuda. Entry-level elevation for
the new terminal can be set at a level that
will offset the threat of flooding, or other
measures could be implemented to maintain
functionality of operations during these
events.
(1) All elev. based on Ordinance Datum Sea Level.
The difference in the flood elevation is

due to the actual protection from direct
exposure to the same onslaught of the waves.
Note the difference between the Departure
Lounge and Taxi Lounge proximity to the
Castle Harbour.
Factors to be considered include:
Storm surge and wave action,
Operational status during the different

types of weather events,
Category of Hurricane to be considered

as Hurricane of Record,
Location and direction of hurricane

centre, and
Percent of construction cost to be

directed to flood-related items.
3-50

4.
Master Plan
CONCEPTS
Chapter Four
CONCEPTS
4.1
findings and presents the recommended

terminal option.
INTRODUCTION
This Chapter describes the process for

identifying and analysing alternative
development
options
for
Bermuda
International Airport which will meet the
facility requirements presented in Chapter
Three. The effort focussed on a dual track
approach to identify and select a preferred
terminal development option.
4.2
OPPORTUNITIES AND
CONSTRAINTS
The landmass upon which the Airport is

situated is physically constrained. Much of
it is surrounded by water, and topography
rises sharply northeast of the airfield. In
addition, access to much of the site is
limited.
Finally, existing and planned
development serve as both potential
opportunities and constraints. During a
working session held in Bermuda in
November 2005, general opportunities and
constraints for various potential terminal
locations were identified. (See Figure 4-1.)
Key factors include:
In the first track, a potential site for a

new terminal was identified, an optimal
terminal development layout for a new site
was selected, and cargo, general aviation,
and other support facilities layouts were
generated. In the second track, an optimal
layout for a redeveloped terminal at the
existing site was determined and layouts for
support facilities were prepared. Upon the
evaluation of both terminal development
options, a recommended Airport concept
built around the preferred terminal
development option will be selected.
Section 4.2 identifies the opportunities
and constraints associated with the Airport.
Section 4.3 outlines the overall planning
strategy used in the concepts process.
Section 4.4 presents the analysis concerning
selection of a site and layout for a new
terminal. Section 4.5 presents the analysis
concerning redevelopment of the passenger
terminal at its existing site. Section 4.6
describes the evaluation process used to
compare the two terminal development
options.
Section 4.7 summarises the
4-1
ICAO design standards and obstacle

clearances,
A new causeway/bridge location,
Storm surge protection,
Connectivity with ferry service,
Rising topography on the northeast side

of the airfield,
Limited access to much of the site,
The existing industrial uses on the

northwest side of the Airport,
Figure 4-1
New Terminal SiteOpportunities and Constraints
Master Plan
4.4.1
The location of residential areas

immediately northeast of the airfield,
and
Early in the process, four possible sites

for a replacement terminal were identified,
as shown in Figure 4-4:
The location of environmentallysensitive areas to the east of the airfield.
In addition, environmental issues would

also need to be considered. (See Figures 4-2
and 4-3.) The development of terminal
options at both a new location or the
existing site is intended to take advantage of
the opportunities listed above to the
maximum extent possible, while respecting
the constraints.
4.3
Weapons Pier (Finger),
Apron V area at the extreme east end of

the airfield,
West end of Airport, north of the

existing terminal, and
Site of former NATO facility.
The first two sites, upon initial analysis,

were not considered to be good candidates
for a relocated terminal. For the Weapons
Pier, the landform was determined to be too
narrow to permit an efficient terminal
layout.
Additionally, providing public
access to the site would be difficult. Finally,
there are environmental concerns that
would have to be addressed (i.e., turtle
nesting sites and weapons clean-up). The
Apron V site would likewise not be an
adequate location, primarily due to its
remoteness and accessibility difficulties.
OVERALL PLANNING
STRATEGY
The overarching goal of the study is to

provide a world class airport that is both
functional and sustainable. Recognising this
goal, the planning approach to the concepts
phase of the study prioritised selecting a
terminal site and layout and then fitting
other facilities (such as cargo, GA, and
support functions) around the terminal.
This approach also recognises that
development options for support facilities
are limited.
4.4
Screening Initial Sites
Based on these initial considerations,

DAO staff agreed to limit further analysis to
the first two sites: 1) the west end of the
Airport north of the existing terminal, and
2) the former NATO facility, as shown in
Figure 4-5.
NEW TERMINAL
DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
A two-step process was used to identify a

recommended new terminal concept. The
first step was to identify and evaluate general
site locations. The second step involved
analysing a set of terminal configurations
within the selected general site location.
4.4.2
Evaluation of New Terminal

Sites
The two remaining locations were

initially discussed at a Team meeting held in
Bermuda in mid-November 2005. (A record
of various considerations and options is
4-2
Figure 4-2
Terrestrial Environmental Considerations
Figure 4-3
Marine Environmental Constraints
NATO Site
West Site
Figure 4-4
General New Terminal Site Locations
Weapons Pier
(Not Considered)
Apron V
(Not Considered)
N
West Site
Example Layout
NATO Site
N
To
Ferry
Stop
Example Layout
Figure 4-5
New Terminal Sites Retained for Further Consideration
Master Plan
differentiator
with
other
island
destinations, aesthetics/enhancement of
Bermuda
Image,
and
green/
sustainability);
shown in Appendix C.)

During this
meeting, a set of evaluation criteria was
developed based on discussions with DAO
staff, and an initial list of the positives and
negatives of each site was prepared. It was
agreed that further analysis would be
required to identify a preferred site. On
November 30, 2005, an interim meeting was
held
to
reach
a
preliminary
recommendation, and on January 26, 2006, a
third meeting was convened to finalise the
recommendation. At this last meeting, it
was agreed that the evaluation criteria
should be presented in rank order of
importance. This rank ordering was based
on Governments desired outcomes for the
Airport and Nation as a whole, as well as on
generally established professional practices.
Following is a summary of the evaluation
process.
Seven general evaluation criteria were

identified and are presented in rank order of
priority:
Customer service (including satisfaction
of the program, level of service, ground
access travel time, and connectivity to
water transport);
Flexibility/expandability (including post2025

expansion
capability
and
responsiveness to changes in the
industry);
Support of local and national goals and

compatibility with national plans
(including impacts on residential
neighbourhoods, park/recreation opportunities, ancillary development, connectivity with water transport as a unique
Ability to withstand storms;
Significant cost differentiators;
Operational
efficiency
(including
average delay per aircraft operation,
average taxi distance, and average
number of runway crossings by aircraft
and ground vehicles); and
Phasing/impact on other Airport

functions (including requirement for
BLDC land and impacts on existing
facilities and functions).
At this point in the analysis, the two new

terminal locations were evaluated on a
general order-of-magnitude level in each of
the above categories.
Evaluation Criteria
Results of Evaluation Process

The options were reviewed, and a
consensus was reached concerning their
relative merits and drawbacks. Following is
a discussion of the outcome. Table 4.1
summarises the results of the screening
process.
4-3
Master Plan
Table 4.1
Screening of New Terminal Development Sites (1)
(1 of 2)
Western
Site
Former NATO
Site
Similar
Similar
No notable change from current

travel time
10-15 pct. increase over current

and west site
Walkable to terminal
Requires motorized connection
Yes
No
17+
12
Very good
Limited
No change in impacts
More impacts
Less opportunity
More opportunity
Will more likely reflect

vacation/business elements
Will more likely reflect industrialtype development
Connectivity with Water Transportation as Unique

Differentiator with other Island Destinations
Terminal closer to water

transportation
Terminal farther from water

transportation
Aesthetics and Enhancement of "Bermuda Image"
Offers opportunity for superior

vistas of ocean and potentially
favorable views of striking
terminal facility from new
causeway/bridge
Site adjacent to industrial site (ship

docks) and opposite the "Finger,"
resulting in inferior vistas, limited
views from road
Similar
Similar
Requires significant physical

improvement to withstand
Category 4 storm
Provides natural protection against

a Category 4 storm
Category
Criteria
Terminal
Customer Service
Ground Access Travel Time

Connectivity to Water Transport
Expandability/
Flexibility
Can Accommodate Various Terminal

Layouts/Configurations
Maximum Number of ICAO Code E Equivalent Gates
(2)
Landside Expandability
Impact on Residential Neighbourhoods
Park/Recreation Opportunities
Ancillary Development
Support of Local/
National Goals and
Consistency with
National Plans
Green/Sustainability
Storm Protection
Relocation of Executive Jet

Facility, flight kitchen, and air mail
facility; phasing costs may be
Relocation of NATO hangar and
higher depending on layout
fuelling system (4)
option; cost of storm surge
protection (4)
Cost
Average Aircraft Delay per Operation

Avg. Passenger Airline Taxi Distance per Operation
Operational Efficiency
Similar (5)
Similar (5)
8,500 ft. (2,591 m)
4,800 ft. (1,463 m)
Average Number of Aircraft Runway Crossings
15-35 per day, depending on

15-20 per day, primarily GA and
location of GA and cargo facilities
cargo operations
Ground Vehicle Runway Crossings
Allows cargo functions to remain

Could result in ground vehicle
on same side of airfield as
runway crossings if cargo facilities
passenger terminal, resulting in no
are kept on opposite of airfield
crossings
4-4
Master Plan
Table 4.1 (cont'd)

Screening of New Terminal Development Sites
(2 of 2)
Category
New
Terminal
Redevelopment of
Existing Terminal
No
Yes
Level of disruption would be

contingent upon layout option
selected
No foreseen impacts during

construction of new terminal
Some possible disruptions during

construction, depending on
selected layout

Criteria
Requires Land from BLDC
Impact on Existing Civil Terminal
Impact on Existing Cargo/Courier Facility-Phasing/Construction Impacts
Impact on Existing Cargo/Courier Facility--Ultimate

Operation
Phasing/Impact on
Other Airport
Functions
Most to all cargo functions would

be located on opposite side of
All-cargo facilities could be located
airfield; would require trucking
adjacent to new passenger
belly cargo across airfield or
terminal
constructing a separate belly cargo
facility adjacent to new terminal
Existing Executive Jet Facility
Must be relocated from existing

site

Existing Flight Kitchen
Might be relocated depending on

layout option selected

Existing Mail Facility/ASB Mechanics Workshop
Might be relocated depending on

layout option selected

No impact; site may be used for

other function
Would be removed and relocated
Existing NATO Hangar
Airline Fuelling
Existing fuelling facilities could be

New fuel facilities would be
used; replacement facilities could
required, including new fuel lines
be built along existing fuel lines
Air Traffic Control Tower-to-Terminal Line-of-sight
Slight improvement over existing

site
Significant improvement over

existing site
2
3
4
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
1
0
2
6
Overall Score (Number of Positives)

1. Customer Service
2. Flexibility/Expandability
3. Support of Local/National Goals and Plans
4. Storm Surge Mitigation
5. Cost
6. Operational Efficiency
7. Phasing/Impact on Other Airport Functions
Notes: (1) Criterion where one site has clear advantage indicated by green color.
(2) Depending on site option selected.
(3) Terminal at western site would be designed to withstand Category 4 storm.
(4) At this phase, order-of-magnitude costs appear similar for both alternatives.
(5) Assumes taxiway improvements to eliminate head-to-head conflicts.
Sources: HNTB, C&G and UII analysis.
4-5
Master Plan
neighbourhood of St. Davids. In addition,

the land required to create a signature
entrance into the Airport at the NATO site
would involve a significant impact on this
established community and would involve
taking lands from the BLDC.
Customer Service
Both new terminal sites would be
designed to provide optimal customer
service. However, a facility located on the
western side of the Airport would have a
lower average ground access travel time for
the majority of users, saving, on average, as
much as 10 percent to 15 percent of their
total access time compared to a terminal at
the NATO site. A western site would also
afford superior opportunities to connect to
water transportation, which is anticipated to
play a larger role in the future, especially for
visitor transportation.
A terminal at the NATO site would be

more difficult to access/coordinate water
transportation, which is a critical part of the
Islands plan for sustainability and is a
unique opportunity that could differentiate
Bermuda and this Airport from other island
destinations.
The western site would provide better
opportunities to promote the Bermuda
Image. The NATO site would not allow the
Island to capitalize on showcasing the
natural beauty of Bermuda for arriving
visitors to the same extent that a western
facility would. This is because a terminal on
the western site could be oriented to provide
superior vistas of the ocean and potentially
favourable views of an aesthetically-striking
terminal facility when viewed from the road.
A new terminal at the NATO site would be
adjacent to an industrial site (ship docks)
and would be located opposite the finger,
resulting in inferior vistas compared to the
western site.
Advantage: Western Site.

Flexibility/Expandability
A western site offers greater flexibility
with respect to providing opportunity for
accommodating
various
terminal
configurations, meeting ever-evolving and
frequently unanticipated industry trends,
and for accommodating future long-term
(i.e., post-2025) demand.
The NATO
location is more site-constrained due to the
proximity of St. Davids Road, its proximity
and relationship to Taxiway Alpha, and
rising topography.
In connection with showcasing the

Islands natural beauty and the Bermuda
Image, the west site would present a
significant opportunity to capitalize on the
new causeway/bridge configuration, to
create a striking and memorable first
impression of Bermuda for arriving
passengers.
Support of Local and National Goals and

Compatibility of National Plans
It initially appears that a terminal on the
western site would better promote national
planning objectives compared to the NATO
site because a west terminal would have
fewer impacts (traffic, noise, and related
Airport activity) on the residential
A new terminal could be designed to

provide green/sustainable facilities at either
4-6
Master Plan
number of runway crossings (both aircraft

and vehicles), and average aircraft delay.
the west location or at the former NATO

location.
A terminal located at the NATO site

would result in lower average aircraft taxi
distances compared to a terminal on the
western site4,800 hundred feet versus
8,500 hundred feet (1,500 metres versus
2,600 metres), respectively.

Storm Protection
Although a new terminal developed on
the western site could be designed to
withstand a Category 4 hurricane through
elements of the site design, including
earthen berms with rock facing, and
breakwater structures to protect a high
speed ferry dock, the former NATO site
would provide natural protection against a
storm surge associated with hurricane
conditions.
Runway crossings tend to increase

controller workload, and at high traffic
levels reduce overall capacity. If the new
terminal were located on the western site,
half of all daily passenger airline operations
would be required to cross the runway.
Assuming that air cargo and GA facilities
remain on the western site, half of the
aircraft operations associated with these
activity centres would also result in runway
crossings. If the new terminal were located
on the NATO site, no passenger airline
operations would be required to cross the
runway; however, half of air cargo and GA
operations would be required to cross the
runway as the facilities serving these aircraft
would have to be located on the west side
due to site limitations at the NATO site. In
addition, unless a separate facility for belly
cargo were developed adjacent to a terminal
at the NATO site, there would also be a
number of ground vehicle crossings to move
belly cargo between the cargo facility and the
terminal. At this point, it appears the two
sites would therefore have a similar level of
runway crossings.
Advantage: NATO Site.

Cost
It is recognised that cost differentials
between the two site locations will likely
exist. Key cost variables could include a
higher cost for storm surge protection
should the terminal be located at the western
site, and building/facility relocation costs
(e.g., relocating the flight kitchen and
Executive Jet Facility should the terminal be
built on the western site, or removing and
relocating the large hangar should the
terminal be built on the former NATO site).
At this early stage of the analysis, no
significant cost variations with developing a
terminal at either of the two locations.
Advantage: Neither Site.
Because the level of aircraft operations is

forecast to be well below the estimated
capacity of the airfield, neither terminal
location option would provide a measurable
savings in average aircraft delay.
Three measures of operational efficiency
were considered: average taxi distance,
4-7
Master Plan
Summary and Preliminary New Terminal

Site Recommendation
In summary, the NATO site affords

better operational efficiency because average
taxi distances for passenger aircraft would be
lower at this location.
Two general sites were identified and

evaluated as locations for a possible
replacement terminal.
Based on the
evaluation described above, the Master Plan
recommends developing a replacement
passenger terminal on the western site,
should a replacement terminal be the
desired outcome of this process. The
western site would provide superior
customer service, would allow greater
flexibility and expandability to meet aviation
demand beyond the 20-year planning
horizon, and would better support local and
national goals and plans compared to a
terminal at the former NATO site.

Phasing/Impact on Other Airport Functions
Greater consideration would be required
to phasing a new terminal at a western site,
as it would displace the Executive Jet (GA)
Facility. Depending on the terminal layout
option selected for this site, the air mail
facility and flight kitchen would also likely
need to be relocated. The western site may
also impact existing passenger and cargo
operations during construction, depending
on the selected layout.
4.4.3
Development of a new terminal at the

NATO site would require additional land
from BLDC, which gives rise to institutional
issues. For the purposes of this analysis, it is
assumed that additional land would be made
available. Aircraft fuel facilities would have
to be developed on the NATO site. Lastly,
the line-of-site between a passenger terminal
at the NATO site and the control tower
would be superior compared to a terminal
on the western site.
Replacement Terminal
Configuration Analysis
Once the western site was chosen as the

location for a possible new terminal, the next
step in the process was to evaluate various
layouts and locations within the western site.
New Terminal Site Layouts
The new terminal concepts and their
orientations were continually refined
through the process. The latest layouts at
the time of this analysis are shown in Figure
4-6 and are described below.
In the aggregate, it was determined that

there are more enabling projects which
would need to be accomplished in order to
develop a new terminal on the western site,
whereas once land from BLDC is made
available, and the hangar demolished, the
NATO site would be ready for construction.
4-8
Option Alinear terminal positioned at

the site of the current GA and flight
kitchen facilities,
Option Blinear terminal positioned

between the current GA facility and the
current Civil Terminal, with a northsouth orientation,
1000
0m
0m
200m
Option A
Figure 4-6
New Terminal Site/Layout Options
Option B
1000
200m
0
0m
Option C
1000
200m
Master Plan
separate
second
holdroom area.
Option Cfinger pier scheme in the

same location as Option B.
level
international
Baggage for the U.S. bound passengers

would be conveyed from the EDS screening
area to a bag claim device in the U.S.
Customs area, where passengers would
reclaim their bags and proceed to the CBP
passport control (primary and secondary
inspection) area. Upon clearing passport
control, passengers would proceed to a
baggage drop area where their bags would be
delivered by conveyor system to the U.S.
outbound baggage room.
Beyond the
baggage drop area, passengers would take an
escalator to a separate second level U.S.
holdroom area.
Description of Terminal Layouts

General space footprints were developed
for the three concepts. They are described
below.
Option ALinear Concourse Located at
Site of Existing Executive Jet Facility
This layout option features a terminal
with a linear concourse design, similar to
that of the existing Civil Terminal. (See
Figure 4-7.) The layout is based on a singleloaded linear concourse approach with
aircraft parking in a single line along the
concourse which connects to other
functional elements of the terminal. All
functions except passenger holdrooms (U.S.
and international), holdroom concessions,
restrooms,
VIP
lounges,
and
the
Department of Airport Operations would be
located on the ground level.
Baggage for international travellers

would be transported from the EDS
screening area via conveyor to the
international outbound baggage area and
delivered to the aircraft.
Aircraft boarding from the holdroom
areas would be via a building ramp system
and passenger boarding bridges. The ramp
would descend from the holdroom level to
an intermediate landing (boarding bridge
rotunda) area, where passengers would
board the aircraft through the boarding
bridge.
Arriving passengers (U.S. and
international) would exit the aircraft
through the boarding bridge to the
intermediate landing of the ramp, where
they would proceed down the descending
ramp to a secure corridor that would run the
length of the concourse. The secure corridor
would connect the arriving passengers to
HM Customs and Immigration for
processing entry into Bermuda.
Both U.S. and international departing

passengers would utilise the same ticketing
area where they would check in and
surrender their check-in baggage at the
ticket counter. The baggage would be
transported via conveyor to the explosive
detection system (EDS) to be screened.
Upon check-in, the passengers would
proceed to the common security screening
checkpoint area, and beyond this point into
the duty free concessions area. Upon
leaving the duty free concessions area, the
U.S. and international passengers would be
separated, with U.S. passengers proceeding
to U.S. Customs and international
passengers travelling by escalator to a
4-9
Figure 4-7
100 200
Feet
Linear Concourse Concept
Master Plan
The size of the linear concourse terminal

concept is approximately 360,000 square feet
to meet 2025 requirements.
Customer service,
Flexibility,
Option BLinear Concourse Located

Between Existing Executive Jet Facility and
Civil Terminal
Expandability,
Support of local and national goals and

compatibility with national plans,
Ability to withstand storms,
Cost,
Operational efficiency, and
Phasing/impact
functions.
This layout is the same as for Option A,

except the terminal lies between the site of
the existing Executive Jet Facility and the
existing Civil Terminal and is oriented
perpendicular to the existing Civil Terminal,
as shown in Figure 4-6.
Option CPier Concourse Located
Between Existing Executive Jet Facility and
Civil Terminal
of
Airport
Results of Evaluation Process

The options were reviewed, and a
consensus was reached concerning their
relative merits and drawbacks. Following is
a summary of the outcome.
Customer Service
Both the linear terminal concept
(assumed for Option A and Option B) and
pier terminal concept (assumed for Option
C) have the same landside terminal elements
and are conceptually laid out in the same
manner. The passenger flow and location of
support spaces are similar on the non-secure
side. While the areas beyond security differ
in configuration between the terminal
options, the passenger amenities and
support spaces are basically the same and
relate to passenger activity in a similar
Evaluation of New Terminal Layouts

summary
other
At this point in the analysis, the three

new terminal options were evaluated on a
general order-of-magnitude level in each of
the above categories.
This layout option is on the same site as

in Option B; however, it features a finger
pier for the gate concourse, as depicted in
Figure 4-8. With a pier concourse concept,
aircraft would be parked on both sides of the
concourse, which would be perpendicular to
the main terminal. Figure 4-9 shows a
cross-section of the pier concept. The
remainder of the terminal functions would
be similar to that of the linear concept. The
size of the pier concourse concept is
approximately 348,000 square feet (106,070
square meters) to meet 2025 requirements.
Following is a
evaluation process.
on
the
Evaluation Criteria
Eight general evaluation criteria were
identified and are presented in rank order of
priority:
4-10
100 200
Feet
Figure 4-8
Pier Concourse Concept
Figure 4-9
New Terminal Section
Master Plan
however, terminal expansion opportunities,

especially for the concourse, are limited.
manner. In addition, terminal orientation

would not materially affect customer service.
As a result, all three sites options were
assumed to provide optimal customer
service.
Option C appears to provide the greatest

post-2025
development
opportunities,
utilising multiple axes for expansion.
Landside expansion could occur to the
southwest, as well as parallel to the terminal
face. The terminal could expand on either
side, while the concourse could easily be
expanded north-eastward.
Advantage: None of the Options.

Flexibility
Option C was perceived to rank higher
compared to a linear terminal because it
would enable an easier reconfiguration to
balance international versus domestic
gate use. This flexibility would be at the end
of the finger pier. In addition, expansion of
the terminal could occur along two axes,
with the pier extended north-eastward to
provide additional gate capacity and the
terminal extended either to the northwest
and/or to the southeast.
Advantage: Option C.
Support of Local and National Goals and
Compatibility of National Plans
Option A would permit the greatest
opportunities to redevelop the area to the
south (the site of the existing terminal). It
would present excellent views from the
concourse to the south.
With Option B, ground traffic
approaching the Airport from the
bridge/causeway would be afforded a
striking view of the terminal.
Expandability
Consideration was given to long-term
expansion capability (beyond the 20-year
planning horizon of this Study). Landside,
terminal, and concourse expandability were
all examined in this analysis.
Option C would afford superior views

from the concourse and, as with Option B,
provide ground traffic approaching the
Airport from the bridge/causeway a striking
view of the terminal area.
Under Option A, landside expansion

would have to occur parallel to the terminal;
no expansion could occur to the north due
to the roadway and shoreline. Terminal and
concourse expansion would likewise expand
laterally.
Storm Protection
A proposed linear terminal located on
the far north of the western site (Option A)
provides the best natural protection against
a storm surge associated with hurricane
conditions. However, given the proposed
location of the pier terminal, breakwater
With Option B, landside elements would

be able to expand to the west, as well as
laterally along Kindley Field Road.
Terminal and concourse expansion could
also expand along the existing lines;
4-11
Master Plan
structures and/or berms could be built to

protect the new facility at the locations of
Options B and C.
Under Options A and B, the flight

kitchen and Executive Jet Facility would
need to be relocated in the first phase of
construction. Operations at the current
Civil Terminal would be able to continue
with minimal disruption.
Advantage: Option A.
Cost
With Option B, activity at the flight

kitchen and Executive Jet Facility would be
able to continue with minimal disruption
during construction. It appears the flight
kitchen would be able to remain for a certain
period after opening of the new terminal;
however, at some point prior to opening, a
new Executive Jet Facility would need to be
operational.
Phasing would be more
difficult, as construction of this option
would impact commercial operations at the
existing Civil Terminal.
It is assumed for all three development

options that both air cargo and GA facilities
would require relocation. Under Options A
and B, the flight kitchen would also require
relocation. From a terminal development
standpoint, the construction of a pier
terminal layout (Option C) would be less
expensive because it requires approximately
12,000 fewer square feet in total area
compared to Options A and B.
Option C would not impact the flight

kitchen or the Executive Jet Facility during
construction. The flight kitchen would be
able to remain at its current location after
the new terminal opens; however, at some
point prior to use of the new terminal, a new
Executive Jet Facility would need to be built.
The level of impact to the existing Civil
Terminal would be minimal during
construction.
For all three options, it was assumed that
air cargo facilities would be located in the
vicinity of the new terminal, while GA
facilities would be relocated to the north side
of the airfield (most likely at the former
NATO site). For this reason, operational
efficiency focused on commercial passenger
operations. In this regard, Option A is the
least efficient because it would only provide
single aircraft taxi flow into and out of the
terminal area (similar to the constraint at the
current Civil Terminal). Options B and C
were both considered to be equally efficient.
Summary and Preliminary New Terminal
Site Recommendation
While all three options would provide
good customer service, Option C appears to
be the superior layout for a redeveloped
terminal as it would provide the greatest
expandability potential, would best support
local and national goals, would have the
lowest terminal construction cost, and
Advantage: Options B and C.

Phasing/Impact on Other Airport Functions
This evaluation criterion considered how
disruptive construction of the terminal
would be on existing operations.
4-12
Master Plan
runway crossing compared to a site on the

opposite side of the runway. Also, it would
not provide room for post-2025 expansion
opportunity. Finally, it would preclude
using the site of the former Civil Terminal
for other non-airport land uses.
would cause the least disruption during

construction.
4.4.4
Other Airport Facilities

Development Concepts
As noted previously, the strategy for

identifying an overall Airport development
plan prioritised selecting a preferred
terminal option followed by determining
preferred options for other facilities,
including cargo, GA, and support functions.
The weapons finger pier was not

considered further because of access and
environmental issues.
Providing public
access to the site would be contingent upon
filling a portion of Castle Harbour, which
would likely impact some terrestrial and
aquatic habitats; there also may be
environmental remediation associated with
the areas former role as a munitions pier.
It should be noted that the existing

Airport facility is site-constrained, limiting
options for meeting future requirements.
This section describes the recommended
plan for facilities that will be displaced due
to the relocation of the passenger terminal.
Apron V was determined to be a poor

location for GA facilities because of its
remote location and because it would
increase the number of aircraft runway
crossings.
General Aviation
The recommended site for a new
terminal would require the displacement of
the Executive Jet Facility (GA). Second in
size to long-term passenger terminal
facilities, GA is anticipated to require a
significant amount of land area: about 21
acres (8.5 hectares). As such, it was this
element of the Airport that was addressed
next.
Relocating GA facilities to the former

NATO site would take advantage of the
existing hangar and would result in fewer
aircraft runway crossings.
A possible
disadvantage to this location could be some
impact to the recreation grounds to the west
of the site.
Based on the requirements for long-term
GA activity, the former NATO site was
selected as the preferred location for GA
facilities. To minimise impacts on the
recreation area, it is anticipated that the site
would be developed from east to west,
delaying the possible need for the lands
currently being used for recreational
purposes. In addition, the site will be
refined in the plans section of this Study to
minimise impacts. Finally, recognising the
unlikely need for aviation-related uses at the
Possible sites for relocated GA facilities

include the site of the Civil Terminal (which
would be moved in this scenario), the old
weapons finger pier, Apron V on the east
end of the Airport, and the former NATO
site.
Although the
Terminal
is
accommodate
requirements, it
site of the existing Civil

adequately
sized
to
20-year
GA
facility
would result in more
4-13
Master Plan
Other Facilities
Apron V site (on the southeast portion of

the field), a significant portion of this
Airport land could be turned over to BLDC
for redevelopment as a large-scale
recreational facility.
The remaining facilities, Airport rescue

and Fire fighting (ARFF) and flight catering
would be able to remain in their current
location.
Air Cargo
4.5
Although land requirements for future
air cargo facilities will be less than those for
GA, much of the same siting criteria apply to
this element of the Airport. Additionally, it
is desirable from an adjacency perspective to
locate cargo facilities in the vicinity of the
passenger terminal, since a significant
portion of air freight is carried aboard
passenger aircraft. A site on the north side
of the runway (i.e., in the vicinity of the
former NATO facility) was therefore not
considered, as it would require the transport
of large amounts of cargo across the airfield.
The only practical sites for long term cargo
development appear to be east of the flight
kitchen or at the site of the current Civil
Terminal.
REDEVELOPMENT OF
EXISTING TERMINAL
A
considerable
number
of
improvements have been made to the Civil
Terminal since it was transferred to the
Bermudian Government.
The current
layout is a two-storey facility totalling
approximately 237,000 square feet in area. It
is a compilation of additions, which includes
everything from wood frame to concrete
structures, as well as unrelated functional
areas caused by changes in the industry and
the avoidance of a comprehensive
refurbishment of the facility.
The Civil Terminal is at an elevation and
location which is subject to flooding and
damage from hurricane-force winds which
more than occasionally batter the island. To
date, the facility has been repaired following
the most recent hurricane.
A site adjacent to the flight kitchen

appears to be the preferred location because
it would consolidate industrial/commercial
uses and open up the area of the existing
Civil Terminal (which would be vacated
under this scenario) for other development.
In addition to the factors identified as

part of building a new terminal at another
location, there are two additional issues
unique to redevelopment at the existing site:
Fuel Farm
Under the new terminal scenario, the
current fuel farm would be moved to a site
directly northeast of Apron II to provide a
greater opportunity for redevelopment of
the vacated terminal area.
4-14
Condition and layout of existing Civil

Terminal facilities, and
Maintaining
operations
during
construction
(i.e.,
phasing
and
minimising impact on level of customer
service).
Master Plan
development strategy be adopted for this

track.
Recognising the goals of the study, the

recommended terminal redevelopment
scheme chosen for this track (i.e.,
redevelopment at the existing site) must
provide the same level of customer service
and overall functionality as a new relocated
terminal. For this reason, a continued piecemeal approach to further expansion which
would not provide a commensurate level of
service was not considered to be an
appropriate development option. Rather, a
wholesale replacement of the terminal would
be required. Options for redevelopment at
the existing site and a general phasing
approach are described below.
4.5.1
4.5.2
A redeveloped terminal at the existing

site would be configured in a fashion similar
to the linear concourse scheme described for
New Terminal Site Options 1 and 2. A
replacement facility would need to be
phased in an affordable sequence which
minimises disruption to ongoing operations.
Following is a summary of a general phasing
plan, which is also illustrated in Figure 410.
Preliminary Onsite
Redevelopment Strategies
The first step would likely be

constructing a levee-like structure to protect
the new terminal from flooding. It may be
desirable to make the levee a marina
reflecting Bermudas maritime tradition.
The marina could also permit a water taxi
service which will make the trip to and from
the Airport a unique experience and reduce
traffic on the bridge/causeway.
The
connection between the redeveloped
terminal and the marina could be developed
into a festive seaside resort esplanade,
complete with marina side shops and other
themed opportunities.
Two strategies were identified for

redeveloping the terminal at the current
location:
Westward redevelopment, with a

replacement facility directly over the
existing terminal.
Eastward redevelopment, with a replacement facility shifted to the east of the

existing terminal.
Layout and General Phasing

Plan for Redeveloped Terminal
at Existing Site
Westward development would be more

difficult from a phasing standpoint, would
likely be more expensive, and would result
in a greater impact to customer service.
Eastward development would be more
desirable in that it would address replacing
the arrivals portion first (the most
inadequate element of the current terminal),
while maintaining the recently improved
departures hall for most of its useful life. It
was therefore decided that an eastward
The next step in the phasing process

would be constructing a new cargo facility at
the western terminus of Taxiway Bravo and
relocating all cargo operations to that new
facility. The vacated cargo facility would be
razed to accommodate Phase 1 Terminal
and landside construction. Phase 1 would
include a ground level area for a new HM
Customs arrivals facility, a new ground
transportation centre, a new international
4-15
Figure 4-10
Possible Phasing Option for Redeveloped Terminal at Existing Site
Master Plan
space would be demolished to accommodate

construction of the remaining HM Customs
area. Also in Phase 2, the airside elements
near the existing terminal and at the
terminals existing east end (Airport tenant
offices and a portion of the existing bag
claim area) would be demolished. On the
ground level, a new U.S. outbound baggage
facility, a portion of a new U.S. Customs
area, and the remaining new HM Customs
arrivals facility would be constructed. On
the first level, the remaining portion of the
U.S. departure area at the west end of the
new concourse and a new area for DAO on
the east end would be built. During Phase 2,
U.S. passengers would continue to use the
existing departures area on the upper level.
At the end of Phase 2, all aircraft would park
at new positions.
departures area, and portion of a new U.S.

departure area.
During Phase 1 construction, aircraft
would continue to park on the west half of
the terminal. At the completion of Phase 1,
aircraft would park at new positions on the
east side. For temporary landside access to
the existing arrivals area (which would
continue in service during Phase 1
construction), it would be necessary to:
Relocate the staff car park to the north of

the taxi lounge,
Convert the current staff car park to a

long-term car park,
Convert part of the current long-term

car park to a taxi queue area feeding a
reconfigured taxi loading area in the
current location, and
In Phase 2 construction, the old arrivals

area including the portico above taxi loading
and the pre-arranged shuttle area would be
demolished, and the paved areas between
the terminal and Cahow Way would be reconstructed. In this area, a new short-term
car park would be built, as well as the new
taxis queue and taxi loading area just west of
the ground transportation centre wing.
These would become operational upon
completion, and would serve the passengers
during construction of Phase 3.
Convert the balance of the current longterm car park into a holding, queuing,
and access route to the pre-arranged ride
loading area.
Once the Phase 1 addition is built, and

while the temporary landside arrangement
above is operational, a new curb and loading
area would be constructed along the east
face
of
the
new
arrivals/ground
transportation centre wing of the terminal.
This would then become operational, and
the taxis and pre-arranged shuttles would
relocate to temporary facilities just west of
the relocated staff car park and the relocated
long-term car park.
In Phase 3, departing international

passengers would be re-routed from the
existing international security area to the
new international departure area via a
temporary corridor.
Departing U.S.
passengers would be re-routed from the
existing escalator area to the new U.S.
departure area via a temporary corridor.
The vacated terminal areas in this phase
In Phase 2, BAS-Serco, and Airport

tenant offices would be relocated to either a
temporary or new location. The vacated
4-16
Master Plan
new staff and managers car parks on the

west, the construction of some additional
long-term car park on the western approach
to the departures curb, and the
reconfiguration of the area in front (south)
the new departures curb, with the closest
third of spaces designated as short-term, and
the balance as long-term.
(HM Customs and the international ground

level departures area) would then be
demolished. The Bermuda Police, bank, and
other tenant areas would be vacated with
these functions relocated to a temporary
location in the existing terminal; the vacated
areas would then be demolished. A portion
of a new ticketing wing (which would
include ticket counters, airline ticket offices,
security checkpoint, the remaining portion
of the new U.S. Customs area, baggage
screening area, duty free, and public
concessions area) would then be
constructed. On the upper level, the existing
U.S. departures area, concessions, and VIP
club areas would be demolished and a new
east end area would be built. This area
would include space for the remaining
portion of the new DAO offices.
4.5.3
Concepts for Other Airport

Facilities for Redeveloped
Terminal at Existing Site
Under a scenario which shows terminal

redevelopment at its existing site, all other
Airport elements would be located as
described assuming a relocated terminal site,
with the exception of the fuel farm, which
would remain in its current location.
4.6
Under construction in Phase 3 for the

landside would be the future new departures
curb in the area where service vehicles
currently park in front of the police, the
bank, etc. The short-term car park to the
south would be configured in part to a longterm car park which would be operational
during Phase 3 construction. In this time
frame, too, the final configuration of the taxi
and pre-arranged ride loading, queuing, and
hold areas would be operational.
EVALUATION OF
TERMINAL
DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPTS
This section presents the technical

analysis needed to compare and evaluate the
best alternative for redeveloping a terminal
at a new site versus redevelopment at the
existing site.
4.6.1
Phase 4 would see the vacated ticketing

wing and U.S. Customs area demolished and
the remaining west new area of the
redeveloped terminal constructed. This area
would include the remaining functions
associated with ticketing.
The final
construction would also be accomplished for
the balance of landside facilities, which
would include a new approach roadway to
the new departures curb, the construction of
Evaluation Criteria
The criteria used to evaluate the

performance of the two terminal
development concepts are described below.
In many instances, there are no measurable
differences between the two options;
however, these criteria are still listed.
Customer Service
4-17
Ground access travel time to terminal,
Master Plan
Wayfinding from approach road,
Average walking distance from ticketing

to furthest U.S. gate,
Consistency with National Transportation

Plan
Average walking distance from ticketing

to furthest international gate,
Sustainability potential.
Segregates Airport traffic from nonairport traffic,
Number of level changes in the terminal,
Provides opportunity for pedestrian

access to Fast Ferry stop, and
Walking distance from auto parking to

departure gate,
Accessible by land-based public transportation.
Walking distance to potential Fast Ferry

connection,
Environmental Considerations
Impact on residential neighbourhoods.
Noise impact,
Terrestrial habitats,
Marine habitats, and
Impacts related to terminal development.
Walking to Fast Ferry, and
Number of roadway lane crossings.
Degree to which gates can adapt to

changes in U.S./international mix,
Maximum number of contact gates,
Landside expandability/flexibility,
Cargo facility expandability/ flexibility,
GA expandability/flexibility, and
Support
ibility.
facilities
Storm Protection
expandability/flex-
Cost, and
Minimum distance between terminal

building and shore.
Financial Implications
Support for Local/National Goals
Terminal cost (including

projects and contingency),
enabling
Opportunity for recreation land,
Phasing implications to financials,
Ancillary development opportunities,
Commercial benefits external to Airport,
Aesthetics and enhancement of the

Bermuda Image,
Maximum potential private funding, and
4-18
Master Plan
Net revenue impacts.
4.6.2
Average aircraft delay per operation,
Average taxi distance from terminal to

midpoint of Runway 12-30,
Average taxi distance from Executive Jet

Facility to midpoint of Runway 12-30,
Average taxi distance from air cargo

facility to midpoint of Runway 12-30,
and
Terminal Development
Options Evaluation
The two terminal development options

were then analysed as to their impact on the
listed criteria. Following is a description of
the analysis. Table 4.2 is an evaluation
matrix summarising the findings.
Customer Service
Both terminal options would provide
customers with an excellent level of service,
with no distinguishable differences between
the concepts with regard to ground access
travel time, way-finding, average walking
distances, and level changes. The distance
View of passenger apron from air traffic

control tower.
Safety
Impact on former NATO hangar.
Ability to meet ICAO-recommended

design standards.
Ease of Phasing/Impact on Ongoing

Airport Functions
Land acquisition
BLDC,
Construction impact on terminal operations,
Number of relocations,
Impact on air cargo/courier operations,
Impact on existing Executive Jet Facility,
Impact on existing flight kitchen,
Impact on existing fuel farm,
Impact on mail facility/ASB mechanics

workshop, and
requirement
from
4-19
Master Plan
Table 4.2
Terminal Evaluation
(1 of 3)
New
Terminal
Redevelopment of
Existing Terminal
Ground Access Travel Time
No distinguishable difference
Wayfinding from Approach Road
1,230 ft. (375 m)
1,000 ft. (305 m)
920 ft. (280 m)
920 ft. (280 m)
150 ft. (46 m)
150 ft. (46 m)
215 ft. (66 m)
185 ft. (56 m)
Walking to Fast Ferry
1,000 ft. (305 m) + crossing

Kindley Field Rd. (High Traffic
Volume)
400 ft. (122 m) + crossing Cahow

Way (Low Traffic Volume)
No. of Lane Crossings
Good
Fair
11+
Landside Expandability/Flexibility
Good
Limited
Cargo Expandability/Flexibility
Good
Good
General Aviation Expandability/Flexibility
Good
Good
Support Facilities Expandability/Flexibility
Good
Good
25 acres
17 acres
Ancillary Development Opportunities
Good
Limited
Aesthetics and Enhancement of Bermuda Image
Good
Fair
Sustainability Potential
Good
Fair
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Category
Criteria
Avg. Walking Distance from Ticketing to Furthest Gate

(U.S.)
Avg. Walking Distance from Ticketing to Furthest Gate
(Int'l)
Customer Service Number of Level Changes
Wt. Avg. Walking Distance from Car Parks to
Terminal (departing passengers)
Wt. Avg. Walking Distance from Terminal to Car
Parks (arriving passengers)
Degree to which Gates can be Adapted to Changes in

U.S./International Mix
Maximum Contact Gates
Expandability/
Flexibility
Opportunity for Recreation Land

Support of Local/
National Goals
Segregates Airport Ttraffic from Non-airport Traffic

Consistency with
National
Provides Opportunity for Pedestrian Access to Fast
Transportation Ferry Stop
Plan
Accessible by Land-Based Public Transportation
4-20
Master Plan
Table 4.2
Terminal Evaluation
(2 of 3)
New
Terminal
Redevelopment of
Existing Terminal
Impact on Residential Neighbourhoods
Same
Same
Noise Impact
Same
Same
Terrestrial Habitats
Same
Same
Marine Habitats
Same
Same
Minimal
Minimal
$2.1 M
$1.1 M
600 ft. (183 m)
100 ft. (30 m)
Terminal Cost (incl. enabling projects & contingency)
$424 M
$476 M
$184 (Phase I)
$117 (Phase II)
$154 (Phase III)
$21 (Phase IV)
Phasing Implications to Financials
Minimal
Measurable
Measurable
None
Possible
Possible
Good
Fair
Minimal
Minimal
8,400 ft. (2,560 m)
8,800 ft. (2,682 m)
3,500 ft. (1,067 m)
3,500 ft. (1,067 m)

(7,800 ft. from existing location)
6,800 ft. (2,073 m)
6,800 ft. (2,073 m)
Good
Fair
Category
Environmental
Considerations
Criteria
Impacts Related to Terminal Development

Cost
Storm Protection
Financial
Implications
Minimum Distance between Terminal Building &

Shore
Commercial Benefits External to Airport

Maximum Potential Private Finding
Net Revenue Impacts
Average Aircraft Delay per Operation
Operational
Efficiency
Avg. Taxi Distance from Terminal to Midpoint of

Runway 12-30
Avg. Taxi Distance from Executive Jet Facility to
Midpoint of Runway 12-30
Avg. Taxi Distance from Air Cargo Facility to Midpoint
of Runway 12-30
View of Apron from ATCT
4-21
Master Plan
Table 4.2
Terminal Evaluation
(3 of 3)
Category
Safety
Criteria
Ability to meet ICAO Recommended Design Standards
Land Acquisition Requirement from BLDC
Construction Impact on Terminal Operations
Ease of Phasing,
Impact on Ongoing
Impact on Executive Jet Facility
Airport Operations
Redevelopment of
Existing Terminal
Yes
Yes
7.6 acres (opportunity for

7.6 acres (opportunity for
exchange)
exchange)
Minimum disruption to terminal Significant disruption to terminal
operations
operations
Number of Relocations
Impact on Air Cargo/Courier Operations
New
Terminal
Assumed cargo facilities relocated Assumed cargo facilities relocated

independent of terminal
independent of terminal
construction
construction
Relocation required as enabling
project for new terminal
Can remain at current location

until GA expansion required
Requires relocation
Impact on Mail Facility/ASB Mechanics Workshop
No impact
No impact
Impact on Former NATO Facility
No impact
No impact
Impact on Existing Flight Kitchen

Impact on Existing Fuel Farm
Source: HNTB Analysis.
4-22
Master Plan
policies but which are likely to be the subject

of a local plan at a later date. The BLDC is
drafting a land use plan for discussion with
the Department of Planning.
to the likely site of a potential Fast Ferry

terminal would be greater under the new
terminal concept (1,000 feet versus 400 feet,
respectively).
The two options differ in the amount of

recreation area created in the vicinity of the
proposed terminal sites. The replacement of
the existing terminal option would result in
approximately 17 acres (7 hectares) of land
on the west side of the terminal, west of the
existing roundabout. A new terminal would
result in the availability of approximately 25
acres (10 hectares) of land which could be
used for recreational purposes. It should be
noted that this land would be controlled by
the Airport and would be reserved for longterm (post-2025) Airport expansion.
Advantage: Neither Option.

A new terminal would provide better
post-2025 gate and landside expandability
potential and greater flexibility to respond to
changes in air service. The redeveloped
terminal option is constrained by Cahow
Way, the dump, and the shoreline along
Castle Harbour. Neither option would
constrain development of support functions,
such as cargo or GA.
Advantage: New Terminal Option.
The Development Plan for the Former

Military Bases (1996),
The Bermuda Plan 1992 Planning

Statement (1994), and
The Coopers Island Land Use and

Management Plan.
The new terminal option would provide

a better opportunity for ancillary
development. The primary locations for
ancillary development opportunities would
be in the vicinity of the terminal to the west
and south of either terminal location option
and adjacent to the potential ferry stop. A
new terminal option would provide more
land around the ferry stop for ancillary
development and would provide a better tiein with possible recreational uses. This
opportunity is more constrained at the
existing terminal location, as car parks
would essentially surround the ferry stop.
The Bermuda Plan 1992 Planning

Statement is currently under review. The
land designated under the Development
Plan for the former military bases is to be
incorporated into the new Development
Plan for the Island. It may be recommended
that the new Bermuda Plan will designate
the BLDC lands as a special area for which
there will be some broad objectives and
Finally, the new terminal option would

also provide a greater opportunity for
aesthetics and enhancement of the
Bermuda Image, because its location and
orientation afford a good opportunity to
create a striking visual impact from the
causeway and because the view from the gate
concourse would provide excellent views of
both Castle Harbour and Ferry Reach.
Support of Local/National Goals

The study area is subject to three
national plans:
4-23
Master Plan
protection would be nearly twice as high for

a new terminal as for replacing the existing
terminal ($2.1 million versus $1.1 million,
respectively).

Consistency with the National
Transportation Plan
The two terminal concepts would be
generally consistent with the national
transportation plan; however, the new
terminal option better segregates Airport
traffic from non-airport traffic.
Advantage:
Existing Terminal.
Redevelopment
of
Financial Implications
From nearly every measure, a new
terminal would provide more positive
financial implications compared to a
redeveloped terminal. The overall cost for a
new terminal and the resulting enabling
projects is estimated at $424 million,
compared to $476 million for a redeveloped
terminal.
Most of the difference is
attributable to the cost of construction
directly adjacent to the existing Civil
Terminal, which would entail complicated
phasing and would require multiple
relocations of tenants.

Environmental Considerations
Overall, the two Airport terminal
development options would result in
minimal potential environmental impacts.
There are no significant differences between
the two options. (Potential impacts from
non-terminal projects are discussed in
Chapter Five.)
A new terminal would have minimal

phasing
implications,
would
offer
commercial benefits external to the Airport,
and would provide superior net revenue
impacts. These impacts would primarily be
in the form of enhanced terminal
concessions revenue and improved lease
revenue from the development of
commercial property.
Storm Protection
Both terminal development options
would be able to be protected against a
Category 4 storm. Based on initial planning,
storm protection for the terminal area would
be accomplished by constructing a berm
along the shoreline.
Under the new terminal option, it was
assumed that the berm would extend from
the waste management facility (dump), west
past the causeway, and continue along Ferry
Reach to the east end of the runway. Under
the redeveloped terminal option, the extent
of the storm protection feature would be
limited to between the waste management
facility and the causeway.
The cost,
therefore, for providing storm surge
Although redevelopment of the existing

terminal is more expensive, it could be
phased over a longer period of time.
Construction of a new terminal would
require a more significant level of up-front
cost. It is important to note, though, that
investment in a new terminal would be a
more appealing option for private investors,
4-24
Master Plan
of airline passenger and staff disruption.
which is a source the Government would

likely pursue.

4.7
From
an
operational
efficiency
standpoint, the two terminal development
options are similar, since aircraft delays
would be minimal under each. Average taxi
distances between the terminal and the midpoint of the runway would be slightly lower
for a new terminal compared to a
redeveloped terminal (8,400 feet versus
8,800 feet, respectively). Lastly, air traffic
controllers would have a better view of
terminal apron activity under the new
terminal option.
SUMMARY AND
RECOMMENDATION
In summary, both the new terminal

option and the redeveloped terminal option
would provide Bermuda with a world class
passenger terminal, and both options could
be protected against severe storm damage.
The key differences between the two
options are that the new terminal option
would provide more opportunity to meet the
national plan, would result in fewer negative
impacts on the travelling public during
construction (an important consideration at
a time when the tourism sector is working
hard to promote the industry), and would be
less expensive than the redeveloped terminal
option ($424 million versus $476 million,
respectively).

Safety
Both terminal options were developed to
meet ICAO-recommended design and safety
standards. Neither option affects the airfield
(specifically, Runway 12-30 and Taxiway
Alpha) and the feasibility of implementing
projects related to meeting ICAO design
standards. (See Chapter Five.)
Redevelopment of the existing terminal,

although more expensive, could be phased,
allowing costs to be spread out over a longer
period of time.
On May 8, 2006, a meeting was held with
Airport staff and Bermudas Minister of
Transport to discuss the findings. Based on
a discussion of results of the analysis
described above and guidance from the
Minister, a decision was made to pursue the
construction of a new terminal as the
preferred development option. A detailed
description of the recommended plan,
which also includes long-term development
plans for air cargo, GA, support facilities,
and airfield improvements, is provided in
Chapter Five.

Ease of Phasing/Impact on Ongoing
Airport Functions
Although a new terminal would require
more enabling projects (including relocation
of the Executive Jet Facility and the fuel
farm), it would result in a much lower level
4-25

5.
Master Plan
RECOMMENDED PLAN
Chapter Five
RECOMMENDED PLAN
5.1
INTRODUCTION
This
Chapter
describes
the
recommended development plan for
Bermuda International Airport.
The
recommended improvements are based on
the facility requirements identified in
Chapter Three, which were, in turn, based
on the aviation activity forecasts presented
in Chapter Two. Finally, the recommended
plan reflects the alternatives analysis
described in Chapter Four of this Study, the
result of which was a recommendation to
proceed with the construction of a new
terminal.
Section 5.2 outlines the overall planning
strategy used to develop the recommended
plan. Section 5.3 identifies the general
development areas as defined by on-airport
land use designations. A detailed discussion
of the recommended plan is presented in
Section 5.4. Lastly, Section 5.5 presents the
development cost and phasing of the plan.
5.2
Initiate a dual track process to identify

the best new terminal location/layout
option and the best redevelopment of the
existing terminal option;
Compare and evaluate the best new

terminal option and the best redeveloped terminal option;
Select the best terminal development

option; and,
Develop a recommended Airport plan

incorporating the preferred terminal
layout, air cargo, general aviation, and
support facilities needed to meet 20-year
requirements.
5.3
ON-AIRPORT LAND USE
The
current
Airport
boundary
encompasses 543 acres (220 hectares).
Based on future facility requirements, the
need to meet ICAO design standards, and to
ensure compatible land uses in the Airport
vicinity, the Master Plan recommends an
additional 131 acres (53 hectares) be
designated Airport property. The location
of these additional parcels include the RESA
on the west end of the runway, land adjacent
to and north of the Swing Bridge, land
adjacent to the former NATO facility, land
east of the fire station, land northeast of the
east end of Runway 30, and the peninsula
known as the Finger. To date, a move to redesignate much of this land to DAO
management is being reviewed by the
OVERALL DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY
The over-arching goal of this study is to

provide Bermuda with a world-class airport
that is both functional and sustainable. To
realise this goal, the Master Plan focused on
first identifying a preferred long-term
terminal development plan. Given this goal,
a four-step strategy was identified:
5-1
Master Plan
land defined by the ICAO runway strip,

runway end safety area (sufficient to meet
ICAOs recommended RESA dimensions),
and taxiway object free area.
Minister of Tourism and Transport and the

Minister of Works and Engineering.
The recommended plan identifies seven
land use types for Airport development, the
locations of which are shown in Figure 5-1
and described below:
Air Passenger (AP), primarily the

passenger terminal;
Airfield/Navaid
(AN),
including
runways, taxiways, safety areas, airfield
lighting, and on-airport navigational
aids;
Airport Support (AS), including the

flight kitchen, control tower, fire station,
and other support areas;
Airport
Circulation/Parking
(AC),
which includes terminal car parks;
GA, which consists of the Executive Jet

Facility and other general aviation areas;
Air Cargo (CA); and
Land Reserved for Future Aviation

Development (RA).
The Master Plan recommends that the

DAO acquire and maintain several parcels of
land adjacent to the existing Airport
boundary to ensure that it has sufficient land
for post-2025 expansion and to help
establish and maintain compatible land uses.
These parcels include the finger pier and
several parcels along the north side of the
Airport.
Finally, the Master Plan recommends
that the DAO work with key stakeholders to
undertake a study to determine the highest
and best use of land designated as reserved
for future aviation development. The study
should identify options that would enhance
the Bermuda experience for residents and
visitors, recognise the limited amount of
developable land in the Country, but not
preclude eventual aviation use if required
over the long term.
5.4
AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
The following sections describe the

recommended development plan as depicted
on the Airport Layout Plan (shown in
Figure 5-2).
The
Master
Plan
recommends
preserving the land on the extreme west side
of the Airport for future terminal, cargo, and
support development. The Plan further
identifies the site of the former NATO
facility as the new location for GA
(Executive Jet Terminal) facilities.
5.4.1
Airfield
While much of the effort related to the

Master Plan focused on meeting future
passenger, cargo, and GA demand, the
process also provided an opportunity to reexamine the feasibility of complying with
recommended ICAO design standards. The
Airfield/Navaid land includes the

existing runway and taxiway system, but also
provides room for relocating Taxiway Alpha
to meet ICAO-recommended design
standards. The Master Plan also designates
5-2
Master Plan
capability between the runway and the

terminal.
DAO continues to work with the DCA to

address any remaining non-compliant
situations, recognising that some of the
recommended design practices could, at
some point in the future, become
mandatory.
The focus of the airfield
projects associated with the recommended
plan, therefore, is to meet ICAOrecommended separation and design
standards and to improve airfield
circulation.
Fill Portion of Castle Harbour to Provide Full

ICAO Runway Strip
The south central portion of the Runway
12-30 runway strip does not meet the lateral
dimensional standards recommended by
ICAO. The Master Plan recommends the
filling of a portion of Castle Harbour to
provide the full lateral dimensions of an
ICAO runway strip.
Project Descriptions
Provide Full ICAO RESA for Runway 12-30
Following are key airfield projects.
Although the Airport provides the

minimum RESA required by ICAO, it does
not provide the recommended 800-foot by
500-foot (240-metre by 150-metre) RESA at
the west (12) end of Runway 12-30.
Relocate/Extend Taxiway Alpha

Taxiway Alpha is separated from
Runway 12-30 by 500 feet (152.5 metres),
which decreases to 420 feet (127 metres) at
the eastern end of the runway. The Master
Plan recommends relocating Taxiway Alpha
approximately 100 feet (30 metres) to the
north to meet the ICAO Aerodrome
Reference Code 4E runway-to-taxiway
separation standard, which is 600 feet (182.5
metres).
The taxiway should also be
extended 1,200 feet (370 metres) to the west
to provide full-length taxiway capabilities.
To meet this ICAO recommendation,

the Master Plan recommends filling
approximately seven acres (three hectares)
of Ferry Reach immediately northwest of the
runway, grading the area between the
current RESA and the fill project, and
relocating approximately 3,800 feet (1,160
metres) of Kindley Field Road around the
RESA.
Additional projects associated with the

relocation of Taxiway Alpha include the
reconstruction of Taxiway Charlie and
improvements to the Runway 1230/Taxiway Bravo intersection to meet
ICAO taxiway geometry recommendations.
Construct Taxiway Bravo 2
There are some challenges associated

with this project, including environmental
considerations and cost (see below).
Although the optimal, and therefore
recommended, option for the Airport is
providing a full RESA, two additional
options could be considered.
The
Master
Plan
recommends
constructing a taxiway parallel to Taxiway
Bravo to provide two-way airfield traffic
The first option would be to explore the

feasibility of installing an Engineered
Materials Arresting System (EMAS) on the
5-3
Master Plan
stopway for Runway 30 would no longer be

available.
west end of Runway 12-30. EMAS is a highenergy absorbing material that is designed to
reliably and predictably crush under the
weight of an aircraft. Although the U.S.
FAA has approved their use at U.S. airports,
it is not clear whether ICAO recognises its
use in situations where a standard RESA
cannot be provided. There appears to be
sufficient room at the west end of Runway
12-30 to accommodate an EMAS
installation. Although the landing distance
available for Runway 12 would need to be
reduced to 9,150 feet (2,790 metres), all
other declared distances could remain as
currently published.
In the U.S., the FAA reduced runway

safety area requirements for undershoots
from 1,000 feet (300 metres) from the
threshold to 600 feet (180 metres) from the
threshold. If this reduced RESA were
implemented at BDA, the landing distance
available would be increased to 9,340 feet
(2,847 metres).
Install Improved Approach Lighting System
The final Master Plan airfield
recommendation is for the Airport to
upgrade the approach lighting system on the
approach end of Runway 30. To meet ICAO
standards for a Category I precision
approach, the current lighting system should
be extended from its current 1,500-foot
(460-metre) length to a length of 3,000 feet
(900 metres).
The final (and least favourable) option

would be to displace the landing threshold
for Runway 12. The Airports existing
declared distances could be adjusted to
provide the recommended RESA on the west
end of the runway to minimise the need for
physical improvements. Following would be
the revised declared distances for Runway
12-30:
Rwy 12
9,713 ft.
10,663 ft.
9,920 ft.
9,153 ft.
Project Impacts
The airfield projects described above will
result in environmental and community
impacts. Southside Road (located on the
northeast end of the runway) will require
relocation. This portion of the road is part
of the BLDCs Proposed New Carriageway
System
Phase
2,
currently
under
construction. When completed, the BLDC
Phase 2 Plan will redirect traffic east of the
softball diamond onto McCloskey Road.
The existing Southside Road further to the
east will remain as a cycle way/pedestrian
path. The area of road to the east of the
softball diamond will be impacted by the
upgrade of the RESA off the Runway 30 end
to meet ICAO standards. The required
changes to the BLDC Phase 2 Plan will not
Rwy 30
9,713 ft.
10,266 ft.
9,153 ft.
9,153 ft.
TORA
TODA
ASDA
LDA
Notes:
TORA = Take-off Run Available
TODA = Take-off Distance Available
ASDA = Accelerate-Stop Distance Available
LDA = Landing Distance Available
The greatest impact would likely be for

departures on Runway 30 because of the
reduction in accelerate stop distance
available. Landing length would be reduced
by about 560 feet (170 metres) in both
directions, and to provide a full RESA, a
5-4
Master Plan
The mangroves may be saved if care is taken

during design and construction. Mangroves
cannot be transplanted.
adversely impact the residential neighbourhood to the north of this area.

The relocation of Taxiway Alpha will
also shift its taxiway strip, causing it to
encroach into existing BLDC land. The area
will have to be properly graded, which will
affect the viability of preserving the Gulf
Stream Building (Bdg. No. 550) located
within this area. Because the building is also
within the ICAO obstacle limitation
transitional surface (which protects airspace
around the runway), the Master Plan
recommends its removal.
Finally, some terrestrial habitats may be

affected. The western portion of the new
GA ramp may impact a bird nesting area,
while mangrove stands on either side of the
former NATO hangar would likely be
impacted during construction of the GA
area.
5.4.2
Terminal Area
The Master Plan recommends building a

new replacement terminal to the north of
the existing facility. Figure 5-3 shows the
layout of the terminal area, while Figures 54 and 5-5 show an artist rendering of a
possible concept for the terminals exterior.
In addition, the construction of a full

RESA for the west of the Runway 12-30 will
require the reclamation of 6.5 acres (2.6
hectares) of land along Ferry Reach and the
relocation of Kindley Field Road. The
reclamation project will also result in the
displacement of approximately two acres of
the existing national park; however, once
Kindley Field Road is realigned, a portion of
the reclaimed land can be designated as
national park, resulting in a net gain of more
than two acres (nearly one hectare) of park
land.
Project Description
The terminal and its associated car parks
and roadway system would be aligned
perpendicular to the current Civil Terminal.
The new terminal would feature a nine-gate
double-loaded concourse which could easily
be extended to provide additional contact
gates. Ticketing, customs, baggage claim,
and curb side access would be provided on
the ground level, while gate holdrooms and
DAO offices would be located on the first
floor. Pedestrian access would be provided
between the new terminal and a possible
Fast Ferry terminal. Figure 5-6 shows an
artist rendering of a possible concept for the
terminals interior.
The Castle Harbour fill project east of

the Finger will have an adverse impact on
marine habitats, including the West Indian
Top Shell, corals, and sea grass. The fill
project along Ferry Reach will impact sea
grass.
The anticipated impacts can be
mitigated to some degree. Top shells must
be carefully collected by hand and then
reintroduced into existing habitat locations,
although juvenile losses will likely occur.
Corals can also be relocated; however,
success rates in Bermuda are not known.
The terminal design, as well as the

design of other Airport features would
incorporate
sustainable
development
5-5
Figure 5-4
Artist Rendering of Terminal Exterior (Viewed from the South)
Figure 5-5
Artist Rendering of Terminal Exterior (Viewed from the West)
Figure 5-6
Artist Rendering of Terminal Interior
Master Plan
5.4.3
strategies.
Possible strategies to be
considered during the design phase include:
Co-generation,
Photo-voltaic energy generation,
Solar thermal
generation,
Geo-thermal for cooling and heating

demands,
Wind farm generation,
Use of recycled materials (e.g., existing

concrete and asphalt),
Water desalination process powered on

renewable energy sources, and
High-performance roof design.
power
hot
Air Cargo
The existing air cargo terminal and

courier facility are in poor condition. The
Master Plan recommends replacing these
facilities in the near-term with a combined
facility on the northwest side of the west end
of the Airport. The cargo facility would
provide a large cargo warehouse, aircraft
parking apron sized for two aircraft, a truck
dock, and automobile parking.
water
5.4.4
General Aviation
Under the recommended plan, GA

facilities (i.e., the Executive Jet Terminal and
apron) would require relocation to
accommodate development of the new
terminal. The Master Plan recommends GA
facilities be relocated to the former NATO
site, as this location is the only one
providing sufficient area for long-term GA
growth and public ground accessibility.
Recognising the good condition of the
NATO
hangar,
the
Master
Plan
recommends preserving this structure and
making it available for the hangaring of GA
aircraft, whether for storage or for
maintenance.
The advantages and disadvantages of

each of these strategies will be evaluated
during the design phase.
Project Impacts
Construction of a new terminal would
provide up to 25 acres (10 hectares) of land
which could be used as recreation/
commercial land, although this land would
be retained by the DAO for ultimate (post2025) Airport development. No adverse
community or environmental impacts were
identified, and it is anticipated that the final
design of the terminal would take advantage
of sustainable architecture (solar energy, onsite potable water generation, on-site sewage
treatment, co-generation, etc.).
The Master Plan also recommends

reserving the 10-acre (four-hectare) Apron
IV area for GA facilities for long-term
expansion.
5.4.5
Support Facilities
Support facilities include the airline fuel

farm, ARFF (crash/fire/rescue) facility, air
traffic control tower, mechanical, and
miscellaneous facilities.
5-6
Master Plan
The fuel farm, currently located west of

the existing terminal would be relocated
adjacent to the BAS facility. The Master
Plan recommends keeping the existing
ARFF station at its existing location,
recognising the significant amount of recent
reconstruction investment to the facility and
its proximity the centre of the airfield.
example, using closed-circuit television) and

consider options for providing aircraft
reporting points in the terminal apron.
The air traffic control tower lies 575 feet

(175 metres) from the runways strip edge.
The elevation of the ICAO obstacle
limitation transitional surface at this
location is approximately 82 feet (25 metres)
MSL, while the tower height is 164 feet MSL
(50 metres), resulting in a penetration of the
transitional surface by 82 feet (25 metres).
In addition, controllers cannot clear aircraft
for push back at the passenger terminal
apron because of the significant viewing
distance between the two facilities. Instead,
controllers must issue clearance only at
pilots discretion.
To promote the Airport as a selfsustaining facility, the Master Plan

recommends preserving a site adjacent to
the landfill to develop a possible on-site
sewage treatment plant and desalination
plant. The final location, size, and cost of
these facilities would need to be determined
during the design phase of the new terminal.
Other support facilities, such as the BASSerco maintenance shop and the flight
kitchen, are shown as continuing in their
current location.
5.5
PRELIMINARY COST AND

PHASING
This section provides a summary of the

overall capital costs associated with the
recommended development plan and their
estimated timing based on the forecasts and
facility requirements identified earlier in this
document.
Due to these two issues, the Master Plan

recommends a siting study be undertaken to
determine whether the control tower could
be relocated to a more optimal location. The
siting of air traffic control towers is a
complex
process
which
includes
consideration of visibility from the cab,
sufficient area for existing and future tower
requirements, obstacle clearance as defined
by the ICAOs Procedures for Air
Navigation Services Operations (PANSOPS) document, and avoidance of electronic
interference, and is therefore beyond the
scope of the Master Plan. The tower siting
study should also investigate alternatives for
improving visibility of the passenger
terminal apron from the tower should a site
closer to the terminal not be possible (for
Project timing is based on a balance of

meeting forecast facility needs and the
Governments financing ability. Projects
may be rescheduled should activity increase
either more quickly or more slowly than
anticipated. Likewise, the availability of
financial resources may also result in either
programming some projects sooner or
deferring them.
The cost estimates are for planning
purposes only; implementation of the
recommended capital projects will involve
refinement of designs and costs through
architectural and engineering analyses. For
5-7
Master Plan
Phase II (2010-2014)
this reason, the costs shown should be

considered best estimates, sufficient for
performing the financial feasibility analyses
and financial plan (described in Chapter
Six). Cost estimates are presented in 2006
dollars. Table 5.1 lists each capital project,
its cost, and anticipated schedule of
implementation. The total capital cost for
the recommended plan is approximately
$544
million,
including
design,
engineering/inspection, and construction
contingency.
The five-year period beginning in 2010

will see the most significant financial outlays
for the Airport, as it is in this period that a
new terminal would be constructed. The
total cost of the new terminal and associated
projects is estimated at $401 million.
Phase III (2015-2025)
The last phase of the Master Plan focuses
on airfield improvements needed to comply
with ICAO-recommended design standards.
The key projects in this period include
expansion of the aircraft apron at the new
Executive Jet Facility, relocating Taxiway
Alpha 100 feet (30 metres) to the north, an
upgraded approach lighting system for
Runway 30, and land reclamation to the west
and south of the existing runway to provide
a full RESA and runway strip. The total cost
of Phase III projects is approximately $72
million.
Phase I (2007-2009)
In Phase I, it is anticipated that
architectural design for the new terminal
would be undertaken, along with design of
the accompanying terminal apron and
landside facilities. The total cost for these
efforts is approximately $30 million.
In addition, recognising the age and
condition of the existing air cargo/courier
facilities, the Master Plan recommends
constructing a new replacement cargo
facility in this time period. The total cost of
the new cargo facility is approximately $33
million, excluding the cost of demolishing
the existing facility.
5.6
OFF-AIRPORT LAND USE

RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides recommendations for

encouraging compatible land uses in the
vicinity of the Airport.
The primary
consideration when discussing land use
adjacent to an airport is usually aircraft
noise and its effect on human activity. As
part of the Master Plan effort, noise contours
(i.e., points of equal noise exposure levels)
were plotted for base year and forecast
activity levels, and recom-mendations for
compatible land uses were identified based
on a preliminary examination of recent land
use planning efforts in other countries.
Finally, per the recommended plan, GA

facilities will need to be relocated across the
airfield at the site of the former NATO
facility.
The cost of this project is
approximately $5 million.
The total cost for Phase I of the
recommended plan is approximately $71
million.
5-8
Master Plan
Table 5.1
Capital Improvement Program
Recommended Development Plan
Cost in 2006 Dollars (1)
(1 of 2)
Phase I
(2007-2009)
Project
Phase II
(2010-2014)
Phase III
(2015-2025)
Total
Redeveloped Terminal
Terminal Building
Apron
Landside
Subtotal
$
$
$
$
28,397,000 (2)
1,118,000 (2)
235,000 (2)
29,750,000
$ 369,155,000 (3)
$ 14,531,000 (3)
$
3,055,000 (3)
$ 386,741,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
397,552,000
15,649,000
3,290,000
416,491,000
New Cargo Facility

Cargo Bdg.
Apron (Exc. Twy)
Landside
Subtotal
$
$
$
$
31,500,000
1,368,000
493,000
33,361,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
31,500,000
1,368,000
493,000
33,361,000
New Executive Jet Facility

Executive Jet Terminal
Apron (Phase I)
Apron (Phase II)
Landside
Subtotal
$
$
$
$
$
1,680,000
2,906,000
53,000
4,639,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,711,000
3,711,000
$
$
$
$
$
1,680,000
2,906,000
3,711,000
53,000
8,350,000
Airfield Improvements
Relocate Twy Alpha (West)
Relocate Twy Alpha (Center)
Relocate Twy Alpha (East)
Remove Old Twy Alpha (Entire)
Reconstruct Twy Charlie as Rapid Exit
Extend Twy Echo
Construct Twy Bravo2
Reconstruct Twy Bravo as Rapid Exit
Upgrade App. Lighting System Rwy 30
Provide Full Rwy Strip South Side
Provide Full RESA (West End)
Subtotal
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
7,139,000
25,969,000
5,870,000
1,875,000
1,452,000
286,000
307,000
4,200,000
14,956,000
6,621,000
68,675,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
7,139,000
25,969,000
5,870,000
1,875,000
1,452,000
286,000
1,506,000
307,000
4,200,000
14,956,000
6,621,000
70,181,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,506,000
1,506,000
5-9
Master Plan
Table 5.1
Capital Improvement Program
Recommended Development Plan
Cost in 2006 Dollars (1)
(2 of 2)
Phase I
(2007-2009)
Project
Other Projects
Demolish Existing Cargo Bdg
Demolish Existing Terminal Bdg
Relocate Fuel Farm
Construct Storm Surge Berm
Subtotal
$
$
$
$
$
794,000
2,121,000
2,915,000
Grand Total
70,665,000
Phase II
(2010-2014)
$
$
$
$
$
Phase III
(2015-2025)
12,186,000
427,000
12,613,000
$
$
$
$
$
$ 400,860,000
72,386,000
Total
$
$
$
$
$
794,000
12,186,000
427,000
2,121,000
15,528,000
543,911,000
Notes: (1) Cost of construction and design unless otherwise specified; includes 10% engineering/inspection and 20% construction
contingency.
(2) Design.
(3) Construction.
5-10
5.6.1
Master Plan
Background
There are various metrics used to measure

aircraft noise. The primary purpose of these
metrics is to quantify noise exposure from
multiple over-flights over a specified period
of time. Typically, the metrics weight nighttime and/or evening flights to a greater
degree than daytime flights to account for
increased human sensitivity to noise during
those hours. The Lden (day/evening/night
level) was selected as the noise metric for the
BDA noise contours as it is being adopted by
the European Union as a standard. The
Lden metric weights evening operations by 5
decibels (dB) and night time operations by
10 dB.
A review of ICAOs Airport Planning

Manual, Part 2, Land Use and
Environmental Control30 and an initial
literature search conducted on the Internet
shows considerable variation by country
(and even within countries) as to the
selection of noise metrics and noise
weighting factors, and the definition of
compatible and incompatible land uses
within particular noise levels.31
5.6.2
Noise Metrics and Modelling
Based on the literature search, the majority

of noise metrics and modelling techniques
consider:
The U.S. FAAs Integrated Noise Model

INM) is one of the most popular models for
developing noise contours. INM Version
6.1 was used to develop contours for BDA.
Type of aircraft and aircraft performance
Arrival and departure flight tracks
Number of landings and take-offs
Airport runway layout
Local climate and geography
Magnitude of noise events
Duration of noise events
Audio frequency of noise events
Figures 5-7 and 5-8 show the Lden 55,

60, 65, 70, and 75 contours for 2004 and
2025, respectively. Table 5.2 summarises
the amount of area within each contour. As
shown, the total area (including the area
over water) within the Lden 55 (the level at
which some residents report aircraft noise as
annoying) is forecast to increase from 1,993
acres (807 hectares) to 2,067 acres (837
hectares).
Accounting for operations during

periods of increased sensitivity (typically
during night time hours)
The area within the Lden 65 (the level at

which residential land use is typically
considered to be incompatible) increases
5.6.3
30
ICAO Doc 9184 AN/092 (3rd Edition-2002).

See Methods of Assessment of Aircraft Noise by
N J S Burton (published in 2004) for a succinct
history of aircraft noise measurement and land use
compatibility efforts in the western world.
31
5-11
Results of Noise Analysis
Master Plan
Table 5.2
Noise Contour Area (1)
Noise Level
2004
Acres Hectares
2025
Acres Hectares
Percent
Change
Lden 70-75
92
37
105
42
14.1%
Lden 65-70
161
65
182
74
12.6%
Lden 60-65
446
180
436
177
-2.1%
Lden 55-60
1,192
483
1,232
499
3.3%
Total within Lden 55
1,993
807
2,067
837
3.7%
Note: (1) Includes land and water area.

5-12
Master Plan
vicinity within which land use development

would be regulated to ensure both the longterm viability of the Airport and to minimise
non-compatible
land
use.
The
recommendations are based on the FAR Part
150 programme and a zoning overlay
ordinance passed by Loudoun County,
Virginia in the U.S.32
Following is a
description of compatible land uses and
possible restrictions. It is recommended
that further work be done by key
stakeholders to reach a consensus on land
use compatibility planning near the Airport.
from 699 acres (283 hectares) in 2004 to 723

acres (293 hectares) in 2025. Two residences
and a portion of the Gulf Stream Building
are located within the Lden 65 contour.
5.6.4
Recommended Off-Airport
Land Use Compatibility
Table 5.3 summarises land use

compatibility recommendations from the
U.S. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part
150 process. This process was mandated by
the U.S. Congress to establish a standard
noise compatibility programme. As shown,
residential and institutional land uses are
not compatible at noise levels of Lden 65
and above. Commercial, industrial, and
agricultural land uses are considered
compatible within the highest noise levels.
Compatibility for recreational land uses is
based on the nature of activity. For example,
sports/play and camping activities are
compatible below Lden 75, while
arts/instructional activities are compatible
below Lden 65.
Lden 55 to Lden 60
For residential areas between the Lden 55
and Lden 60 contours, a full disclosure
statement for residential properties should
be required. (See Table 5.4.) The applicant
should disclose in writing to all prospective
purchasers that the property is within the
BDA Lden 55 noise contour and will be
impacted by aircraft over-flights and aircraft
noise. Such notification should be
accomplished by inclusion of this information in all sales contracts, brochures, and
promotional documents, including any
illustrative site plans on display with any
sales office, as well as within home owner
association documents, and by inclusion on
all sub-division and site plans, and within all
deeds of conveyance.
As noted previously, a portion of the

Gulf Stream Building lies within the Lden 65
contour (the conversion of this building to
residential use is currently being
considered); there are also two dwelling
units within the Lden 65 contour, directly
south of the Gulf Stream Building. These
three structures are considered noncompatible uses within the Lden 65. It
should be noted that the Gulf Stream
Building and the two dwelling units would
need to be removed as part of the Taxiway
Alpha relocation project.
32
The U.S. FAAs land use compatibility

guidance was used because it were based on the DNL
noise metric, which is similar to Lden; land use
compatibility guidance from EU nations was usually
based on other metrics not directly compatible with
Lden. The Loudoun County zoning ordinance was
used as an example.
The Master Plan recommends that the

Bermudian Government create an Airport
Impact Overlay District in the Airport
5-13
Master Plan
Table 5.3
Land Use Noise Sensitivity Matrix (1)
Noise Level (Lden) (2)
55-65
65-75
75+
Residential
1-2 family
Multi-family
Mobile homes
Dorms, etc.
Institutional
Churches
Schools
Hospitals
Nursing homes
Libraries
Recreational
Sports/play
Arts/instructional
Camping
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
= Compatible Land Use
= Non-compatible Land Use
Notes:
(1) From U.S. FAA FAR Part 150 via Land Use Compatibility and
Airports, a Guide for Effective Land Use Planning (FAA).
(2) Source chart used DNL, which is roughly equivalent to Lden.
Sources: FAA, HNTB analysis.
5-14
Master Plan
Table 5.4
Recommended Land Use Controls for Residential Development (1)
Requirement
Lden
Range
Full
Disclosure
Statement
Acoustical
Treatment
Avigation
Easement
Residential
Land Use Not
Compatible
55-60
60-65
65+
(2)
Notes: (1) Guidance taken from Loudoun County, Virginia Zoning Ordinance.
(2) Residential dwellings shall not be permitted once orginance implemented;
however, for dwelling units approved prior to effective date of ordinance,
full disclosure, acoustical treatment, and granting of easement are required.
Sources: Loudoun County, Viginia Ordinance Establishing an Airport Overlay District;
HNTB analysis.
5-15
Master Plan
structure does not constitute a hazard to

aerial navigation.
Institutional, recreational, commercial,

industrial, and agricultural land uses are also
compatible within between the Lden 55 and
Lden 60.
Institutional land uses (including

churches, schools, hospitals, nursing homes,
and libraries) are also considered
incompatible above Lden 65. Recreational
land uses are generally compatible between
Lden 65 and Lden 75, with the exception of
arts and instructional facilities.
Commercial, industrial, and agricultural land
uses are compatible between Lden 65 and
Lden 75.
Lden 60 to Lden 65
For residential areas between the Lden
60 and Lden 65 contours, full disclosure is
recommended (see above). In addition,
acoustical treatment should be required for
new construction for all residential units to
ensure that interior noise levels within living
spaces do not exceed an average sound level
of 45 db(A) Lden. Compliance with this
standard should be based on a certification
from an acoustical engineer licensed in
Bermuda, submitted at the time of zoning
permit issuance, that the design and
construction methods and materials to be
used in the construction of the dwelling are
such that the foregoing standard would be
met, assuming exterior noise levels between
Lden 60-65.
Lden 75 and Above

Residential,
institutional,
and
recreational land uses are considered
incompatible above Lden 75, while
commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses
are considered compatible within the Lden
75 contour.
Institutional, recreational, commercial,

industrial, and agricultural land uses are
compatible within the Lden 65.
Lden 65 to Lden 75
Residential development in areas above
Lden 65 is not recommended, as a
substantial amount of literature indicates the
majority of people residing within this
contour would define themselves as highly
annoyed by aircraft noise. Exceptions to
residential development would be permitted
provided that the lot was recorded or had
recorded plat approval prior to the effective
date of any ordinance, the new dwelling unit
or addition complies with the recommended
acoustical treatment outlined above, and the
5-16

6.
Master Plan
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Chapter Six
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1
INTRODUCTION
6.2
This Chapter describes the financial

implications
of
the
recommended
development plan for Bermuda International Airport. Because many of the
improvements in the recommended
development plan are required to ensure a
safe and efficient facility, these were not
subjected to an analysis of feasibility. It was
presumed that they would be implemented
regardless of their representative impacts to
the revenues and expenses of the Airport.
BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS
The recommended development plan

identifies a series of projects required to
ensure the Airports status as a first-class
airport serving both business and tourism.
Of all the projects included in the plan, the
most significant is the new terminal project.
Because of the level of investment
required for the new terminal complex, it
was important to assess its feasibility from
the perspective of the Country as a whole.
Because of the Nations superior credit
rating, the issue of feasibility was not in
questionBermuda can, in fact, afford to
build the terminal if it desires. The true
issue of feasibility lies in the estimation of
the benefits received from the terminal.
These benefits are in some ways subjective in
nature. This analysis, therefore, focused on
presenting potential benefits in a
comparison with estimated project costs so
that the Government can make an informed
decision regarding the feasibility of the
project.
This analysis instead focuses on three

other key elements: the impact of a new
terminal complex on the Nations economy,
delivery strategies for that terminal in the
event the Government elects to pursue its
construction, and other specific strategies
for enhancing the revenue generated by the
Airport.
Section 6.2 presents a subjective benefit
cost analysis (BCA) of the new terminal
project as presented in Chapter Five.
Section 6.3 presents an analysis of delivery
methods for the new terminal. Section 6.4
presents
a
discussion
of
revenue
enhancement strategies that may be
undertaken as part of a larger strategy to
enhance the Airports ability to be selfsustaining.
The remainder of this section is

organised as follows:
6-1
Revenue Enhancement Assumptions
Alternative Funding Sources
Projected Benefits
Cost Calculations
Master Plan
Las Vegas generates an annual revenue

stream by permitting Rolex Corporation to
install clocks around the terminals that
resemble Rolex watch faces.
This
programme creates tremendous exposure in
an area a typical advertising concessionaire
may not ordinarily reach. In an airport with
Bermudas traffic level, a sponsorship deal
might generate an additional $25,000 per
year.
Benefit Scenarios
6.2.1
Revenue Enhancement
Assumptions
While more specific discussions of

revenue enhancement strategies are detailed
later in this Chapter, it was important to
address certain revenue enhancements that
might be directly related to the
implementation of the new terminal. These
enhancements are considered benefits.
The new terminal project would create a

commercial leasing opportunity for a large
parcel of land near where the existing
terminal stands. This property would be
attractive to both resort developers and
commercials developers alike, as it offers
waterfront access and proximity to the
Airport and St. George.
Using a
conservative estimate of land value in
Bermuda at $1.3 million per acre and a
capitalisation rate of 12 percent, the
approximately 13 acres available could
generate an additional $2.028 million per
year.
Revenue enhancements related to the

new terminal were determined to come from
a variety of sources (see Table 6.1).
Terminal retail concessions, which are
undersized in the existing terminal, and in
some cases poorly located, could be vastly
improved. A larger, improved programme
could be expected to generate an additional
$800,000 annually for the Government.33
Advertising would also benefit greatly
from a new terminal, in that the improved
passenger flows would allow the advertising
concessionaire to utilise more space and
achieve higher rates for the space.
Approximately $200,000 in additional
advertising revenue could be expected in this
case.
The implementation of a new terminal

might also afford DAO the opportunity to
make changes to its business model for
ground transportation.
While parking
would not be expected to generate
significant revenue, additional revenue
might be gained from the initiation of a
policy to charge taxis or other courtesy
vehicles on a per-trip basis for their use of
the Airport. Compared to similar fees
charged in the United States and to the
average taxi fare to Hamilton, a per-trip fee
of one dollar ($1.00) would be reasonable,
and would generate approximately $425,200
in additional annual revenue.
As has been accomplished by several

airports in the United States and a number
in Europe, the Airport could also enhance
revenue through a different form of
advertisingcorporate sponsorship. As an
example, McCarran International Airport in
33
Estimated benefits in this section are

measured in 2005 dollars against CY 2005
enplanement levels.
6-2
Master Plan
Table 6.1
Potential Revenue Enhancement Sources
Source
Terminal Retail Concessions
Advertising
Sponsorship Rights
Commercial Land (1)
Users Fees
Departure Tax Retention (2)
Reduced O&M (3)
Basis
More/better locations in new terminal
More/better locations in new terminal
Business center, arrivals hall, etc.
Additional land available near existing terminal
Implement user fees for taxi, courtesy vehicles, etc.
Ten ($10) of the departure tax retained by DAO
New terminal will be more efficient
Marginal Annual
Revenue - 2005
$800,000
$200,000
$25,000
$2,028,000
$425,200
$4,251,950
$535,000
Notes: (1) Market rent estimated at $156,000 per acre, which represents a 12% capitalization rate on a value of $1.3 million per acre.
A total of 13 acres is presumed to be available.
(2) Could be $10 of an increased, $35 departure tax, or a special assessment on visitors instead of residents.
(3) based on assumed decrease of 2.3% after new terminal opening.
6-3
Master Plan
percent, which in turn suggests a reduction

of $535,000, or 2.3 percent, of DAOs entire
operating budget.
Development of a new terminal may also

provide a way for DAO to utilise the
departure tax as a revenue source. It is
understood that currently, the $25 tax is
directed to the Governments general fund.
So while it may be imprudent to assume that
the tax could instead be directed to DAO,
there are some alternatives that might allow
more revenue to be realised by DAO without
adversely impacting the general fund. Such
examples are:
DAO could retain $5 or $10 of the tax,

with an understanding that it be used
only for debt service on the terminal
project;
DAO could retain $10 of an increased

$35 tax, which would permit DAO to
retain revenue without impacting the
existing revenue stream to the general
fund; and
6.2.2
Alternative Funding Sources
Without an official Government grant

programme for Airport development, the
concept of alternative funding sources
essentially points to two prospective types:
grants from abroad or private capital. There
is precedent for the use of grant money from
the European Investment Bank for T.B.
Lettsome Airport in the British Virgin
Islands. Such grants are limited to $25
million, so this figure was assumed to be
obtained by an aggressive implementation
team for this project (see Table 6.2).
Private funding of the entire terminal
complex appears unlikely, as the expense of
the project cannot be entirely covered by
projected revenues (indeed, the Governments true benefit from the Airport is the
revenue generated off-airport in the form of
lodging, dining, shopping, etc.). However,
there are two ideal opportunities for private
development: cargo and the Executive Jet
Facility.
Private funding for these
complexes is obtainable in exchange for
some future cash flow. Table 6.2 also
presents the estimate of lost annual revenue
that would be forfeited to obtain private
financing of these facilities.
The departure tax could be augmented

to add a temporary, visitors-only $15 tax
to the existing $25 tax, which would
generate a similar amount of additional
revenue to support the project without
adding to the tax burden of Bermudians.
For the purposes of this analysis, it was

presumed that DAO could realise an
additional $10 per arrival, regardless of the
method used to attain it.
Finally, the implementation of a new
terminal will result in a much more efficient
facility. This facility will require less energy
and maintenance because it will be designed
to do so. A conservative estimate of
reductions in energy consumption and
maintenance suggest that these elements
might be reduced by approximately 11
6.2.3
Projected Benefits
The projected benefits related to the

terminal project come from three distinct
sources. The first two sources, described in
the previous section, come from improved
revenue streams realised as a result of the
new terminal, and capital cost reductions
6-4
Master Plan
Table 6.2
Potential Alternative Funding Sources/Revenue Impacts
Source
Funds
Grants
Private Funding
- Cargo Facility
- Executive Jet Facility
25,000,000
$
$
35,054,200
11,017,600
Total Estimated Non-Government Funds
71,071,800
Lost Annual Cargo Revenue

Lost Annual General Aviation Revenue
$
$
Note: The cargo and executive jet facilities are enabling projects
for the Terminal.
6-5
(100,000)
(145,000)
Master Plan
subjective analysis of lost revenue can be

conducted.
realised from the attraction of grants or

private capital. These sources are more
easily identified and quanitified.
To initiate this analysis, it is first

important to estimate the number of visitors
expected to Bermuda in the future. Table
6.4 presents historical enplanement and air
arrival totals at the Airport. As shown, the
proportion of air arrivals who were visitors
ranged between 70 and 80 percent in the
1990s. Since that time, the average has been
closer to 65 percent. As the global economy
stabilises and grows, it can be expected that
this share will improve slightly, to 67 percent
under the Base Forecast. In the High
Forecast Scenario, which assumes strong
growth in tourism, the future visitor share
was conservatively estimated at 70 percent.34
A BCA requires an analysis of annual

cash flows, so the revenue levels in Table 6.1
were projected over a 20-year period,
beginning in 2013 when the new terminal
would be open (see Table 6.3). As shown,
the agreements for sponsorship revenue and
the commercial land lease(s) are expected to
be long-term deals with constant revenue
amounts. Negative values are shown for the
lost revenue associated with the privatisation
of the cargo and general aviation operations.
The remaining categories would be expected
to grow at the same rate as enplanements in
the Base Forecast. These future cash flows,
when discounted at 7.0 percent, have a net
present value of $111.9 million in 2013
dollars. The cost reduction information in
Table 6.2 will be utilised later in this
Chapter.
Tables 6.5 and 6.6 present the

conversion of the visitor air arrivals
percentages into forecasts of expenditures by
air visitors. Currently, the Ministry of
Tourism and Transport estimates total
spending per air visitor of between $1,077
and $1,238. The average of this range is
approximately $1,158, which, when inflated
to 2013 dollars, is $1,356.
The remaining benefits are extremely

important, but more difficult to quantify. It
is certain that Bermudas economy depends
in part on its ability to generate tourism.
The visitors to the Island spend money in a
variety of ways and support investment and
jobs alike. In the event that the Airport
became somewhat less attractive or less
desirable to use, there would be an
associated impact on tourism. A percentage
of visitors would decide not to make a return
visit, and some might convince their friends
or family not to visit. The exact number of
these lost visitors is very difficult to
quantify. However, the lost revenue at
differing levels of lost passengers can be
quantified.
And with these levels, a
Based on previously referenced estimates

of air visitors, total air visitor expenditures
are forecast under the High Forecast
Scenario (Table 6.5) and Base Forecast
Scenario (Table 6.6). As shown, the forecast
of total expenditures by air visitors under
the High Forecast Scenario is
34
This share would likely be much higher, as the

resident population would be growing more slowly
than the tourism base. Still, a BCA must be
conservative, thus the choice of 70 percent.
6-6
Master Plan
Table 6.3
Revenue Enhancement Cash Flows - Base Forecast (1)
Year
Terminal Retail
Concessions
Advertising
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
$960,800.00
$974,700.00
$988,800.00
$1,004,900.00
$1,021,200.00
$1,037,800.00
$1,054,700.00
$1,071,800.00
$1,091,500.00
$1,111,500.00
$1,131,800.00
$1,152,600.00
$1,173,700.00
$1,195,200.00
$1,217,200.00
$1,239,500.00
$1,262,200.00
$1,285,300.00
$1,308,900.00
$1,332,900.00
$1,357,300.00
$240,200.00
$243,700.00
$247,200.00
$251,200.00
$255,300.00
$259,500.00
$263,700.00
$268,000.00
$272,900.00
$277,900.00
$283,000.00
$288,100.00
$293,400.00
$298,800.00
$304,300.00
$309,900.00
$315,500.00
$321,300.00
$327,200.00
$333,200.00
$339,300.00
Sponsorship
Rights (2)
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
Commercial Land
Leases (2)
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
$2,028,000.00
Departure Tax
Retention
User Fees
$510,700.00
$518,100.00
$525,600.00
$534,100.00
$542,800.00
$551,600.00
$560,600.00
$569,700.00
$580,100.00
$590,700.00
$601,600.00
$612,600.00
$623,800.00
$635,300.00
$646,900.00
$658,800.00
$670,900.00
$683,200.00
$695,700.00
$708,400.00
$721,400.00
$5,106,640.00
$5,180,560.00
$5,255,540.00
$5,340,920.00
$5,427,700.00
$5,515,880.00
$5,605,500.00
$5,696,570.00
$5,801,000.00
$5,907,350.00
$6,015,660.00
$6,125,940.00
$6,238,250.00
$6,352,620.00
$6,469,080.00
$6,587,680.00
$6,708,450.00
$6,831,440.00
$6,956,680.00
$7,084,220.00
$7,214,100.00
Estimated Present Value of Cash Flows, discounted at 7.0%
Reduced O&M
Expenses
$626,800.00
$639,300.00
$652,100.00
$665,100.00
$678,400.00
$692,000.00
$705,800.00
$719,900.00
$734,300.00
$749,000.00
$764,000.00
$779,300.00
$794,900.00
$810,800.00
$827,000.00
$843,500.00
$860,400.00
$877,600.00
$895,200.00
$913,100.00
$931,400.00
Lost Cargo
Revenue
($117,200.00)
($119,500.00)
($121,900.00)
($124,300.00)
($126,800.00)
($129,300.00)
($131,900.00)
($134,500.00)
($137,200.00)
($139,900.00)
($142,700.00)
($145,600.00)
($148,500.00)
($151,500.00)
($154,500.00)
($157,600.00)
($160,800.00)
($164,000.00)
($167,300.00)
($170,600.00)
($174,000.00)
Lost GA
Revenue (3)
($169,900.00)
($173,300.00)
($176,800.00)
($180,300.00)
($183,900.00)
($187,600.00)
($191,400.00)
($195,200.00)
($199,100.00)
($203,100.00)
($207,200.00)
($211,300.00)
($215,500.00)
Total Revenue
Enhancements (3)
$9,380,940.00
$9,489,860.00
$9,600,340.00
$9,724,920.00
$9,851,600.00
$9,980,480.00
$10,111,400.00
$10,244,470.00
$10,225,700.00
$10,376,250.00
$10,529,560.00
$10,685,640.00
$10,844,650.00
$11,006,620.00
$11,171,580.00
$11,339,580.00
$11,510,550.00
$11,684,740.00
$11,862,180.00
$12,042,920.00
$12,227,000.00
$111,934,600
Notes: (1) Growth based on Base enplanement forecasts (with the exception of items (b) and (c), below), in constant 2013 dollars.
(2) Revenue levels presumed to be constant as part of long-term lease or agreement.
(3) Table 6.2.
6-7
Master Plan
Table 6.4
Visitor's Share of Total Enplanements
Total
Enplanements
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
602,106
529,519
487,195
522,280
520,987
501,624
507,137
506,270
481,642
480,416
465,182
410,334
423,771
404,253
421,317
425,195
Visitor Air
Arrivals
Residents
434,909
386,178
375,231
413,134
416,990
387,625
391,450
380,790
369,971
354,815
332,191
278,153
284,024
256,576
271,617
269,587
167,197
143,341
111,964
109,146
103,997
113,999
115,687
125,480
111,671
125,601
132,991
132,181
139,747
147,677
149,700
155,608
Visitor Air
Arrivals Share
72.23%
72.93%
77.02%
79.10%
80.04%
77.27%
77.19%
75.21%
76.81%
73.86%
71.41%
67.79%
67.02%
63.47%
64.47%
63.40%
Average, 2001-2005
Average, 1990-2000
65.23%
75.71%
High Forecast Average

Base Forecast Average
70.00%
67.00%
Sources: Government of Bermuda and HNTB Analysis.
6-8
Master Plan
Table 6.5
Air Visitor Expenditures per Total Visitor Deplanement
High Forecast Scenario
Passenger Arrivals
(1)
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
802,922
837,798
874,188
912,543
952,580
994,375
1,038,002
1,083,544
1,131,610
1,181,808
1,234,233
1,288,983
1,346,162
1,405,877
1,468,242
1,533,372
1,601,393
1,672,430
1,746,619
1,824,098
1,905,015
% Visitors
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
Air Visitors (2)

562,046
586,459
611,932
638,780
666,806
696,062
726,602
758,481
792,127
827,266
863,963
902,288
942,313
984,114
1,027,769
1,073,361
1,120,975
1,170,701
1,222,633
1,276,869
1,333,510
Average Revenue
Per Air Visitor (3)
Total Air Visitor

Expenditures
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$762,243,979
$795,352,658
$829,899,438
$866,310,904
$904,319,907
$943,996,538
$985,413,963
$1,028,648,559
$1,074,279,169
$1,121,933,942
$1,171,702,670
$1,223,679,127
$1,277,961,248
$1,334,651,310
$1,393,856,131
$1,455,687,263
$1,520,261,211
$1,587,699,643
$1,658,129,629
$1,731,683,872
$1,808,500,964
Notes: (1) 2010, 2015,2020, and 2025 from BDA forecast. Other years are interpolated.
(2) Total deplanements multiplied by the visitor percentage.
(3) Taken from Ministry of Tourism and Transport exit survey, presented in constant 2013 dollars (inflated at
2.0% annually from 2005 figures).
6-9
Master Plan
Table 6.6
Air Visitor Expenditures per Total Visitor Deplanement
Year
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Passenger
Arrivals (1)
510,664
518,056
525,554
534,092
542,770
551,588
560,550
569,657
580,100
590,735
601,566
612,594
623,825
635,262
646,908
658,768
670,845
683,144
695,668
708,422
721,410
% Visitors
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
67.00%
Air Visitors (2)

342,145
347,097
352,121
357,842
363,656
369,564
375,568
381,670
388,667
395,793
403,049
410,438
417,963
425,625
433,428
441,375
449,466
457,707
466,098
474,643
483,345
Average Revenue Per Air

Visitor (3)
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
$1,356
Notes: (1) 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2025 from BDA forecast. Other years are interpolated.
(2) Total deplanements multiplied by the visitor percentage.
(3) Taken from Ministry of Tourism and Transport exit survey, presented in constant 2013 dollars (inflated at
2.0% annually from 2005 figures).
6-10
Total Air Visitor

Expenditures
$464,015,633
$470,731,740
$477,545,055
$485,303,653
$493,188,303
$501,201,054
$509,343,986
$517,619,216
$527,108,840
$536,772,439
$546,613,204
$556,634,381
$566,839,278
$577,231,264
$587,813,769
$598,590,285
$609,564,369
$620,739,643
$632,119,796
$643,708,584
$655,509,832
Master Plan
construction years. Of that total, $71

million has been identified in alternative
funding sources (see Table 6.2).
An
additional $112 million can be considered
recovered because of the present value of
the enhanced revenue (see Table 6.3)
expected from the new terminal.
Subtracting these elements from the total
cost leaves an estimated $341.9 million that
should be justified by future air visitor
revenues in order to support the project.
expected to be more than $1.1 billion higher

than the Base Forecast by 2033 (the 20th year
of the new terminal).
In order to calculate some magnitude of
the impact of not constructing a new
terminal, it was necessary to assume a
scenario where potential visitors would visit
if a new terminal existed, but would not if
the terminal were not built. As discussed in
Section 6.2.3, there are certain circumstances where this could occur. Table 6.7
presents the annual difference in air visitor
expenditures under each forecast scenario.
This difference is graphically depicted in
Figure 6-1.
6.2.5
As noted above, a precise calculation of

additional air visitor revenue that can be
attributed to the new terminal is not
possible. However, it is possible to consider
a variety of cases, so that the Government
can make a subjective decision based on
sound analysis. Table 6.10 presents four of
these cases.
Because future cash flow benefits must

be compared to current spending, it was
necessary to determine the present value of
the potential benefits presented in Table 6.7.
That calculation, performed with a discount
rate of 7.0 percent, is presented in Table 6.8.
6.2.4
Benefit Scenarios
In this table, the discounted benefits

from additional air visitor expenditures
($6.5 billion over 21 years, from Table 6.8),
are multiplied by loss factors that estimate
the share of traffic Bermuda would lose by
not building the new terminal project. This
figure is divided by the remaining cost factor
($341.9 million) to produce a benefit cost
ratio. Ratios greater than 1.00 suggest that
the terminal would be a good investment
from a purely fiscal perspective.35
Cost Calculations
Thus far, descriptions of revenue

enhancement benefits, alternative funding
sources, and air visitor spending have been
presented. The air visitor spending figures
are very broad, as it is not known exactly
what share of those passengers might forego
a trip to Bermuda under the described
circumstances. In order to compare the
figures in Table 6.8 to a cost basis, it was
necessary to estimate the true amount the
Government would need to realise from
enhanced air visitor revenue. This estimate
is provided in Table 6.9.
35
There would, in fact, be even more benefits

than just the air visitor expenditures.
These
expenditures would cycle through the economy,
producing a multiplier effect, which typically doubles
or triples the dollar value of the benefits.
As shown, the total cost of the terminal

and related projects is nearly $525 million,
with certain projects inflated to their
6-11
Master Plan
Table 6.7
Projected Additional Visitor Expenditures in Constant 2010 Dollars
attributable to High Forecast Scenario
Year
High Forecast Air Visitor

Expenditures
Base Forecast Air Visitor

Expenditures
Additional Visitor
Expenditures
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
$762,243,979
$795,352,658
$829,899,438
$866,310,904
$904,319,907
$943,996,538
$985,413,963
$1,028,648,559
$1,074,279,169
$1,121,933,942
$1,171,702,670
$1,223,679,127
$1,277,961,248
$1,334,651,310
$1,393,856,131
$1,455,687,263
$1,520,261,211
$1,587,699,643
$1,658,129,629
$1,731,683,872
$1,808,500,964
$464,015,633
$470,731,740
$477,545,055
$485,303,653
$493,188,303
$501,201,054
$509,343,986
$517,619,216
$527,108,840
$536,772,439
$546,613,204
$556,634,381
$566,839,278
$577,231,264
$587,813,769
$598,590,285
$609,564,369
$620,739,643
$632,119,796
$643,708,584
$655,509,832
$298,228,346
$324,620,918
$352,354,383
$381,007,251
$411,131,604
$442,795,484
$476,069,977
$511,029,343
$547,170,329
$585,161,503
$625,089,466
$667,044,746
$711,121,969
$757,420,046
$806,042,362
$857,096,978
$910,696,842
$966,960,000
$1,026,009,832
$1,087,975,288
$1,152,991,133
Total
$27,577,789,888
$12,930,895,977
$14,646,893,911
Note:
Additional Visitor Expenditures are hereinafter referred to as "Benefits" for

the purposes of this analysis.
Sources: Tables 6.5 and 6.6, HNTB Analysis.
6-12

Figure 6-1
Air Visitor Expenditures
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
Additional Expenditures to be
Realized due to High Forecast
Expenditures (Thousands)
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Year
High Forecast
Figure 6-1
Air Visitor Expenditures
Baseline Forecast
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Master Plan
Table 6.8
Discounted Marginal Benefits - High Forecast Scenario vs. Low Forecast Scenario
Year
Marginal Annual
Benefits (1)
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
$298,228,346
$324,620,918
$352,354,383
$381,007,251
$411,131,604
$442,795,484
$476,069,977
$511,029,343
$547,170,329
$585,161,503
$625,089,466
$667,044,746
$711,121,969
$757,420,046
$806,042,362
$857,096,978
$910,696,842
$966,960,000
$1,026,009,832
$1,087,975,288
$1,152,991,133
Total
$14,646,893,911
Discounted
Discount Factor Benefits (2)
1.00
0.93
0.87
0.82
0.76
0.71
0.67
0.62
0.58
0.54
0.51
0.48
0.44
0.41
0.39
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.30
0.28
0.26
$298,228,346
$303,384,035
$307,759,964
$311,015,410
$313,650,332
$315,707,060
$317,225,527
$318,243,392
$318,458,113
$318,289,086
$317,763,788
$316,908,154
$315,746,659
$314,302,391
$312,597,125
$310,651,388
$308,484,528
$306,114,773
$303,559,287
$300,834,233
$297,954,819
$6,526,878,412
Notes: (1) From Table 6.7, in constant 2013 dollars.

(2) Benefits discounted at 7.0% annually.
6-13
Master Plan
Table 6.9
Benefit Cost Scenarios - Terminal Only
Cost Calculations
Project Costs (1)
Terminal Complex (Phase I)

Terminal Complex (Phase II)
Cargo Facility
Executive Jet Facility
Related Demolition
$0.00
$0.00
$35,054,200.00
$11,017,600.00
$16,316,100.00
Total - Terminal and related projects
$62,387,900.00
Cost Reduction/Coverage Strategies

External Funding Sources (2)
Present Value of Enhanced
Revenue Sources (3)
$71,071,800.00
$111,934,600.00
Subtotal - Cost Reduction/Coverage

Net Amount to Compare against Benefits
$183,006,400.00
($120,618,500.00)
Notes: (1) Table 5.1, inflated to mid-year 2008 (midpoint of construction), except
Terminal Phase II, inflated to mid-2011, and Executive Jet Facility,
inflated to mid-2020.
(2) Table 6.2.
(3) Table 6.3.
6-14
Master Plan
Table 6.10
Benefit Cost Scenarios - Terminal Only
Benefit Scenarios
Net Amount to Compare against Benefits (1)
($120,618,500.00)
Estimated Traffic Loss due to Lack of New Terminal

30% of Benefits calculated in Table 6.8
Ratio of Benefits to Cost
$1,958,064,000.00

$1,305,376,000.00

$652,688,000.00
($16.23)
($10.82)
($5.41)
5.24% of Benefits calculated in Table 6.8

Ratio of Benefits to Cost (Break-even Level)
($120,619,000.00)
$1.00
Assumptions:
- The Ministry will be successful in enhancing air service and growing tourism demand.
- This demand will materialize only if the necessary facilities exist to support it.
- A less-than-ideal passenger terminal will leave an impression that causes a percentage
of visitors not to return, and a percentage of new visitors to choose a different destination.
Note: (1) Table 6.9.
6-15
Master Plan
6.3.1
As presented in Table 6.10, the terminal

project would be a prudent investment if the
Government believes the lack of a new
terminal could cause a loss 5.24 percent (or
more) of the difference between the High
and Base Forecast scenarios (in terms of
passengers, 5.24 percent of the difference
equals a reduction of 62,000 arrivals
annually by 2033).
6.3
Under this project delivery method, the

owner retains a team of architects and
engineers to design the project and draw up
specifications that are then presented to a
builder or general contractor, who assembles
prices from specialty contractors or trade
contractors. The owner contracts with this
general contractor and perhaps directly with
some of the trade contractors. The
contractors are obligated to deliver the
specified project(s) for a fixed price, perhaps
with incentives for quicker delivery and
penalties for slower delivery. This method
(and variations of it) has been the traditional
one for many years in public and private
sector project implementation.
PROJECT DELIVERY
OPTIONS
As the Government considers its options

for the future of its aviation assets, it is
timely to consider the means by which it will
achieve the desired physical changes to the
Airport.
Under this method, the project risk is on

the owner, and the owner has full control up
to the point when the owner contracts with a
contractor(s) to deliver the specified project
scope for the agreed-upon price. Of the
various methods, the Design, Bid, Build,
Operate is the slowest for projects requiring
substantial design since the owner cannot
issue tenders for project construction until
the design is complete. Regarding cost,
since this is the traditional delivery method,
it is considered to be the Base Forecast.
Government owners of infrastructure

have employed a wide range of methods to
implement major capital improvements.
Four broad categories are described and
evaluated below based on:
The level of cost risk to the owner of

each method;
The level of control retained by the

owner under each method;
The relative speed of each method; and
The relative cost of each method.
Design, Bid, Build, Operate
Under this method, as well as others,

public and private owners have increasingly
used the feature of programme or project
management to assist the owner in
managing and coordinating the efforts of the
design and construction contractors.
Owners have ranged from seeing this
component as an extension of their own staff
to a virtually stand-alone feature of a capital
programme. Airport owners have especially
used programme managers when their
The descriptions of all delivery method

categories are based on pro forma scenarios,
and each method has variations on the
theme.
6-16
Master Plan
Because it is a fee, the risk is still fully

with the owner, although with a lump sum,
the construction manager assumes some fee
risk, and the control remains fully with the
owner.
The construction manager is
typically retained during the design process,
and works with the design professionals to
advise on constructability of design details,
construction cost reduction, and time saving
measures. As well, with a construction
manager, the owner is better able to segment
the project and tender construction bids
before the entire project has been designed.
programmes have multiple phases, require a

good deal of coordination among
components, or when the construction
occurs in or around an active operation.
6.3.2
Agency Construction Manager

(CM-at-Fee)
Under the Agency Construction

Manager project delivery method, the owner
contracts with a company experienced in
construction for a fee, either a lump sum or
an hourly fee basis. This method has
become more prevalent with airports and
other owners in an effort to reduce the
effects of the adversarial relationship
between the construction contractors who,
in being tied to a low bid, protect their
interests by taking advantage of every
missing item in the specifications. In order
to win the tender, the contractors ignore
these items, but during construction make
claims for any work not shown or implied
on the documents but are necessary to
complete the project. Further, with typical
airport projects, owners desire speedy
project delivery to solve existing congestion
problems, address new security requirements or market demand, or to minimise
disruption to customer activity. Retaining a
construction manager on a fee basis gives
the owner construction expertise as a
professional service, with the manager acting
fully within the owners interests.
Owners have used numerous variations

of the CM-at-fee method, such as having
multiple prime contractors, where the owner
tenders directly to trade contractors as
design components are ready, which is an
additional time and cost saver. Another
variation is to have the agency CM hold the
trade contracts and guarantee the price after
the tender is accepted, which reduces owner
risk but introduces more of an adversarial
element into the relationship and requires
greater oversight of the CMs bidding and
contracting process. Whichever variation,
the CM-at-fee method has resulted in
greater project delivery speed. The industry
is lacking hard data proving that the total
cost, including the construction managers
fee, is less than under the design-bid-buildoperate method, but the savings in time can
be demonstrated; the associated cost savings
would then be a function of construction
cost inflation and base case project duration.
The typical project organisational

structure is for the owner to retain directly a
programme manager (as staff extension or
full-scale), the architect/engineers, the
construction manager, and the construction
contractor(s).
6.3.3
Construction Manager at Risk
Under this method, the construction

manager, as well as the trade contractors,
bonds the project which places the assets of
the CM firm at risk. The organisational
6-17
Master Plan
management firm. The owner negotiates an

overall project budget with a team selected
on the basis of qualifications. The selected
firm provides design services and selects
construction contractors to accomplish the
project.
structure has the owner retaining the

programme manager, the architect/
engineers and the CM-at-risk for a fee,
which then bids the trade contracts. The
owner can require a guaranteed price from
the CM at any point in the design and
bidding process, from schematic design
through to the point where trade contractor
bids are accepted. The relationship between
the owner and the CM-at-risk is no longer
one of a professional service but more like
that of a general contractor. The earlier in
the design process an owner requires a
guaranteed maximum price, the more risk is
transferred to the CM institutes to
compensate for that risk.
Project risk is significantly shifted away

from the owner as is control, although this
can be mitigated with careful preparation of
scoping documents prior to executing the
project contract. The speed of delivery
would be the same or faster than the
construction manager methods since the
builder is in control of design and can
sequence both design and construction to
facilitate both project time and cost control.
Due to time savings and potential fee savings
based
on
reduced
documentation
requirements, the cost should be lower than
the base case and possibly lower than the
construction manager methods.
Under the construction manager-at-risk

method, the risk to the owner is limited,
depending on the phase of each project step
at which the guaranteed price is set.
Similarly, the level of control shifts more
towards the CM as the risk shifts more
towards the CM. The speed of delivery and
cost are equivalent to the Agency
Construction Manager method.
The design-build method had typically

been used at airports for limited high design
projects such as baggage make-up
installations but has recently become more
prevalent for larger, more general, high
design projects such as passenger terminals.
This project delivery method may be

preferred when the owner has little funding
flexibility and needs to limit upside exposure
on costs. The role of the owners staff and
programme manager become critical to
protect the owners interests in the design
and in the treatment of trade contractors.
The fee basis for the CM is typically a lump
sum.
6.3.4
The design-build option also lends itself

to incorporate a level of financing support to
the owner, in that the owner may request to
delay payment until selected milestones have
been reached, up to and including after the
project has been completed. This option
may be attractive to owners that anticipate a
delay in cash flow, or erratic cash flow from
their primary source(s) of financing, but
desire to proceed timely with the project. To
the extent that the design-build firm is able
to offer attractive terms for the financing
vehicle, the owner may or may not
Design-Build
Under a design-build project delivery

method, the owner retains a builder/
developer team at a very early stage of
design, typically performed by a programme
6-18
Master Plan
The build-operate-transfer method is

frequently employed as a means of both
financing and delivering an airport project.
It can also be used for portions of an airport
project. Owners reluctant to cede operating
control of the entire airport have entered
into BOTs for selected facilities that are able
to generate a revenue stream.
experience higher costs than waiting for its

ultimate financing source to become fully
available.
6.3.5
Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT)
Under this method, the owner selects a

lessee who then selects, or is comprised of, a
designer and/or a builder, as well as an
airport operating company. Ideally, the
owner sets lease terms, including lease
duration, payment terms and project scope
expectations, prior to tendering for the lease,
typically retaining a design consultant, a
financial advisor and a firm experienced in
BOT transactions.
Whether the lease is for a part of all of an

airport, the lease duration can be matched to
a financing period with the owner resuming
operation of the facility after the lessee has
achieved a suitable rate of return on its
investment or upon a buyback payment after
a predetermined period of time or upon
achievement of predetermined milestones.
This method produces little or no

project risk to the owner as long as the
selected lessee possesses sufficient financial
and managerial capacity to complete the
project.
The owner divests itself of
significant project control outside of the
specifications contained in the lease
documents. The amount of future operating
control is dependent upon the lease
provisions and the governmental regulatory
regime to which the lessee remains subject;
the lessee will require some measure of
limitation on the boundaries of regulatory
jurisdiction.
6.3.6
Conclusion
Each of the described project delivery

methods
attracts
a
different,
but
overlapping, set of market participants. It is
recommended that the Government of
Bermuda carefully consider its priorities and
objectives before selecting an approach to
fulfil its vision for Bermuda International
Airport.
6.4
The speed of project delivery would

likely be similar to that of the design-build
method, since the lessee would probably
select that method itself, although the time
to develop a lease transaction has to be
considered in the overall project duration.
The owner is relieved of project cost but
foregoes the airports future revenue stream,
other than the lease payments which may be
structured as a fixed amount and/or as a
percentage of the future revenue stream.
REVENUE ENHANCEMENT
STRATEGIES
This section highlights potential revenue

enhancement strategies otherwise not
referenced in the specific discussion of
revenues enhanced by the new terminal
project. The listed strategies have proven
successful at other airports, fall outside the
terminal project (and therefore not covered
previously), or might otherwise be good
targets for enhancing revenue at the Airport.
6-19
6.4.1
Master Plan
Government should consider establishing a

formal rates and charges policy for such
operators, to ensure they receive a fair
market rent for this privilege.
Overnight Aircraft Parking

Fees
Currently, not all aircraft are charged a

fee for parking overnight. In particular,
commercial air carriers are charged a small
fee. It is a common practice at U.S. and
European airports to charge higher fees than
are currently charged at BDA, so it would
not be atypical for the carriers serving BDA
if their fees were higher. However, because a
large part of the Bermuda economy depends
on a solid base of carriers, it is understood
that every effort is made to offer rates and
charges to the airlines that help them be
profitable.
An alternative to this would be for the

Government to establish a ground handling
department and market the services directly
to the airlines. This approach might have
more upside revenue potential, but it also
requires a more sensitive approach to the
matter of charges to airlines, as discussed
previously.
6.4.4
DAO should actively pursue reuse

options for the existing Departures Hall after
the relocation to the new terminal, in the
event it is built. Such a structure could be
used for a variety of commercial purposes.
It might also be used for Government offices
if a particular Ministry were to require room
for expansion, or if Government is currently
leasing space from the private sector. Any of
these options would generate revenue for
DAO or reduce costs for other Government
agencies.
Clearly, pursuing this revenue stream

requires more than financial inputs to reach
a decision. Airport management should
consider the practical, subjective factors of
implementing such a fee.
6.4.2
Consulting Activities
A number of airports have parlayed

some specific expertise into consulting
engagements for other airports.
In
Bermuda, staff likely have experiences that
are specific to operating on a remote island,
or with scarce raw materials.
These
experiences may be valuable to other island
nations. Establishing a consulting arm may
be a way to generate revenue from this
knowledge.
6.4.3
Reuse of Existing Departures

Hall
6.4.5
High-End FBO
The Airport currently supports a firstclass general aviation operation. However,

there may be additional services in this
sector that could be added to enhance
revenue. Bermudas location relative to
Europe, South America, and western Africa
may make it attractive to high-end corporate
users as a stopover or re-fuelling point.
Indeed, some of this activity already exist.
With a more concerted marketing
Ground Handling
Third-party
companies
currently
provide much of the ground handling in
Bermuda. These companies do not directly
pay any rent to the Government for the right
to conduct business on the property.
6-20
Master Plan
6.4.7
campaign, however, this line of business

could be increased.
6.4.6
Other Energy Efficiencies
In addition to the basic efficiencies noted

above, there are other development options
that may be available to DAO in the form of
improved energy systems and usage. For
example, the inclusion of solar panels on
new buildings could reduce the energy draw
by the Airport from the Governments
supply. Another example would be to
develop water and/or sewage treatment
plants on-airport, which would reduce these
utility bills and possibly even provide some
capacity that the Airport could sell back to
the Government. These types of revenue
enhancements would, in addition, be seen as
excellent partnering ventures that benefit
not just the Airport, but the residents of
Bermuda.
Seek One-Way Cruise
Currently, the cruise business in

Bermuda is a significant contributor to the
economy. It consists solely of cruise ships
stopping at Bermuda as a port of call. It may
be feasible to market Bermuda as more of a
destination if DAO, airlines, and cruise lines
could offer packages consisting of one-way
flights and one-way cruises. Of course, this
type of undertaking would require
significant cooperation, and as such, it is not
a revenue enhancement that DAO could
generate on its own. Still, it would bring
valuable passengers to the Airport, which in
turn would support continued growth in air
service and competition.
6-21
Master Plan
APPENDIX A
ESTIMATED FLIGHT SCHEDULES
Figure A-1
2005 Flight Schedule
0
Airline
US
US
CO
US
AA
AC
DL
US
US
DL
CO
BA
AA
U5
AA
US
CO
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
7
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
8
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
9
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 1
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 2
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 3
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 4
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 5
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 6
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 7
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 8
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 9
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
2 0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
2 1
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
2 2
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
2 3
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
Figure A-2
0
Airline
US
US
CO
US
AA
AC
DL
US
US
DL
AA
DL
CO
BA
AA
U5
AA
US
CO
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
6
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
7
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
8
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
9
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 1
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 2
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 3
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 4
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 5
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 6
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 7
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 8
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 9
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
2 0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
2 1
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
2 2
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
2 3
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
Figure A-3
0
Airline
US
US
CO
US
AA
AC
DL
US
US
DL
AA
LH
DL
DL
CO
BA
AA
U5
AA
US
CO
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
6
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
7
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
8
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
9
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 1
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 2
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 3
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 4
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 5
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 6
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 7
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 8
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
1 9
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
2 0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
2 1
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
2 2
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
2 3
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 00
Master Plan
APPENDIX B
ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE FEASIBILITY
ANALYSIS OF CROSS-WIND RUNWAY
Master Plan
Introduction
Quantification of Potential Benefit
This appendix summarises the analysis

undertaken to determine the economic
feasibility of a potential cross-wind runway
at Bermuda International Airport (BDA).
The analysis was undertaken to make a
preliminary assessment of whether a crosswind runway could be remotely costeffective and thereby appropriate for further
consideration in the master plan process.
For this reason, the analytical method and
underlying assumptions are general and
order-of-magnitude in nature.
A
considerable number of assumptions were
required to quantify the impacts. Should the
analysis suggest that a cross-wind runway is
economically justifiable within a reasonable
level, further planning would be undertaken,
and a detailed benefit/cost analysis would be
conducted.
Although ICAO recommends a 20-knot

maximum cross-wind component for
planning purposes, information provided by
the airlines and a review of aircraft
performance literature indicate that a 30knot cross-wind component more closely
matches
the
threshold
for
flight
cancellations. Based on this higher crosswind component, it was estimated that, on
average, about 14 additional round trip
flights (i.e., 14 arrivals and 14 departures)
would be able to operate annually were a
cross-wind runway in-place.
Because no local source was available to
quantify passenger value of time and airline
aircraft values, Economic Values for FAA
Investment and Regulatory Decisions, A
Guide was used.36 A passengers value of
time was estimated at $28.34 (Year 2000
dollars) based on a weighted average value
of 30 percent business and 70 percent leisure
travel.37 The average number of passengers
per flight in 2004 was approximately 100.4.
It was assumed that, on average, each
passenger would lose eight hours of
productive time. The total approximate
annual monetary benefit from the crosswind runway stemming from an increase in
the amount of usable passenger time was
therefore calculated by multiplying $28.34
per hour by 8 hours by 100.4 passengers per
flight by 28 (i.e., the number of one-way
flights), or approximately $637,000 annually.
Definition of Benefits and Costs

The primary benefits of a cross-wind
runway would primarily be avoidance of
costs due to flight cancellations from the
lack of a cross-wind runway, including: 1)
avoidance of lost productive passenger time
because their flights were cancelled, and 2)
avoidance of lost utilisation by the airlines of
their fleet. The cost of the cross-wind
runway would chiefly be its construction
cost, including planning, engineering, land
acquisition and land reclamation (if
required),
materials,
labour,
and
environmental mitigation (if required).
Following construction there would also be
some operating and maintenance (O&M)
costs.
36
This document, was published in draft final

form by GRA, Incorporated in December 2004.
37
B-1
See Section 2.2.1 of Chapter Two.
Master Plan
Estimate of Maximum Potential Cost to

Realise a Positive Benefit-Cost
The airline benefit was calculated

separately for outbound and inbound flights.
For outbound flights, it was assumed that,
with a cross-wind runway in place, an airline
could avoid the cost of having an unusable
aircraft in Bermuda (due to strong crosswinds) and would be able to fully utilise its
aircraft throughout its system for that day
this benefit was estimated at approximately
$3,300i.e., the value of a typical
commercial two-engine jet amortized over
20-years at 6 percent interest and divided by
365. For inbound flights, it was assumed
that the aircraft would be located at its hub
and could be re-deployed in its network;
therefore, the cost would be limited to
approximately an estimated one hour block
time to re-deploy the aircraft on another
route. The block hour cost was obtained
from the Economic Values document and is
equal to $2,100. The total airline benefit
would therefore be $3,300 multiplied by 14
(i.e., the unrealised cost of 14 outbound
flights) added to the produced of $2,100 and
14 (i.e., the unrealised cost of 14 inbound
flights) for a total airline benefit of
approximately $75,000.
The approximate amortized annual cost

of the cross-wind runway project would
have to be less than the value noted above in
order for the project to have a positive
benefit-cost ratio.
Based on existing
financing costs, the estimate of $712,000
could support a project capital cost of
between $7 million to $9 million.
Conclusion
The potential economic benefit of a
cross-wind runway would primarily be the
avoidance of costs associated with lost
passenger value of time and airline aircraft
utilisation. The economic cost of the project
is primarily associated with its construction
cost. Because the benefit will likely be
significantly less than the cost, a cross-wind
runway would not likely be cost-effective,
and options for a cross-wind runway should
not be pursued in the Master Plan.
Combining the passenger benefit and the

airline benefit provides a general order-ofmagnitude economic benefit for the crosswind runway project of approximately
$712,000.
B-2
Master Plan
APPENDIX C
INITIAL NEW TERMINAL OPTIONS
IDENTIFIED IN NOVEMBER 2005
MEETING

Bermuda Master Plan December 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bermuda Master Plan December 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bermuda International Airport

Bermuda International Airport

INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 1-1

Bermuda International Airport

AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECAST .................................................................................................... 2-1

Bermuda International Airport

Bermuda International Airport

RECOMMENDED PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 5-1

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS .............................................................................................................. 6-1

Bermuda International Airport

APPENDIX A: ESTIMATED FLIGHT SCHEDULES

Bermuda International Airport

Runway Marking, Lighting and NAVAIDS....................................................................................................1-5

Bermuda International Airport

Bermuda International Airport

Location Map and Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................1-1

Bermuda International Airport

INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

the Airport, a passenger terminal, cargo

Bermuda International Airport (BDA),

Construction of Bermudas first land

The Federal Aviation Administration

The Airport comprises 536 acres (217

BERMUDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

New York City

0 100 200 300

Location Map and Vicinity Map

Bermuda International Airport

point above the ground or fly along a radial

The BDA air traffic control tower

Because of the distance between

The Bermuda Traffic Management Area

LOCAL AIR TRAFFIC

There are no published Standard

Navigational aids (NAVAIDs) are

Restricted Airspace R-3017 restricts

Bermuda International Airport

To minimise taxi time, the BDA Tower

Runway 12 approach threshold. With the

Because of the distance and viewing

Taxiway Bravo is laid out in a southwest

The components of the airfield as they

Taxiway Charlie is a high-speed exit

The existing airfield configuration at

Taxiway Echo is a right-angle taxiway

Runway 12-30 is 9,713 feet (2,961

Taxiway Foxtrot is a cross-field taxiway.

Taxiway Alpha is 75 feet wide and

Taxiway Quebec provides access/egress

Bermuda International Airport

Apron II is located directly north of the

while the northern half (closest to Apron II)

Apron III is located on the north side of

Taxiway Sierra connects Apron I with

Apron IV lies directly north and runs

Taxiway Tango extends from the

Apron V is directly south of the Runway

There are five aircraft aprons at BDA.

Landing Navigational Aids

The existing runway markings, lights,

Apron I serves the commercial passenger

VORRunway 12 (minimums: 589foot ceiling and 1-mile to 1--mile

Bermuda International Airport