HomeMy WebLinkAboutKober, Hanssen, Mitchell Architects - Kona International Airport at Keahole AIRPORT MASTER PLANINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AT KEAHOLE
Keahole, North Kona, Hawaii
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Prepared for:
State of Hawaii
Department of Transportation
Airports Division
KONA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AT KEAHOLE
Keahole, North Kona, Hawaii
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Prepared For The
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AIRPORTS DIVISION
Prepared By
Kober, Hanssen, Mitchell Architects
In Association With
Coffman Associates, Inc.
NBBJ
Jacobs Consultancy
Final Printing
October 2010
The preparation of this document was supported, in part, through the Airport Improvement Program
financial assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration (Grant #3-15-008-26) as provided
under Title 49 U.S.C., Section 47104. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of these documents by the FAA does not in any way
constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any development depicted
herein nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in
accordance with appropriate public laws.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
KONA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AT KEAHOLE
Keahole, North Kona, Hawaii
Airport Master Plan
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
MASTER PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................... ii
SENSE OF PLACE ............................................................................................ iii
MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS AND PROCESS ................................................ iii
COORDINATION .............................................................................................. iv
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ v
Airfield ..................................................................................................... vi
Passenger Terminal ............................................................................... vii
Air Cargo ............................................................................................... viii
General Aviation ................................................................................... viii
Other Land Uses ..................................................................................... ix
Financial Plan .......................................................................................... x
Chapter One
INVENTORY
AIRPORT SETTING ........................................................................................ 1-1
Locale ..................................................................................................... 1-2
Climate .................................................................................................. 1-2
Island Transportation Network ............................................................ 1-3
Airport History ...................................................................................... 1-5
Ceded Lands .......................................................................................... 1-6
FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Projects ............................ 1-7
Airport Administration ......................................................................... 1-7
AVIATION ACTIVITY ..................................................................................... 1-8
Aircraft Operations ............................................................................... 1-9
Passenger Activity ................................................................................. 1-9
Cargo Activity ...................................................................................... 1-11
AIRFIELD FACILITIES ................................................................................ 1-11
Runways .............................................................................................. 1-12
Taxiways .............................................................................................. 1-13
Airfield Lighting .................................................................................. 1-13
Airfield Signage ................................................................................... 1-14
Airport Markings ................................................................................. 1-15
Navigational Aids ................................................................................ 1-15
Weather Reporting .............................................................................. 1-16
Air Traffic Control Tower.................................................................... 1-16
LANDSIDE FACILITIES .............................................................................. 1-16
Passenger Terminal ............................................................................ 1-16
Terminal Parking and Access ............................................................. 1-26
Air Cargo Facilities ............................................................................. 1-28
General Aviation Facilities ................................................................. 1-28
Support Facilities ................................................................................ 1-29
Utilities ................................................................................................ 1-30
AREA AIRSPACE AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .................................... 1-32
Airspace Structure .............................................................................. 1-32
Airspace Control .................................................................................. 1-35
SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE ...................................................................... 1-38
Population ............................................................................................ 1-38
Employment ........................................................................................ 1-38
Income .................................................................................................. 1-40
REGIONAL LAND USE ................................................................................ 1-40
Existing Area Land Use ...................................................................... 1-40
Land Use Districts .............................................................................. 1-41
General Plan ........................................................................................ 1-41
Community Development Plan ........................................................... 1-42
Zoning .................................................................................................. 1-42
ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY ............................................................... 1-43
Natural Resources ............................................................................... 1-43
Chapter One (Continued)
Natural Resources ............................................................................... 1-41
Cultural and Section 4(f) Resources ................................................... 1-47
Chapter Two
FORECASTS
NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS .................................................................. 2-2
Commercial Passenger Airlines ............................................................ 2-3
Air Cargo ............................................................................................... 2-5
General Aviation ................................................................................... 2-7
SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS ......................................................................... 2-9
STATEWIDE PASSENGER FORECASTS ................................................... 2-14
AIRLINE ACTIVITY FORECASTS .............................................................. 2-15
Air Service History .............................................................................. 2-15
Passenger Forecasts ............................................................................ 2-17
Airline Operations ............................................................................... 2-21
AIR CARGO ................................................................................................... 2-24
All-Cargo Operations .......................................................................... 2-26
GENERAL AVIATION FORECASTS ........................................................... 2-27
Based Aircraft...................................................................................... 2-27
General Aviation Operations .............................................................. 2-31
OTHER AIR TAXI ......................................................................................... 2-35
MILITARY ...................................................................................................... 2-35
ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES (AIAs) ....................................... 2-36
SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 2-37
Chapter Three
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
PLANNING HORIZONS ................................................................................. 3-1
ATCT Count Adjustment ...................................................................... 3-2
Peaking Characteristics ........................................................................ 3-3
AIRFIELD CAPACITY .................................................................................... 3-8
Hourly Runway Capacity ...................................................................... 3-9
Annual Service Volume ....................................................................... 3-10
Aircraft Delay ...................................................................................... 3-10
Capacity Analysis Conclusions ........................................................... 3-11
CRITICAL AIRCRAFT .................................................................................. 3-11
AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................... 3-13
Runway Configuration ........................................................................ 3-13
Runway Dimensional Requirements .................................................. 3-14
Chapter Three (Continued)
Pavement Strength ............................................................................. 3-18
Taxiways .............................................................................................. 3-18
Helicopter Touchdown and Liftoff Area (Heliport) ............................ 3-19
Navigational Aids and Instrument Approach Procedures ................ 3-20
Lighting and Marking ......................................................................... 3-21
Weather Reporting .............................................................................. 3-23
Air Traffic Control Tower.................................................................... 3-24
PASSENGER TERMINAL COMPLEX REQUIREMENTS ......................... 3-24
Terminal Gate Analysis ...................................................................... 3-24
Terminal Building Capacity ............................................................... 3-26
Terminal Facilities Requirements ...................................................... 3-42
TERMINAL REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ................................................ 3-49
Terminal Access and Parking ............................................................. 3-50
Air Cargo Requirements ..................................................................... 3-54
GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES ............................................................ 3-57
Hangars ............................................................................................... 3-57
Aircraft Parking Apron ....................................................................... 3-59
General Aviation Terminal Services .................................................. 3-60
General Aviation Parking ................................................................... 3-60
AIRPORT SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 3-61
Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Equipment .................................... 3-61
Airport Maintenance Facilities ........................................................... 3-62
Aviation Fuel Storage ......................................................................... 3-63
SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 3-63
Chapter Four
ALTERNATIVES
PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS ............................................................... 4-2
1998 Master Plan .................................................................................. 4-2
Previous Passenger Terminal Planning ............................................... 4-4
NON-DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 4-5
No Action ............................................................................................... 4-5
TRANSFERRING AVIATION SERVICES ..................................................... 4-6
Transfer Services to an Existing Airport ............................................. 4-6
Relocate to a New Airport Site ............................................................. 4-8
KEY PLANNING ISSUES .............................................................................. 4-9
AIRFIELD IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ..................................... 4-12
Airfield Capacity Alternatives ............................................................ 4-12
Runway 17-35 ...................................................................................... 4-16
Airfield Support Facilities .................................................................. 4-18
Passenger Terminal Complex ............................................................. 4-20
Chapter Four (Continued)
Design Basis ........................................................................................ 4-21
Development Constraints and Opportunities .................................... 4-21
Terminal Area Alternative Development Concepts ........................... 4-24
Air Cargo Development Alternatives ................................................. 4-32
General Aviation Development Alternatives ..................................... 4-34
General Aviation Alternative 1 .......................................................... 4-35
General Aviation Alternative 2 .......................................................... 4-35
General Aviation Alternative 3 .......................................................... 4-36
General Aviation Alternative 4 .......................................................... 4-37
ACCESS AND LAND USE ............................................................................ 4-37
Access and Circulation ........................................................................ 4-38
Land Use Considerations .................................................................... 4-39
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................. 4-41
Chapter Five
AIRPORT PLANS
AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS .................................................................. 5-2
RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT ............................................ 5-4
Airfield Recommendations .................................................................... 5-4
Passenger Terminal Concept ................................................................ 5-8
Air Cargo Concept ............................................................................... 5-16
General Aviation Concept ................................................................... 5-18
Land Use Plan ..................................................................................... 5-20
DEMAND-BASED CAPITAL NEEDS PLAN ............................................... 5-25
Short Term Projects ............................................................................ 5-26
Intermediate Term Projects ................................................................ 5-27
Long Term Projects ............................................................................. 5-29
SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 5-30
Chapter Six
FINANCIAL PLANS
FRAMEWORK OF CURRENT AIRPORTS SYSTEM
FINANCIAL OPERATIONS ......................................................................... 6-1
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)............................................................ 6-3
The Certificate ....................................................................................... 6-3
Airport-Airline Lease Agreement ......................................................... 6-4
Other Agreements ................................................................................. 6-5
AIRPORT CAPITAL NEEDS PROGRAM ...................................................... 6-5
Chapter Six (Continued)
FINANCIAL PLAN .......................................................................................... 6-6
Financial Analysis Assumptions .......................................................... 6-7
SOURCES OF FUNDING ............................................................................... 6-7
Airport Improvement Program Grants ................................................ 6-7
Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) ...................................................... 6-9
Transportation Security Administrative (TSA) Grants ...................... 6-9
Customer Facility Charges (CFCs) ..................................................... 6-10
Special Funds (Cash) .......................................................................... 6-10
Tenant and Third-Party Funding ....................................................... 6-10
Revenue Bonds .................................................................................... 6-11
DEBT SERVICE ............................................................................................ 6-11
OPERATING EXPENSES ............................................................................. 6-12
OPERATING REVENUES ............................................................................ 6-13
Airline Revenues ................................................................................. 6-14
Nonairline Revenues ........................................................................... 6-16
SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 6-19
TABLES
A AVIATION DEMAND PLANNING HORIZONS ................................... vi
B MASTER PLAN CAPITAL NEEDS PLAN ............................................ xi
1A 1971-2000 MONTHLY CLIMATE SUMMARY ................................... 1-3
1B FAA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (AIP) GRANTS .......... 1-8
1C HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS BY CATEGORY ............... 1-9
1D ANNUAL PASSENGER AND CARGO ACTIVITY ........................... 1-10
1E AIRFIELD FACILITY DATA ............................................................. 1-12
1F GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES OPERATORS ............................ 1-29
1G INSTRUMENT APPROACH DATA ................................................... 1-36
1H POPULATION HISTORY ................................................................... 1-38
1J EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR ............................................................ 1-39
1K HISTORICAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE ......................................... 1-39
1L HISTORICAL PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME ......................... 1-40
1M AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS .......................................... 1-46
2A SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS ....................... 2-10
2B POPULATION AND VISITOR TRENDS
AND PROJECTIONS ........................................................................ 2-11
2C POPULATION TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS ............................... 2-14
2D HAWAII STATEWIDE PASSENGER DEMAND FORECASTS ...... 2-14
2E PASSENGER TRAFFIC HISTORY ................................................... 2-15
2F PREVIOUS PASSENGER PROJECTIONS ....................................... 2-17
TABLES (Continued)
2G PASSENGER FORECAST UPDATE ................................................. 2-18
2H INTERISLAND/OVERSEAS PASSENGER FORECASTS ............... 2-19
2J PASSENGER FORECAST SUMMARY ............................................. 2-20
2K INTERNATIONAL ARRIVALS FORECAST ..................................... 2-21
2L AIRLINE FLEET MIX AND OPERATIONS FORECAST ................ 2-23
2M AIR CARGO FORECAST .................................................................... 2-25
2N ALL-CARGO OPERATIONS FORECAST ......................................... 2-27
2P HAWAII COUNTY REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ................................ 2-28
2Q REGISTERED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS ..................................... 2-29
2R BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ..................................................... 2-30
2S BASED AIRCRAFT MIX FORECAST ............................................... 2-32
2T GENERAL AVIATION ITINERANT OPERATIONS FORECAST... 2-33
2U GENERAL AVIATION LOCAL OPERATIONS FORECAST ........... 2-34
2V OTHER AIR TAXI OPERATIONS ..................................................... 2-35
2W MILITARY OPERATIONS ................................................................. 2-36
3A AVIATION DEMAND PLANNING HORIZONS ................................. 3-2
3B ADJUSTED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS .............................................. 3-3
3C PEAK PASSENGER ACTIVITY CHARACTERISTICS ...................... 3-5
3D AIRLINE OPERATIONS PEAK ACTIVITY FORECASTS ................ 3-6
3E AIR TAXI AND ITINERANT GENERAL AVIATION
OPERATIONAL PEAKS ..................................................................... 3-7
3F TOTAL OPERATIONS PEAK .............................................................. 3-8
3G AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL MIX – CAPACITY ANALYSIS ............. 3-9
3H AIRFIELD DEMAND/CAPACITY SUMMARY ................................. 3-10
3J ULTIMATE TAKEOFF LENGTH REQUIREMENTS ...................... 3-15
3K GENERAL AVIATION RUNWAY LENGTH ANALYSIS ................. 3-16
3L AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS .................................................... 3-17
3M AIRCRAFT GATE POSITION REQUIREMENTS ............................ 3-26
3N PASSENGER DEMAND ANALYSIS ................................................. 3-28
3P PASSENGER DEMAND ..................................................................... 3-30
3Q PEAK HOUR PASSENGER DEMAND PROFILE ............................ 3-31
3R TERMINAL FACILITIES INPUT VARIABLES ............................... 3-32
3S LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS (in square feet) ....................... 3-35
3T EXISTING DEMAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS –
PROCESSING FACILITIES ............................................................. 3-36
3U EXISTING DEMAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
BAG CLAIM AND LOBBY ............................................................... 3-39
3V EXISTING DEMAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS –
POST-SECURITY FACILITIES ....................................................... 3-41
3W EXISTING DEMAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS –
PUBLIC SPACES .............................................................................. 3-42
3X DEPARTURE PROCESSING FACILITY REQUIREMENTS .......... 3-44
TABLES (Continued)
3Y ARRIVAL PROCESSING FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ................. 3-46
3Z HOLDROOM AND CONCOURSE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS .. 3-47
3AA PUBLIC AND SUPPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ................. 3-48
3BB TERMINAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY .................. 3-49
3CC TERMINAL CURB REQUIREMENTS .............................................. 3-51
3DD TERMINAL VEHICLE PARKING ..................................................... 3-52
3EE AIR CARGO REQUIREMENTS ......................................................... 3-56
3FF GENERAL AVIATION HANGAR REQUIREMENTS ...................... 3-58
3GG GENERAL AVIATION PARKING APRON REQUIREMENTS ....... 3-59
3HH GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL SERVICES .............................. 3-61
3JJ FUEL STORAGE REQUIREMENTS ................................................ 3-63
5A AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS ...................................................... 5-3
5B AVIATION DEMAND PLANNING HORIZONS ............................... 5-25
6A MASTER PLAN CAPITAL NEEDS PLAN
(in 2008 Dollars) ................................................................ after page 6-6
6B MASTER PLAN SHORT-TERM FINANCIAL PLAN
(with Anticipated Funding Sources) ................................. after page 6-6
6C HISTORICAL REVENUES ................................................................ 6-14
EXHIBITS
A RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT................... after page vi
B INITIAL TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT – SHORT
AND INTERMEDIATE TERM ......................................... after page viii
C DEMAND-BASED CAPITAL NEEDS STAGING ................. after page x
1A LOCATION MAP ................................................................ after page 1-2
1B AIRPORT PROPERTY ........................................................ after page 1-2
1C HAWAII DOT-A ORGANIZATION .................................... after page 1-8
1D EXISTING AIRFIELD FACILITIES ................................ after page 1-12
1E EXISTING TERMINAL AREA FACILITIES .................. after page 1-18
1F EXISTING TERMINAL PLAN ......................................... after page 1-18
1G TERMINAL SURVEY PHOTOS ...................................... after page 1-20
1H EXISTING CARGO AND GENERAL
AVIATION FACILITIES ................................................ after page 1-28
1J TERMINAL AREA UTILITIES ........................................ after page 1-30
1K AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION ........................................ after page 1-32
1L ISLAND AIRSPACE ......................................................... after page 1-34
1M EXISTING LAND USE AND
LAND USE DISTRICTS ................................................. after page 1-40
EXHIBITS (Continued)
1N LUPAG AND ZONING MAPS .......................................... after page 1-42
1P WATER RESOURCES ...................................................... after page 1-44
1Q SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES ........................................... after page 1-48
2A U.S. LARGE AIR CARRIER AND REGIONAL/
COMMUTER FORECASTS .............................................. after page 2-6
2B U.S. AIR CARGO FORECASTS ......................................... after page 2-8
2C U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION
AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ................................................. after page 2-8
2D SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS ..... after page 2-10
2E STATEWIDE PASSENGER FORECASTS ...................... after page 2-14
2F HISTORIC PASSENGER TRAFFIC ................................ after page 2-16
2G KOA NON-STOP FLIGHTS ............................................. after page 2-16
2H PASSENGER FORECASTS ............................................. after page 2-18
2J AIRCRAFT SEATING FOR KOA CARRIERS ................. after page 2-22
2K AIR CARGO FORECASTS ............................................... after page 2-24
2L HAWAII COUNTY REGISTERED AIRCRAFT
FORECASTS ..................................................................... after page 2-28
2M BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS ................................... after page 2-30
2N ACTIVITY FORECAST SUMMARY ................................ after page 2-37
3A AIRFIELD CAPACITY FACTORS ..................................... after page 3-8
3B AIRFIELD DEMAND VS. CAPACITY ............................. after page 3-10
3C AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES ..................................... after page 3-12
3D WINDROSE ....................................................................... after page 3-14
3E TERMINAL GATE OCCUPANCY ................................... after page 3-26
3F AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS ......................................... after page 3-63
3G PASSENGER TERMINAL ............................................... after page 3-63
3H GA/CARGO SUMMARY ................................................... after page 3-63
4A 1998 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN ........................................ after page 4-2
4B PREVIOUS TERMINAL PLANNING ................................ after page 4-4
4C DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS ........................... after page 4-10
4D AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 1 .......................................... after page 4-14
4E AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 2 .......................................... after page 4-14
4F TERMINAL CONSTRAINTS/OPPORTUNITIES ........... after page 4-22
4G PRELIMINARY TERMINAL CONCEPTS ...................... after page 4-26
4H TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 1 ........................................ after page 4-26
4J TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 2 ........................................ after page 4-30
4K TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 3 ........................................ after page 4-32
4L AIR CARGO ALTERNATIVES ........................................ after page 4-32
4M GENERAL AVIATION LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 1 .. after page 4-36
4N GENERAL AVIATION LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 2 .. after page 4-36
4P GENERAL AVIATION LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 3 .. after page 4-36
EXHIBITS (Continued)
4Q GENERAL AVIATION LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 4 .. after page 4-38
4R ACCESS/LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 1 ......................... after page 4-38
4S ACCESS/LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 2 ......................... after page 4-38
5A RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT................ after page 5-4
5B RECOMMENDED PASSENGER TERMINAL PLAN .... after page 5-10
5C INITIAL TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT – SHORT
AND INTERMEDIATE TERM ......................................... after page 5-10
5D TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN – OPTION 1 ........ after page 5-12
5E TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN – OPTION 2 ........ after page 5-12
5F FULL BUILDOUT TERMINAL AREA MODEL ............. after page 5-12
5G TERMINAL PERSPECTIVES .......................................... after page 5-12
5H TERMINAL LOOP AND PARKING PLAN ..................... after page 5-16
5J RECOMMENDED AIR CARGO CONCEPT .................... after page 5-16
5K RECOMMENDED GENERAL AVIATION CONCEPT .. after page 5-18
5L AIRPORT LAND USE CONCEPT ................................... after page 5-20
5M DEMAND-BASED CAPITAL NEEDS STAGING –
SHORT TERM (5 YEAR HORIZON) ............................. after page 5-26
5N DEMAND-BASED CAPITAL NEEDS STAGING --
INTERMEDIATE TERM (5-10 YEAR HORIZON) ........ after page 5-28
5P DEMAND-BASED CAPITAL NEEDS STAGING --
LONG TERM (10-20 YEAR HORIZON) ........................ after page 5-30
6A OPERATING EXPENSES AND REVENUES ................. after page 6-14
B1 LONG RANGE NOISE EXPOSURE
CONTOURS WITH LAND USE ......................................... after page B-6
D1 NORTH KONA REGIONAL MAP ...................................... after page D-2
Appendix A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Appendix B
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Appendix C
TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CRITERIA
Appendix D
AIRPORT AREA DEVELOPMENT
Appendix E
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWINGS
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
i
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
AND SUMMARYAND SUMMARY
This update of the Kona International
Airport at Keahole (KOA) Master Plan
was undertaken to evaluate the airport’s
capabilities and role, to review forecasts of
future aviation demand, and to plan for
the timely development of new or
expanded facilities that may be required to
meet that demand. The ultimate goal of
the master plan is to provide systematic
guidelines for the airport’s overall
development, maintenance, and operation
for the next 20 years.
The master plan is intended to be a
proactive document which identifies and
then plans for future facility needs well in
advance of the actual need for the
facilities. This is done to ensure that the
State of Hawaii Department of
Transportation Airports Division (DOT-A)
can coordinate project approvals, design,
financing, and construction to avoid
experiencing detrimental effects due to
inadequate facilities.
An important result of the master plan is
reserving sufficient areas for future facility
needs. This protects development areas
and ensures they will be readily available
when required to meet future needs. The
intended result is a development concept
which outlines the proposed uses for all
areas of airport property.
The DOT-A recognizes the importance of
air transportation to the island
community and the associated
challenges inherent in providing for its
unique operating and improvement
needs. The cost of maintaining an
adequate airport is an investment which
yields impressive benefits to the island
as well as the entire state.
ii
With a sound and realistic master
plan, KOA can maintain its role as an
important link to the national air
transportation system for the island
and the state of Hawaii, and maintain
the existing public and private in-
vestments in its facilities.
MASTER PLAN GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the master
plan is to provide the community and
public officials with proper guidance
for future development which will ad-
dress aviation demands and be wholly
compatible with the environment. The
accomplishment of this objective re-
quires the evaluation of the existing
airport and determination of what ac-
tions should be taken to maintain an
adequate, safe, and reliable airport
facility in support of those long term
goals. This master plan provides an
outline of necessary development and
gives those responsible an advance no-
tice of future airport funding needs so
that appropriate steps can be taken to
ensure that adequate funds are bud-
geted and planned.
Specific goals for the airport are to:
Provide a high level of service to
passengers, while maintaining the
“Hawaiian sense of place.”
Stimulate and support island and
state economic development.
Enhance services for air cargo op-
erations.
Encourage international flights at
the airport.
Accommodate existing and future
general aviation (including corpo-
rate aviation) customer needs.
Maintain good relationships with
neighborhood communities by min-
imizing environmental impacts
such as aircraft noise.
Specific objectives of this master plan
designed to help in attaining these
goals include:
Research and evaluate socio-
economic factors likely to affect the
air transportation demand on the
island.
Determine projected needs of air-
port users through the year 2030
by which to support airport devel-
opment alternatives.
Recommend improvements that
will enhance the airport’s safety
capabilities to the maximum extent
possible within affordability pa-
rameters established jointly with
DOT-A.
Produce current and accurate base
maps and Airport Layout Plan
drawings.
Establish a schedule of priorities
and an affordable program for the
improvements proposed in the
Master Plan.
Prioritize the airport capital im-
provement program and develop a
financial plan.
iii
Evaluate the potential for en-
hanced revenue development on
the airport.
Develop active and productive pub-
lic involvement throughout the
planning process.
The Master Plan provides recommen-
dations from which DOT-A may take
action to improve the airport and all
associated services important to public
needs, convenience, and economic
growth. The plan benefits all resi-
dents of the area by providing a single,
comprehensive plan which supports
and balances the continued growth of
aviation activity with the preservation
of the surrounding environs and main-
taining a “sense of place” as described
below.
SENSE OF PLACE
Sense of place is that relationship be-
tween the natural and built environ-
ment with the community. In Hawaii,
it’s often found in the spirit of aloha.
People often develop a relationship of
place through sights, sounds, smells,
tastes, temperature, and climate.
These unique characteristics, quali-
ties, and features of a place help dis-
tinguish one place from another. Ko-
na’s spirit of aloha can be found
throughout the Kona International
Airport at Keahole.
As the Kona community continues to
grow, Kona International Airport at
Keahole keeps its past connected to
the future. Although one can’t plan or
design a sense of place into a building,
planners and architects can create the
opportunity for a sense of place. Fu-
ture development and the expansion of
the terminal must continue building
the relationship between the commu-
nity, its visitors, and the experience of
aloha.
MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS
AND PROCESS
The KOA Master Plan was prepared
in a systematic fashion following FAA
guidelines and industry-accepted prin-
ciples and practices. The master plan
has six chapters plus appendices that
are intended to assist in planning for
future facility needs and provide the
supporting rationale for their imple-
mentation.
Chapter One - Inventory summa-
rizes the inventory efforts. The inven-
tory efforts focused on collecting and
assembling relevant data pertaining to
the airport and the area it serves. In-
formation was collected on existing
airport facilities and operations. Local
economic and demographic data was
collected to define the local growth
trends. Planning studies which may
have relevance to the master plan
were also collected and reviewed.
Chapter Two - Forecasts examines
the potential aviation demand for avi-
ation activity at the airport. This
analysis reviews and updates the KOA
demand forecasts previously prepared
for DOT-A in the Hawaii Aviation
Demand Forecasts Update. The fore-
cast effort takes into account local so-
cioeconomic information, as well as
national air transportation trends to
quantify the levels of aviation activity
iv
which can reasonably be expected to
occur at KOA through the year 2030.
The results of this effort were used to
determine the types and sizes of facili-
ties which will be required to meet the
projected aviation demands on the
airport through the planning period.
Chapter Three - Facility Require-
ments comprises the demand/ capaci-
ty and facility requirements analyses.
The intent of these analyses is to com-
pare the existing facility capacities to
forecast aviation demand and deter-
mine where deficiencies in capacities
(as well as excess capacities) may ex-
ist. Where deficiencies are identified,
the size and type of new facilities to
accommodate the demand are identi-
fied. The airfield analysis focuses on
improvements needed to serve the
type of aircraft expected to operate at
the airport in the future, as well as
navigational aids to increase the safe-
ty and efficiency of operations. This
element also examines the passenger
terminal complex, air cargo facilities,
general aviation facilities, and support
needs.
Chapter Four - Alternatives con-
siders a variety of solutions to accom-
modate the projected facility needs.
This element proposes various facility
and site plan configurations which can
meet the projected facility needs. An
analysis is completed to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of each
proposed development alternative,
with the intention of determining a
conceptual direction for development.
Chapter Five – Recommended
Airport Plan provides both a graphic
and narrative description of the rec-
ommended plan for the use, develop-
ment, and operation of the airport.
From this, the airport’s capital needs
are outlined. An environmental over-
view is also provided as an appendix.
The master plan also supports the
official Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and
detailed technical drawings depicting
related airspace, land use, and proper-
ty data. These drawings are used by
the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) in determining grant eligibility
and funding.
Chapter Six - Financial Plan ex-
amines and refines the capital needs
program, including the schedules and
costs for the recommended develop-
ment projects. The plan then eval-
uates the potential funding sources to
analyze financial strategies for suc-
cessful implementation of the plan.
COORDINATION
The KOA Master Plan is of interest to
many within the local community.
This includes local citizens, communi-
ty organizations, airport users, airport
tenants, local and state planning
agencies, and aviation organizations.
As the airport is a strategic component
of the state and national aviation sys-
tems, the KOA Master Plan is of im-
portance to both state and federal
agencies responsible for overseeing air
transportation.
To assist in the development of the
master plan, the Hawaii DOT-A iden-
tified a group of community members
and aviation interest groups to act in
an advisory role in the development of
the master plan. Members of the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
met four times during the process to
v
review phase reports and provide
comments at each step to help ensure
that a realistic, viable plan was devel-
oped.
To assist in the review process, draft
working papers were prepared at the
various milestones in the planning
process. The working paper process
allowed for timely input and review
during each step within the master
plan to ensure that all master plan is-
sues were addressed as the recom-
mended program develops.
A series of four public information
workshops were also held as part of
the plan coordination. The public in-
formation workshops were designed to
allow any and all interested persons to
become informed and provide input
concerning the master plan. Notices
of meeting times and locations were
advertised through the media as well
as local neighborhood associations.
The notices as well as the draft work-
ing papers were also made available to
the public online.
SUMMARY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The proper planning of a facility of
any type must consider the demand
that may occur in the future. For Ko-
na International Airport at Keahole,
this involved updating forecasts to
identify potential future aviation de-
mand. Because of the cyclical nature
of the economy, it is virtually impossi-
ble to predict with certainty year-to-
year fluctuations in activity when
looking five, ten, and twenty years in-
to the future.
Recognizing this reality, the Master
Plan is keyed more to potential de-
mand “horizon” milestones than future
dates in time. These “planning hori-
zons” were established as levels of ac-
tivity that will call for consideration of
implementation of the next step in the
Master Plan program. By developing
the airport to meet aviation demand
levels instead of specific points in
time, the airport will serve as a safe
and efficient aviation facility which
will meet the operational demands of
its users while being developed in a
cost-efficient manner. This program
allows the DOT-A to adjust specific
development in response to unantici-
pated needs or demand. The forecast
planning horizons are summarized in
Table A.
The recommended Master Plan Con-
cept includes improvements to the air-
field, terminal area, air cargo, and
general aviation facilities to meet cur-
rent and forecast needs over the long
range planning horizon. It is also de-
signed to ensure a viable aviation fa-
cility for the West Coast, the Big Is-
land, and the State well beyond the
long range horizon. The recommended
concept is depicted on Exhibit A. The
following sections further detail these
plans and recommendations.
vi
TABLE A
Aviation Demand Planning Horizons
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Base Year
(2006)
Short Term
Intermediate
Long Term
Annual Passengers 3,033,212 3,472,000 3,819,000 4,721,000
Annual Air Cargo (Tons) 32,390 39,000 45,000 62,000
Based GA Aircraft 61 102 118 160
Annual Operations
Airline Air Cargo
Other Air Taxi
GA Itinerant
GA Local Military
37,436 4,372
9,116
18,340
54,650 19,304
39,800 4,700
15,500
31,000
89,000 30,000
41,400 5,100
18,000
36,000
101,000 30,000
45,800 6,100
24,000
48,000
134,000 30,000
Total Operations 143,218 210,000 231,500 287,900
AIRFIELD
The airfield is the lifeblood of any air-
port, as it is the direct air-to-ground
interface. Of key importance is to en-
sure that airport design standards are
adequately planned for and met. Rec-
ommendations are then provided to
improve the operational efficiency, cir-
culation, and capability of the airfield.
Runway 17-35 will remain the primar-
y runway in the future, although it
will ultimately be used in concert with
a parallel runway and a helicopter
touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) area. It
is planned to be capable of accommo-
dating the Boeing 747, as well as to
serve as an alternate airport for the
largest civilian aircraft, the Airbus
A380-800.
The helicopter TLOF is planned mau-
ka (east) of the rest of the airfield at a
separation that will allow it to operate
independent of the runways, thus in-
creasing airport capacity. A facility
complete with apron, small terminal,
hangars, and auto parking are
planned.
The parallel runway is initially
planned at 5,500 feet to relieve gener-
al aviation traffic. It can be extended
in the future to serve a full range of
commercial activity at the airport and
ensure that the airport is not shut
down when its primary runway is
temporarily closed for any reason.
The Kona auxiliary training runway
(KATR) is included in the plans for
development by the Department of De-
fense. It will be used by C-17 military
aircraft to practice short field land-
ings. If developed to a length of 5,000
feet and 100 feet wide, the KATR
could be available for civilian use
when not being used for military
training until such time as the paral-
lel runway can be developed.
Taxiway improvements are also
planned to improve airfield efficiency
and circulation as traffic grows.
Plans also include new support facili-
XX
X
AIR CARGO
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Object Free Area (OFA)
Extended OFA
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
Lease Parcels
Ultimate Roads/Parking
Ultimate Airfield Pavement
Kona Auxiliary Training Runway (KATR)
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Existing Facilities per Photograph
0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
Ka
i
m
i
n
a
n
i
D
r
.
Ultimate Perimeter Service RoadUltimate Perimeter Service RoadUltimate Perimeter Service Road
Taxiway ATaxiway ATaxiway A
Taxiway ETaxiway ETaxiway E
Taxiway FTaxiway FTaxiway F
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.
Fuel
Farm
AVIATION SUPPORTAVIATION
SUPPORT
AVIATION
SUPPORT
AIRPORT
SUPPORT
NELHA
Halalu St.Halalu St.
Road M
Ro
a
d
M
ATCBI 1,500’ATCBI 1,500’
CULTURAL/EDUCATION
Proposed Parallel Rd.Proposed Parallel Rd.
AIRPORT
INDUSTRIAL
AIRPORT
INDUSTRIAL
MIXED USE/
COMMERCIAL
Initial Parallel Runway 5,500’ x 100’Initial Parallel Runway 5,500’ x 100’Initial Parallel Runway 5,500’ x 100’
Pao‘o St. (Road N)Pao‘o St. (Road N)
MIXED USE/
COMMERCIAL
GENERAL AVIATION
AIRPORT
SUPPORT
U‘U StreetU‘U Street
USPS
FAA
Petroglyphs
Existing Entrance
Wash
Rack
VOR
Heat Exchanger Site
Kupipi St.
Parking
Proposed Museum Site
Conference
Center
AIRPORT SUPPORT
KATR 5,000’ x 100’KATR 5,000’ x 100’KATR 5,000’ x 100’
1,000’1,000’1,000’
Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)
TLOF 1,700’ x 200’
LARGE AIRCRAFT USES
AIR CARGO
PP
MM NN GG HH DD
CC
KK LL
AAAA
FLIGHT LINE
RESERVE
AVIATION SUPPORT Waste Water
Treatment
PUBLIC SAFETY
TRAINING CAMPUS
Keahole St.
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’
381’381’381’
500’500’500’
2,000’
700’700’700’
500’500’500’
TERMINAL
GENERAL
AVIATION
(Helicopters)
3,000’
TLOF Emergency
Response Route
Remote
Fuel Station
Hapu‘upu‘u St.
Ha
p
u
‘
u
p
u
‘
u
S
t
.
REVENUE SUPPORT
(LARGE TRACT)
HOTEL
GROUND
TRANSPORTATION
Road P
Ro
a
d
P
Proposed
Main Entrance
ARFFA
ATCT
WATER RESCUE FACILITY/
BOAT LAUNCH
Flight
Kitchen
AIRPORT SUPPORT
1,000’1,000’1,000’
RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT Exhibit A
06
M
P
0
6
-
A
-
5
/
1
1
/
1
0
vii
ties such as a new airport traffic con-
trol tower (ATCT), a new aircraft res-
cue and firefighting station (ARFF), a
water rescue facility with a boat
launch, and relocation of the VOR
(very high frequency omni-directional
range) facility onto the south side of
the airport.
PASSENGER TERMINAL
While the airfield is the lifeblood, the
passenger terminal is the spirit of the
airport. It is the facility that is fre-
quented by the most people and serves
as a gateway to the island. That is
why it is important that Kona’s spirit
of aloha is carried throughout the pas-
senger terminal and beyond.
The passenger terminal improvements
are designed to modernize the existing
facility while maintaining the Ha-
waiian “sense of place,” as well as pre-
pare to accommodate the long term
planning horizon level of 4.7 million
annual passengers. Exhibit B depicts
the short and intermediate horizon
plans for the terminal. Terminal de-
velopment priorities were determined
to be as follows:
1. Improve baggage claim areas to re-
duce crowding and improve circula-
tion, ventilation, and lighting.
This is addressed first through re-
locating the perimeter rails around
the baggage claim, then with addi-
tional claim devices and general
expansion of the claim area.
2. Improve the ticket lobby experience
and reduce crowding. This is ad-
dressed within the plan by creating
a centralized ticket lobby with ade-
quate space for queuing and
processing functions without hin-
dering passenger wayfinding and
flow. This will first require the re-
location of the Ellison S. Onizuka
Space Center from the terminal
area. A new site for the space cen-
ter has been determined opposite
the Keahole Street entrance to the
rental car area.
3. Improve TSA security checkpoint
operations. This is addressed by
consolidating the two current TSA
checkpoints into one centralized
screening location.
4. Implement TSA in-line baggage
screening. This is addressed with
plans for a centralized in-line secu-
rity screening system, where bag-
gage would be transported by belts
after check-in, then redistributed
to the airlines after screening. As
an option, agricultural screening of
checked bags could be put in-line
as well.
5. Increase gate holdroom areas. This
is addressed with a second level
departure concourse for overseas
flights that would be located be-
tween the two existing ground level
departure areas. The ground level
departure areas will remain for
handling inter-island flights.
6. Improve CBP international arriv-
als experience. This is addressed
with plans to replace the current
structure with an expanded per-
manent facility in the same area.
To accommodate the terminal devel-
opment, Taxiway A will be relocated
viii
114 feet makai (west) on the other side
of the terminal. The terminal loop
road is also planned to be relocated
mauka (west) from Kupippi Street to
Pao`o Street (Road N) to contain all
terminal parking within the loop sys-
tem.
The proposed improvements could re-
quire the terminal curb to be relocated
30 feet Mauka (east). The need for the
shift, however, will be dependent upon
the final terminal design. If the de-
sign does not require additional mau-
ka space for pre-security queuing, the
roadway and the ground transporta-
tion building could be maintained.
AIR CARGO
As cargo traffic grows, it is recom-
mended that cargo be consolidated to
an area north of the passenger ter-
minal. This will not only consolidate
the use, but separate it from the gen-
eral aviation activity at the south end
of the terminal area. It will also pro-
vide space for full screening of all out-
bound freight, if necessary, in the fu-
ture.
The cargo buildings are aligned paral-
lel to the runway with apron makai
(west) and truck docks and vehicle
parking mauka (east).
Space is also provided at the south end
of the cargo complex for a Joint In-
spection Facility building. This is de-
signed to house the Hawaii Depart-
ment of Agriculture (HDOA), the
United States Department of Agricul-
ture (USDA), and other state and fed-
eral agencies with jurisdiction over
cargo exports and imports.
GENERAL AVIATION
The general aviation (GA) facilities
are planned to remain south of the
passenger terminal, and expand with
the eventual relocation of the air cargo
facilities to the north. This will ulti-
mately provide three distinct and sep-
arate functional areas for the primary
aviation uses on the airport.
Property mauka (east) of U`u Street
has been divided into four areas for
lease to private developers through a
request for proposal (RFP) process.
The DOT-A intends these areas to
have corporate/general aviation facili-
ties constructed to assist in meeting
the future demands as expressed by
the general aviation community.
The ramp south of Taxilane K remains
as a corporate ramp with expansion
planned south of Taxilane K. The
south ramp expansion also includes a
location for a wash rack next to a site
that would be reserved by DOT-A for
future consideration as to its use.
North of Taxilane K is the site for an
interim commuter air terminal (CAT)
to be used until such time as a perma-
nent location can be developed on the
site now occupied by the ATCT and
the ARFF. At that time, the interim
terminal can be converted into a GA
terminal and GA offices. Currently in
the design stages, the interim CAT
will be the first LEED-certified facility
on the airport.
INITIAL TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT - SHORT AND INTERMEDIATE TERM Exhibit B
06
M
P
0
6
-
B
-
1
/
2
7
/
0
9
LOWER LEVEL
UPPER LEVEL
0 100
SCALE IN FEET
NORTHARRIVALS PROCESSINGARRIVALS PROCESSIN
G
RELOCATE EXIT
FROM SECURE AREA
Subgrade tunnels
for baggage conveyors
Open Landscaping
(Restrooms double in size)
COVERED CIRCULATION
SPACE
EXIT FROM
SECURE AREA
Note: Existing facilities displaced by
new facilities to be replaced prior
to constructing new
Note: Existing facilities displaced by
new facilities to be replaced prior
to constructing new
Note: Preferred method of USDA screening of
checked baggage is in-line with TSA EDS
screening to achieve 2-step check-in
processing of passengers - will also limit
crossing flow of passengers
ST-6
ST-4
ST-2
ST-1
ST-1 NT Courtyard Canopies
ST-2 ST Courtyard Canopies
ST-3 NT Bag Claim Retrofits
ST-4 ST Bag Claim Retrofits
ST-5 NT Bag Claim / IBB
ST-6 ST Bag Claim / IBB
ST-7 Employee Parking Expansion
INT-1
INT-11
INT-4
INT-10
INT-8INT-9
INT-7
INT-6
INT-12
INT-14
INT-13
INT-2
INT-5
ST-3
ST-5
ST-7
(beyond drawing)
SHORT TERM
INT-1 NT Expand Restrooms
INT-2 ST Expand Restrooms
INT-3 Central OBB / EDS / Tunnels (not shown)
INT-4 NT Concessions
INT-5 ST Concessions
INT-6 Demolish Onizuka Museum
INT-7 Central Automated Check-in
INT-8 NT USDA Building
INT-9 ST USDA Building
INT-10 Central TSA PAX Screening
INT-11 NT Bag Check
INT-12 ST Bag Check Remodel
INT-13 Second Level Holdrooms
INT-14 Passenger Loading Bridges
INTERMEDIATE TERM
ix
The buildings on parcels immediately
north of the commuter terminal are on
small parcels that can continue to be
used for general aviation businesses.
Proceeding north along the flightline,
the current cargo buildings can be
converted to GA specialty suites after
the cargo facilities are moved north of
the passenger terminal. The specialty
suites would have subdivided space in
each building that can be leased to
various general aviation specialty op-
erators for flight training, small air-
craft charter operators, avionics shop,
etc. The ramp in front of these build-
ings would also be converted to gener-
al aviation parking.
OTHER LAND USES
There are two primary considerations
for on-airport land use planning. First
is to secure those areas essential to
the safe and efficient operation of the
airport. Once these uses are provided
for now and into the future, other uses
that are compatible with and comple-
ment the primary uses can be consid-
ered. They should provide a function
that is either a complimentary service
to the airport (i.e., warehousing and
storage, ground transportation, public
safety training, hotel/conference cen-
ter, etc.), a cultural tie that enhances
the “Hawaiian sense of place” at the
airport, and/or enhances revenues in
support of the airport operation. Ex-
hibit A depicts the location of these
other key uses.
The north flight line beyond the cargo
area is reserved for large aircraft uses.
This is envisioned to be the location
for airline maintenance facilities and
for hangars that could accommodate
the largest corporate aircraft.
The center core area between Keahole
Street and future Road P is the cur-
rent and future location for ground
transportation facilities. This consists
primarily of rental car facilities. Addi-
tional area for ground transportation
facilities has been reserved north of
the existing facilities.
An area for a public safety training
campus is another use that relates to
airport needs, but also has the poten-
tial to serve the broader-based com-
munity. An 80-acre campus is de-
picted south of the helicopter facilities.
Other aviation support areas are
planned and could house airport ad-
ministration, FAA, TSA, airline and
other airport-related offices in a cam-
pus-like setting that does not have to
be at or near the flightline.
Area has also been reserved for the
relocation of the Ellison S. Onizuka
Space Center. Adjacent uses are
planned to support a cultural educa-
tion center as well as a hotel and con-
ference center.
Other airport industrial and mixed-
use commercial uses are planned to
round out the land use mix. These are
expected to include warehousing and
businesses that can directly benefit
from proximity to the airport and pro-
vide revenue support towards the air-
port’s self-sufficiency.
Another important factor to the plan
is access to the airport. Road P is
planned as the future primary en-
trance with the capability for devel-
x
opment of a grade separation inter-
change with Queen Kaahumanu
Highway. An internal road system is
planned to provide access and circula-
tion for all airport uses that does not
get funneled through the passenger
terminal area as it does today. The
road system also allows for flexibility
in serving future transit options being
considered for west Hawaii.
FINANCIAL PLAN
The recommended improvements are
grouped by planning horizon. The
short term planning horizon contains
projects of highest priority (collectively
referred to as the “Early Works”
projects), including, but not limited to,
those already identified in the state-
wide CIP, and those relating to meet-
ing safety design standards. As short
term improvements are completed,
DOT-A would begin programming the
intermediate term projects, and finally
the long term needs.
The development of the recommended
master plan concept is intended to fol-
low demand-driven indicators. For
example, the plan anticipates the con-
struction of a parallel runway to ac-
commodate general aviation opera-
tions in the intermediate term. In-
creased air traffic will be the indicator
for the need of the runway, and the
timing of the construction will depend
on meeting that demand. Some devel-
opment items, such as major mainten-
ance of existing facilities at the airport
are intended to meet FAA standards
and would not be considered demand-
driven.
Table B presents a summary of esti-
mated project costs (in 2008 dollars)
for the capital needs program (CNP) in
the planning period during which
those costs are proposed to occur.
The 20-year capital needs program for
KOA focuses heavily on meeting FAA
design standards for safety, improving
overall airfield capacity, and providing
developable space for landside facili-
ties to accommodate forecasted growth
of based aircraft. Exhibit C depicts
the proposed staging by planning ho-
rizon.
The 20-year investment total is ap-
proximately $780 million. Projects el-
igible for FAA grant assistance
through its Airport Improvement Pro-
gram (AIP) total approximately $310
million. Therefore, an estimated $470
would fall under other funding sources
including private financing and Air-
ports System Special Funds. It should
be noted that although a project is eli-
gible for federal funding, there is no
guarantee that the project will receive
federal funding. Nationwide, AIP-
eligible airport projects typically ex-
ceed AIP funding availability by a
wide margin.
The financial plan for the Kona Inter-
national Airport Master Plan antic-
ipates that project costs would be
funded with a combination of federal
grants-in-aid, Transportation Security
Administrative funds, passenger facil-
ity charge (PFC) revenues, internally
generated cash flow, and future bonds
to be repaid in part from revenues of
the Airports System and in part from
PFC revenues. In addition, a signifi-
cant share of the capital costs is antic-
ipated to be funded through tenant
and third party financing. Beyond the
short-term period through FY 2012, it
is assumed that DOT-A will continue
VOR1,000’1,000’1,000’
Kona Auxiliary Training Runway 5,000’ x 100’Kona Auxiliary Training Runway 5,000’ x 100’Kona Auxiliary Training Runway 5,000’ x 100’
2,000’2,000’
3,000’3,000’
ATC BI 1,500’ATC BI 1,500’ATC BI 1,500’
RETAILRETAIL
Proposed
Main Entrance
Proposed
Main Entrance
Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)
Initial Parallel Runway 5,500’ x 100’Initial Parallel Runway 5,500’ x 100’
Ultimate Perimeter Service RoadUltimate Perimeter Service Road
Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’
1,000’1,000’
381’381’
500’500’
700’700’
500’500’
GENERAL AVIATIONGENERAL AVIATION
NELHANELHA
Kaiminani Dr.
Ka
i
m
i
n
a
n
i
D
r
.
Road M
Ro
a
d
M
TERMINALTERMINAL
Existing EntranceExisting Entrance
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Object Free Area (OFA)
Extended OFA
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
Lease Parcels
Short Term Development
Intermediate Term Development
Long Term Development
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Existing Facilities per Photograph
0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.
Pao‘o St. (Road N)Pao‘o St. (Road N)
Kupipi St.Kupipi St.
Road P
Ro
a
d
P
DEMAND-BASED CAPITAL NEEDS STAGING Exhibit C
06
M
P
0
6
-
C
-
5
/
1
1
/
1
0
xi
to develop the Airport as required to
meet the needs of increased passenger
demand, consistent with future fund-
ing sources available to the State at
the time of project implementation.
The financial feasibility of future
projects will be determined by the
provisions of existing or future tenant
agreements (including Airlines), fund-
ing levels and participation rates of
federal grant-in-aid programs, availa-
bility of PFC revenues (pay-as-you-go
and leveraged), revenue bond capacity,
and the ability to generate discretion-
ary cash flow from Airport operations.
TABLE B
Master Plan Capital Needs Plan
(in 2008 Dollars)
Short Term
FY08-FY12
Intermediate
FY13-FY17
Long Term
FY18-FY30
Total
FY08-FY30
Airfield
Terminal Apron Expansion West
Runway 17-35
Parallel Runway 17R-35L
Taxiways G & F West & South of KATR
Taxiway Renovations & Improvements
Airfield Lighting
Other Airfield
$9,419,000
---
---
---
---
---
---
$6,232,000
5,994,000
18,289,000
272,000
5,141,000
675,000
6,511,000
$ ---
4,562,000
47,065,000
19,994,000
30,014,000
---
---
$15,651,000
10,556,000
65,354,000
20,266,000
35,155,000
675,000
6,511,000
$9,419,000 $43,114,000 $101,635,000 $154,168,000
Terminal Area
Terminal Expansion
Parking Lot Expansion
$94,772,000
---
$133,328,000
6,585,000
$203,100,000
3,629,000
$431,200,000
10,214,000
$94,772,000 $139,913,000 $206,729,000 $441,414,000
Parking & Roadway
Employee Parking Expansion
Roadways
$ ---
---
$ ---
2,430,000
$ ---
5,184,000
$ ---
7,614,000
$ --- $2,430,000 $5,184,000 $7,614,000
Cargo Area
Phase I
Phase II
$ ---
---
$41,731,000
---
$ ---
35,738,000
$41,731,000
$35,738,000
$ --- $41,731,000 $35,738,000 $77,469,000
General Aviation
Aircraft Wash Rack
Commuter Air Terminal (CAT)
Apron Expansion
GA Auto Parking
Roadway Access
$743,000
3,578,000
---
122,000
491,000
$ ---
---
5,164,000
---
491,000
$ ---
11,340,000
4,050,000
122,000
---
$743,000
14,918,000
9,214,000
244,000
982,000
$4,934,000 $5,655,000 $15,512,000 $26,101,000
Heliport
Site Preparation
Roadway Access
Phase I
Phase II
$3,897,000
3,856,000
6,028,000
---
$ ---
---
---
---
$ ---
---
5,184,000
1,583,000
$3,897,000
3,856,000
11,212,000
1,583,000
$13,781,000 $ --- $6,767,000 $20,548,000
Other
ARFF Station Installation
Utilities Master Plan
Airport Administration Facility
Regional ARFF Training Facility
$17,288,000
500,000
---
---
$ ---
---
10,000,000
25,000,000
$ ---
---
---
---
$17,288,000
500,000
10,000,000
25,000,000
$17,788,000 $35,000,000 $ --- $52,788,000
Capital Needs Program Total $140,694,000 $267,843,000 $371,565,000 $780,102,000
xii
The financial projections were pre-
pared on the basis of available infor-
mation and assumptions as set forth
in Chapter Six of this master plan.
It is believed that such information
and assumptions provide a reasonable
basis for the projections to the level of
detail appropriate for an airport mas-
ter plan. Based on these assumptions,
the capital improvement program
could be financed in the future by the
State and result in key financial indi-
cators that are consistent with the his-
torical results of the Statewide Air-
ports System and industry compa-
rables. However, some of the assump-
tions used to develop the projections
will not be realized and unanticipated
events and circumstances may occur.
Therefore, the actual results may vary
from those projected and such varia-
tions could be material.
Chapter One
INVENTORY
1-1
Chapter One
To produce a realistic and adequate plan
for future growth at Kona International
Airport at Keahole (KOA), it is essential
to understand the framework within
which the airport exists. An initial task
within this master plan update consists
of gathering data to provide a clear
definition of the airport's aviation
environment, including facilities, users,
and activity levels. The information that
follows formed the baseline for
developing this report.
The initial action necessary in updating a
master plan is the collection of all
pertinent data that relates to the area
served by the airport, as well as the
airport itself. This inventory was
conducted using the following sources of
information:
• Previous airport master plan and other
planning since then
• On-site visits
• Aerial and ground photography
• Interviews with airport management,
tenants, and users
• Federal, state, and local publications
• Project record drawings
This chapter briefly describes the physi-
cal facilities at KOA. Aviation-specific
information on the airspace, aviation
activity, and role of the airport are
described. The chapter also describes the
environment in which the airport oper-
ates, including surrounding land uses
and the socioeconomic characteristics of
the region.
AIRPORT SETTING
KOA is classified under the National
Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
INVENTORYINVENTORY
1-2
(NPIAS) as a primary commercial ser-
vice small-hub airport, reporting
1,519,345 total passenger enplane-
ments (boardings) for 2007. This
equates to approximately 0.20 percent
of the total annual enplanements in
the United States. The percentage of
annual enplaned passengers for small-
hub commercial airports must be at
least 0.05 percent, but less than 0.25
percent of the total enplanements for
the United States. In 2007, KOA
ranked 76th out of 575 commercial ser-
vice airports, and ninth of 73 small-
hub airports.
LOCALE
As shown on Exhibit 1A, KOA is lo-
cated on the western coast of the is-
land of Hawaii. Commonly called the
“Big Island” because it is the largest
island within the state, it is also the
eastern and southernmost island.
The airport is situated on approx-
imately 3,450 acres within the Kailua-
Kona CDP (census designated place)
of the North Kona District. It is ap-
proximately nine miles northwest of
the area’s central business district
(CBD). Exhibit 1B depicts the air-
port property in its immediate sur-
roundings. Queen Kaahumanu High-
way (Route 19) is located along the
east side of the airport. State Route
19 is a link in the principal highway
system that circles the island. Kea-
hole Street provides primary on-
airport access from the highway to the
passenger terminal as well as other
airport landside facilities.
CLIMATE
The climate of Hawaii County and the
Kailua/Kona area is primarily tropi-
cal, consisting of a dry (November to
March) and a wet season (April to Oc-
tober). There are local climatic differ-
ences across the island due primarily
to the mountainous terrain created by
Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, Kilauea, Hu-
alalai, and the Kohala Mountains.
The tradewinds that affect the east
side of the island are blocked by the
mountains, leaving the west side drier
and more subject to ground heating
and cooling.
As the location of the active Kilauea
volcano, the island can be subjected to
volcanic smog, or “vog.” Vog is formed
when sulfur dioxide emitted by an
erupting volcano mixes with oxygen
and moisture in the presence of sun-
light. Vog creates a haze in the at-
mosphere that can become thicker or
lighter depending upon the level of
emissions, the direction and strength
of wind, and other weather conditions.
The vog mostly affects the west coast
of the island as prevailing trade winds
blow the vog to the southwest, where
other wind patterns then send it north
along the Kona-Kohala coast line.
The Kona coast on the northwest side
has a distinctive climate from that of
the rest of the island and the state.
The area including KOA experiences a
diurnal land/sea wind pattern, espe-
cially in the summer. The land warms
during the day, causing the winds to
blow in from the ocean. As the ground
PahoaPahoaKealakekuaKealakekua
PapaikouPapaikou
HolualoaHolualoa
HiloHilo
Naalehu
Pahoa
KapaauKapaauKapaau
Kealakekua
Pahala
Papaikou
PepeekeoPepeekeoPepeekeo
HonokaaHonokaaHonokaa
Captain CookCaptain CookCaptain Cook
Mountain ViewMountain ViewMountain View
Holualoa
WaimeaWaimeaWaimea
Kailua/KonaKailua/KonaKailua/Kona
Hilo
Oahu Molokai
Maui
Hawaii
Kauai
LanaiHawaiian
Islands
Oahu Molokaii
MauiM
Hawaii
Kauai
Lanai
HonolHonolononoonolonoHononHonolnHonolHonolonoHHononulu
130
130
200
200
180
190
240
270 250
19
19
11
11
PUNA
KAU
SOUTH
HILO
NORTH
HILO
SOUTH
KONA
NORTH
KONA
NORTH
KOHALA
SOUTH
KOHALA H A M A K U A
Mauna LoaMauna Loa
Mauna KeaMauna Kea
Hawaii National
Volcanoes Park
Hawaii National
Volcanoes Park
Hawaii National
Volcanoes Park
Hawaii National
Volcanoes Park
Hilo International
Airport
Hilo International
Airport
Kona International
Airport at Keahole
Kona International
Airport at Keahole
Upolu Airport
Waimea-Kohala
Airport
Principal Highway
Secondary Highway
County Road
State Highway
LEGEND
11
Ka Lae (South Point)
Makamaka
S
t.
Otec Rd.
Kukuna StHau St.
Kahun
a
A
v
.
Rd.
Puukala Loop Rd.
Makalei
Golf Club
Kekaha Kai
State Park
PACIFICPACIFICOCEANOCEANPACIFICOCEAN
Kaloko-HonokohouNational Hist. Park
M
a
k
a
h
i
S
t.
H
a
o
S
t
.
K
e
a
n
a
ai
n
a
S
t.
L
a
n
a
Pl
.
Hale olono Pl.
Hina Lani S
t
.
Kaiminani Dr.
Hawaii
B
elt Roa
d
Qu
ee
n
K
a
ah
uman
u
H
w
y
KONA INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AT KEAHOLE
KONA INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AT KEAHOLE
Keahole St.
19
190 180
06
M
P
0
6
-
1
A
-
1
/
2
7
/
0
9
LOCATION MAP Exhibit 1A
AIRPORT PROPERTY Exhibit 1B
06
M
P
0
6
-
1
B
-
3
/
2
2
/
1
0
0 2000 4000
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
LEGEND
Airport Property
Queen Kaahum
a
n
u
Hwy
Queen Kaahum
a
n
u
H
w
y
Queen Kaahum
a
n
u
Hwy
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
Pao‘o St. (Road N)Pao‘o St. (Road N)
U‘u StreetU‘u Street
Kupipi StreetKupipi Street
1-3
cools in the evening, the winds shift to
blow from the land to the ocean.
Summer rainfall exceeds winter rain-
fall, with a high frequency of late af-
ternoon or early evening showers.
Annual precipitation averages less
than 22 inches per year. High tem-
peratures typically range from 80 to
86 degrees Fahrenheit (F), with Octo-
ber being the hottest month.
Although precipitation is low, the west
coast can be subject to severe weather
conditions. When they do occur, thun-
derstorms can be very intense with
lightning ground strikes, hail, water-
spouts, and damaging winds. Hurri-
canes are rare but possible. Tropical
storms (sustained winds of less than
74 miles per hour) are more frequent,
but still occur less than once per year.
They usually occur during the months
of June through December. These
storms generally originate off the
coast of Mexico and travel west or
northwest toward the Hawaiian Is-
lands. Often times when hurricanes
meet the cooler water of the North Pa-
cific near the Hawaiian Islands, they
will lose much of their strength before
hitting the islands. Table 1A sum-
marizes climatic data for KOA.
TABLE 1A
1971-2000 Monthly Climate Summary
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Monthly Temperature
Averages
Precipitation
Month Maximum (F) Minimum (F) Mean (inches)
January 80.9 65.5 2.40
February 81.3 65.8 1.65
March 81.5 66.8 1.64
April 81.9 68.0 2.19
May 82.3 68.7 2.34
June 82.9 69.9 1.83
July 83.6 70.6 2.31
August 85.2 71.3 1.80
September 85.8 71.3 2.14
October 85.7 70.8 1.43
November 81.5 67.0 0.91
December 80.6 65.7 1.23
Annual 83.0 68.7 21.87
Source: Western Regional Climate Center
ISLAND TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK
Highway System
The island of Hawaii is served by a
network 1,393 miles of public roads.
This includes 394 miles of state high-
ways. As displayed on Exhibit 1A,
the backbone of the system is the Ha-
waii Belt Road which circles the is-
land. The Belt Road is comprised of
State Highways 11, 19, and 190.
Route 11 extends around the southern
half of the island between Hilo and
Kailua-Kona. Route 19 extends
1-4
around the northern portion between
Hilo and Waimea. On the west side
between Waimea and Kailua-Kona,
there are now two routes.
Route 190 (Mamalahoa Highway) is
the original link and has been called
the “mauka” route since the comple-
tion of the “makai” route Queen Kaa-
humanu Highway (Highway 19) in
1975. The makai route provides
access not only to KOA, but also to the
Kona/Kohala resorts. While most of
the Hawaii Belt Road is two lanes, it
widens to four lanes in and around
some of the island’s larger communi-
ties.
Saddle Road (Route 200) was con-
structed to more directly connect Hilo
to the west side of the island; however,
it was once considered the most dan-
gerous road in the state. It is not cur-
rently part of the state’s highway sys-
tem, but it is undergoing a series of
realignments and improvements that
will make it a safer road and poten-
tially reduce the commute between the
east and west sides of the island by 20
to 30 minutes.
Locally, Queen Kaahumanu Highway
is a limited-access arterial roadway
connecting the South Kohala and
North Kona Districts. This road is
currently being widened from Kai-
lua/Kona towards the airport. Kaimi-
nani Drive is a collector road that ex-
tends east from Queen Kaahumanu
Highway through the Kona Palisades
Subdivision to Mamalahoa Highway.
The 2005 Hawaii County General Plan
recommended the widening of both
Queen Kaahumanu and Mamalahoa
Highways.
Public Transportation
The Hawaii County Mass Transit
Agency provides public transportation
around the island on the Hele-On bus
system. Service is provided to the ma-
jor urban centers on the island via the
main roadways. There is also shuttle
service available in Hilo and the Kona
District. The Hele-On uses a fleet of
buses with a capacity of 33 to 45 pas-
sengers. The bus service stops twice
daily (once northbound and once
southbound) at the airport terminal.
Water Transportation
As an island state, both air and water
transportation are critical to Hawaii
and its economy. With 80 percent of
the state’s food and merchandise im-
ported, 98.6 percent of those imports
arrive by sea. The Hawaii DOT main-
tains a harbor system on each of the
islands. There are two deep draft
harbors serving the island of Hawaii.
Hilo Harbor is located on the east side
of the island at Hilo approximately 95
miles from KOA. Kawaihae Harbor is
located on the west side, approximate-
ly 29 miles from KOA.
Hilo Harbor is the older harbor and
has historically been the main port for
the island, having a 35-foot draft and
three commercial piers. There is lim-
ited loading and back-up space, as
well as limited room for expansion of
harbor industrial uses. Plans to in-
clude expansion within the limited
area are available.
Kawaihae Harbor in South Kohala
was established to relieve congestion
1-5
at Hilo as well as to provide service for
the growing west Hawaii com-
munities. The Kawaihae Harbor is
not as developed as the Hilo Harbor.
It currently has two commercial piers
with 14 acres of cargo handling and
storage, but has room for expansion.
The Hawaii Commercial Harbors 2020
Master Plan calls for additional pier
construction, an overseas container
terminal, an interisland cargo termi-
nal, liquid and dry bulk cargo facili-
ties, military cargo terminal, ocean re-
search accommodations, as well as an
alternate cruise ship terminal.
In addition to the deep draft harbors,
cruise ships visiting Kailua/Kona an-
chor off-shore in Kailua Bay and shut-
tle passengers to the Kailua/Kona
Wharf.
Other Big Island Airports
A review of other public-use airports
besides KOA has been made to identi-
fy and distinguish the type of air ser-
vice provided on the island. There are
three other airports on the island. As
with KOA, all are state-owned. In-
formation pertaining to each airport
was obtained from FAA records, and
each is identified on Exhibit 1A.
Waimea–Kohala Airport (MUE) is
located approximately 26 nautical
miles northeast of KOA. The airport
has a single northeast-southwest as-
phalt runway that is lighted. Runway
4-22 is 5,197 feet long and 100 feet
wide. The airport has nine based air-
craft and an estimated 3,650 annual
operations.
Hilo International Airport (ITO) is
located approximately 56 nautical
miles east of KOA. ITO is the other
commercial service airport on the is-
land and handled 1.45 million passen-
gers in calendar year (CY) 2006. The
airport has two lighted asphalt run-
ways. The east-west Runway 8-26 is
the longest at 9,800 feet and 150 feet
wide. Northeast-southwest Runway 3-
21 is 5,600 feet long and 150 feet wide.
There are 50 aircraft based at Hilo In-
ternational Airport. Avgas, Jet A fuel,
flight training, aircraft rentals, char-
ters, and maintenance are available at
the airport. Annual operations as
counted by the ITO Airport Traffic
Control Tower (ATCT) in CY 2006 to-
taled 97,892.
Upolu Airport (UPP) is located ap-
proximately 33 nautical miles north of
KOA. The airport’s lone Runway 7-25
is 3,800 feet long, 75 feet wide, lighted,
and constructed of asphalt. The air-
port bases one aircraft. Annual opera-
tions are estimated at 700.
AIRPORT HISTORY
In 1947, the Hawaiian legislature ap-
proved state funding to develop the
Kailua Airstrip, located along the
coast approximately seven miles
southeast of the current airport. Up to
that time, the airstrip was being used
primarily for small aircraft operations.
Over the next two years, the runway
was upgraded to 3,500 feet by 100 feet
and a passenger terminal building was
constructed. The new facilities offi-
cially opened in July 1949. In Febru-
ary 1951, new runway lights were in-
1-6
stalled and a runway extension to
3,800 feet was completed.
The 120-acre airport also included
ground transportation, parking lot,
aircraft parking apron and hangar, 80
octane fueling facilities, and crash-
fire-rescue equipment. Hawaiian Air-
lines and Trans-Pacific Airlines pro-
vided scheduled service.
The need for yet additional runway
length continued to grow. In 1953,
plans to add another 1,100 feet to the
runway met with local opposition and
subsequent lawsuits. While the run-
way extension was being delayed, a
developer proposed creating a tourist
mecca in the Kona area that would re-
quire the relocation of the airport.
Feasibility studies began in 1955.
In 1968, all airports in the State of
Hawaii were placed under the control
of the Hawaii Department of Trans-
portation. A year later, the Depart-
ment of Transportation made the deci-
sion to move forward with the idea to
replace the original airport and began
construction on the new Keahole Air-
port, seven miles north of the existing
airport. The new airport was com-
pleted and dedicated in 1970. The
Keahole Airport’s FAA ATCT was con-
structed shortly after the opening of
the airport in 1971.
In 1974, the Hawaii State Legislature
created the Natural Energy Laborato-
ry of Hawaii (NELH) on 322 acres of
land on Keahole Point makai of the
new airfield. NELH was mandated to
provide a support facility for research
on the ocean thermal energy conver-
sion (OTEC) process and its related
technologies.
In 1985, the Legislature created the
Hawaii Ocean and Science Technology
(HOST) Park on an adjacent 548 acres
at Keahole in anticipation of expan-
sion needs of NELH’s growing busi-
nesses. In 1990, HOST Park and
NELH were melded into one agency,
the NELH Authority (NELHA), at-
tached to the state’s Department of
Business, Economic Development &
Tourism.
The airport handled interisland traffic
almost exclusively until 1983, when
United Airlines began direct flights.
In 1988, the runway was extended
from 6,500 feet to 9,500 feet and the
terminal was expanded by three gates.
The name of the airport was officially
changed to Keahole-Kona Inter-
national Airport on April 26, 1993. In
1994, the runway was extended to its
current length of 11,000 feet. This
provided enough runway length to al-
low wide-body aircraft to operate fully
loaded.
On June 16, 1997, the name of the
airport was changed to its current
name - Kona International Airport at
Keahole.
CEDED LANDS
In the State of Hawaii, there are ap-
proximately 1.8 million acres of land
that were once the crown lands of the
Hawaiian monarchy. After the
overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom
in 1898, the crown lands were ceded to
the U.S. government. When Hawaii
became a state in 1959, these crown
lands now known as ceded lands were
1-7
transferred to the state by a federal
act. These ceded lands are held in
trust for the Native Hawaiians.
Lands, proceeds, and revenues gener-
ated from the use of these ceded lands
are to be managed and disposed of for
one or more of the following purposes:
1. Support of public education
2. Betterment of the conditions of
Native Hawaiians as defined in
the Hawaiian Homes Commission
Act of 1920
3. Development of farm and home
ownership on as widespread a ba-
sis as possible for the making of
public improvements
4. Provisions of lands for public use.
At the 1978 Hawaii State Constitu-
tional Convention, the Constitution of
Hawaii was amended to create the Of-
fice of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) to bet-
ter address the second purpose.
Through OHA, Native Hawaiians
make their own decision as to the in-
vestment of ceded lands and collection
of revenues from said lands.
Kona International Airport is com-
prised almost entirely of ceded lands.
There is one Ahupua`a that is north of
the terminal (Mahele Award) that is
not ceded land. In 1997, Public Law
105-66 from the Department of Trans-
portation and Related Agencies Ap-
propriations Act, 1998, ruled that air-
port revenues for claims related to
ceded lands were not subject to pay-
ment citing the provisions of 47107 of
title 49, United States Code. As this
master plan was nearing completion,
the United States Supreme Court was
hearing the State’s appeal on the
State’s ability to sell or exchange any
of the ceded lands.
FAA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (AIP) PROJECTS
To assist in funding capital improve-
ments, the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration (FAA) has provided funding
assistance to KOA through the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP). The AIP
is funded through the Aviation Trust
Fund, which was established in 1970
to provide funding for aviation capital
investment programs (aviation devel-
opment, facilities and equipment, and
research and development). The Trust
Fund also finances a portion of the op-
eration of the FAA. It is funded by us-
er fees, taxes on airline tickets, avia-
tion fuel, and various aircraft parts.
Table 1B summarizes FAA AIP
grants for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000
through FY 2008. The FAA has
granted $27.3 million for airport im-
provements at KOA over the past nine
years.
AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION
Like all public airports in the state,
KOA is owned by the State of Hawaii.
The system of airports is operated by
the Airports Division of the Depart-
ment of Transportation. The mission
of the Airports Division is to develop,
manage, and maintain a safe and effi-
cient global air transportation organi-
zation.
Exhibit 1C presents the organization
of the Airports Division. The Airports
Administrator heads the Division.
There are five offices within the divi-
sion, including the Staff Services Of-
fice, Visitor Information Program
1-8
Office, Information Technology Office,
Airports Operations Office, and the
Engineering Branch. The airports and
facilities operated by the Airports Di-
vision are divided into four districts,
including: Oahu District; Maui Dis-
trict; Hawaii District; and Kauai Dis-
trict.
Kona International Airport at Keahole
is included in the Hawaii District,
which also includes the other airports
on the island (Hilo International Air-
port, Waimea-Kohala Airport, and
Upolu Airport). The Hawaii District
manages, operates, and maintains all
State airports on the island of Hawaii
in conformity with State and Federal
laws, requirements, and rules, as well
as established policies and procedures
of the Department of Transportation
and those of the Airports Division.
The District Manager oversees the
four district airports from offices at
KOA. An Assistant District Manager
is located at Hilo International Air-
port.
TABLE 1B
FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grants
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Fiscal Year
AIP Grant
Number
Project
Description
Total
Grant Funds
2000 15 Expand General Aviation Apron $5,000,000
2001 16 Wastewater Treatment Plant (Ph. II) $7,319,586
2001 17 Construct Ramp K $1,620,000
2002 18 Security Requirements $247,909
2002 19 Perimeter Fence, Perimeter Service
Road, GA Lighting
$1,935,000
2003 20 Security Access Control & CCTV $2,371,500
2003 21 Rehab Runway 17-35 Lighting $526,050
2004
2004
22
23
1,500 Gallon ARFF Vehicle
Airfield Guidance Sign; Rehab Access
and Peripheral Roads
$712,500
$558,196
2005
2005
24
25
Rehab Taxiway B; Access Road
3,000 Gallon ARFF Vehicle
$1,322,897
$840,500
2006
2006
2007
2008
26
27
28
29
Master Plan and Part 150
1,500 Gallon ARFF Vehicle
Safety Management System Study
Rehabilitate Taxiways A and G, por-
tions of Runway 17-35, and portions of
the north and south aprons.
$1,800,000
$599,975
$100,000
$2,354,287
Total AIP Grant Funds $27,308,400
Source: FAA - Honolulu Airports District Office (ADO)
AVIATION ACTIVITY
Records of airport operational activity
are essential for determining required
facilities (types and sizes), as well as
eligibility for federal funding. Airport
staff and the FAA record key opera-
tional statistics, including aircraft op-
erations, enplaned passengers, and
cargo shipments. Analysis of histori-
cal activity levels aid in projecting fu-
ture trends which will enhance the
03
M
P
1
0
-
1
C
-
1
/
2
7
/
0
9
HAWAII DOT-A ORGANIZATION Exhibit 1C
D
E
PARTM E N T O F TRANSP
O
R
T
A
T
I
ON
•
S
TATE OF H A W A II •
STAFF SERVICES OFFICE
VISITOR INFORMATION
PROGRAM OFFICE
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY OFFICE
AIRPORTS
OPERATIONS OFFICE
ENGINEERING BRANCH
OAHU DISTRICT
Honolulu International Airport (HNL)
Kalaeloa Airport (JRF)
Dillingham Airfield (HDH)
MAUI DISTRICT
Hana Airport (HNM)
Kalaupapa Airport (LUP)
Kahului Airport (OGG)
Kapalua Airport (JHM)
Lanai Airport (LNY)
Molokai Airport (MKK)
HAWAII DISTRICT
Kona International Airport at Keahole (KOA)
Hilo International Airport (ITO)
Waimea-Kohala Airport (MUE)
Upolu Airport (UPP)
KAUAI DISTRICT
Lihue Airport (LIH)
Port Allen Airport (PAK)
AIRPORTS DIVISION
1-9
airport’s ability to plan for facility de-
mands in a timely manner. The fol-
lowing sections outline basic opera-
tional activities at KOA. More de-
tailed breakdowns and analyses of
aviation activity will be provided and
discussed in the next chapter on air-
port forecasts.
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Aircraft operational statistics at KOA
are recorded by the ATCT that is op-
erated daily between 6:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m. Among other duties, the
ATCT counts aircraft operations,
which are defined as either a takeoff
or a landing. Aircraft operations are
segregated into four general catego-
ries: air carrier, air taxi, military, and
general aviation. Air carrier opera-
tions are performed by commercial air-
line aircraft with more than 60 seats.
Air taxi operations are generally asso-
ciated with commuter aircraft, but al-
so include for-hire general aviation
aircraft.
Operations are further subcategorized
as either itinerant or local. Itinerant
operations are those made by aircraft
which arrive from or depart to desti-
nations outside the local operating
area. Local operations are associated
primarily with touch-and-go or pilot
training activity. Table 1C presents a
summary of the ATCT operations
count since 1996.
TABLE 1C
Historical Aircraft Operations By Category
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Itinerant Local
Year
Air
Carrier
Air
Taxi
General
Aviation Military Subtotal
General
Aviation Military Subtotal Total
1996 29,195 16,556 9,485 2,368 57,604 12,106 7,315 19,421 77,025
1997 27,462 14,912 13,250 1,999 57,623 24,299 5,394 29,693 87,316
1998 27,068 9,346 13,987 2,084 52,485 23,150 5,570 28,720 81,205
1999 27,500 8,860 14,853 2,359 53,572 22,666 6,648 29,314 82,886
2000 29,483 9,545 18,011 2,856 59,895 29,010 9,069 38,079 97,974
2001 27,183 10,926 19,570 3,176 60,855 35,544 11,414 46,958 107,813
2002 24,146 15,464 21,170 4,203 64,983 45,310 13,411 58,721 123,704
2003 22,317 14,524 19,894 4,227 60,962 46,904 11,344 58,248 119,210
2004 22,147 20,903 20,122 3,070 66,242 60,105 11,571 71,676 137,918
2005 22,497 22,540 19,737 3,686 68,460 73,055 13,456 86,511 154,971
2006 29,224 21,700 18,340 3,453 72,717 54,650 15,851 70,501 143,218
2007 32,352 19,646 17,766 3,248 73,012 58,000 13,558 71,558 144,570
2008 29,455 20,021 18,783 2,888 71,147 51,489 8,072 59,561 130,708
Source: FAA Airport Policy and Plan Office (APO) Tower Records
PASSENGER ACTIVITY
KOA is one of the five major commer-
cial service airports in the state and
one of two on the Island of Hawaii.
KOA serves the West Hawaii region,
including the major population center
Kailua/Kona and visitor industry hotel
properties along the Kohala Coast and
within the Kailua/Kona region. Hilo
Airport (ITO) serves the East Hawaii
region and its major population cen-
ter, Hilo.
1-10
Three travel sectors define passenger
traffic at KOA: interisland, overseas
mainland, and overseas international
arrivals (flights to international desti-
nations from KOA, currently depart
via HNL). The travel sectors appear
distinct, though residents of Hawaii
and visitors use all for travel between
the islands and overseas.
Passenger traffic is collected and ana-
lyzed by recording the number of pas-
sengers who arrive (deplane) or depart
(enplane) commercial service aircraft.
Passenger activity figures are the
planning yardstick utilized to deter-
mine terminal building space capaci-
ties, automobile parking require-
ments, automobile access capacities,
etc. Also, the FAA earmarks annual
entitlement funds based upon the an-
nual level of enplanements at each
commercial service airport. Passenger
levels on each flight are recorded by
the airlines and reported to the airport
and the FAA on a monthly basis. Ta-
ble 1D presents historical total pas-
senger levels at KOA since 1996.
TABLE 1D
Annual Passenger and Cargo Activity
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Airline Passenger Activity
Year
Interisland
Passengers
Overseas
Passengers
Total
Passengers
International
Arrivals
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2,248,511
2,257,218
2,241,765
2,215,953
2,271,216
2,009,138
1,940,181
1,824,130
1,807,289
1,913,344
1,984,319
2,185,698
1,672,596
275,891
370,939
411,190
452,229
570,881
631,180
661,558
718,436
846,273
1,046,383
1,048,893
992,780
857,989
2,524,402
2,628,157
2,652,955
2,668,182
2,842,097
2,640,318
2,601,739
2,542,566
2,653,562
2,959,727
3,033,212
3,216,642
2,530,585
29,371
40,988
87,521
80,087
78,895
65,141
66,871
65,652
78,918
86,111
69,650
67,549
83,879
Air Cargo Activity (U.S. Tons)
Year Air Freight Air Mail Total Cargo
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
22,486
24,636
22,085
23,317
15,223
21,540
27,323
25,836
25,588
24,477
23,878
22,349
2,448
2,222
2,994
5,889
6,450
5,907
4,038
4,710
5,130
6,290
8,512
8,067
24,934
26,858
25,079
29,206
21,673
27,447
31,361
30,546
30,718
30,767
32,390
30,416
1-11
With over 3.2 million passengers in
2007, KOA was the third busiest air-
port in the state behind Honolulu In-
ternational Airport and Kahului Air-
port.
As of August 2008, there were nine
commercial passenger airline carriers
with scheduled service to and from
KOA. Aircraft utilized by the com-
mercial airline carriers range from the
Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-200 to the
Boeing 777. The commercial passen-
ger airlines included: Hawaiian Air-
lines, Island Air, Go! (Mesa Airlines),
American Airlines, Delta Airlines, Ja-
pan Airlines (JAL), Northwest Air-
lines, United Airlines, and US Air-
ways. During the winter season, Air
Canada also served the airport.
Interisland airport destinations in-
cluded Kahului, Honolulu, Lihue, and
Molokai. Mainland United States des-
tinations included Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Chicago, Oakland, Phoenix,
and Seattle. The only scheduled in-
ternational destination in August of
2008 was Tokyo, which was served by
JAL. During the winter, however,
Vancouver, Canada was served by Air
Canada flights.
CARGO ACTIVITY
Air cargo is an encompassing term
used to describe the combined activi-
ties of air mail and air freight opera-
tions. The air cargo industry includes
a diverse range of businesses provid-
ing a variety of different services sup-
porting the movement of air freight.
This includes air cargo transported by
dedicated cargo airlines, passenger
airlines, freight forwarders and cus-
tom brokers, and air freight truckers.
Cargo carriers currently conducting
operations at KOA include Aloha Air
Cargo (FedEx contractor), UPS, and
United Cargo. Annual cargo totals
handled at KOA since 1996 are shown
on Table 1D.
AIRFIELD FACILITIES
Airport facilities can be functionally
classified into two broad categories:
airfield and landside. The airfield cat-
egory includes those facilities directly
associated with aircraft operations.
The landside category includes those
facilities necessary to provide a safe
transition from surface to air trans-
portation and support aircraft park-
ing, servicing, storage, maintenance,
and operational safety. This section
describes the airfield facilities, includ-
ing runways, taxiways, lighting, mark-
ing, navigational aids, weather report-
ing, and the airport traffic control
tower (ATCT). Airfield facilities are
depicted on Exhibit 1D. Table 1E
summarizes key airfield facility data.
1-12
TABLE 1E
Airfield Facility Data
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Runway 17-35
Length (feet)
Width (feet)
Surface Material
11,000
150
Asphalt/Grooved
Load Bearing Strength
Single Wheel Loading (SWL)
Double Wheel Loading (DWL)
Dual Tandem Wheel Loading (DTL)
Dual Double Tandem Wheel Loading (DDTL)
75,000 lbs.
200,000 lbs.
400,000 lbs.
850,000 lbs.
Instrument Approach Procedures ILS/DME CAT I
LOC, RNAV (GPS)
VOR/DME or TACAN
Approach Aids RW 17
PAPI-4
MALSR
RW 35
PAPI-4
Pavement Markings Precision
Pavement Lighting HIRL
Weather Reporting ASOS
Airport Traffic Control Tower Federal Contract Tower (0600 to 2200 hrs)
Radar ATCBI-5
Fixed Wing Aircraft Traffic Pattern Left Left
Abbreviations:
ASOS: Automated Surface Observing System
ATCBI-5 Airport Traffic Control Beacon Interrogator
CAT: Category
DME: Distance Measuring Equipment
GPS: Global Positioning System
HIRL: High Intensity Runway Lighting
ILS: Instrument Landing System
LOC: Localizer
MALSR: Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System w/Runway Alignment Indicator
Lights
PAPI: Precision Approach Path Indicators
RNAV: Area Navigation
VOR: Very-High Frequency Omni-Directional Range
Source: Airnav.com
The following section will then outline
the landside facilities, including the
passenger terminal, air cargo, general
aviation, military, support, and utili-
ties.
RUNWAYS
KOA has a single runway, as shown
on Exhibit 1D. Runway 17-35 is
11,000 feet long by 150 feet wide; it is
EXISTING AIRFIELD FACILITIES Exhibit 1D
ATCT and Airport Beacon
Localizer
ATCBI-5
ASOS
Lighted Windcone
Glideslope Antenna
PAPI-4
06
M
P
0
6
-
1
D
-
3
/
2
2
/
1
0
0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
Queen Kaahumanu HighwayQueen Kaahumanu Highway
Keahole Street
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
ARFF Training
Facilities
Holding Apron Holding Apron
Blast PadBlast Pad
Fence Line
Segmented Circle &
Lighted Windcone
ASOS
Windcone
PAPI-4PAPI-4
PAPI-4PAPI-4 Localizer
O t e c R o a d
A
South
ARFF
Service Road
GA
North
Runway 17 - 35 (11,000’ x 150’)
Terminal
ATCT &
Airport Beacon
ATCBI-5ATCBI-5
Taxiway A
MALSR
ARFF Training
Facilities
Holding Apron Holding Apron
Blast PadBlast Pad
Glideslope AntennaGlideslope AntennaGlideslope Antenna Fence Line
Airport Property LineAirport Property LineAirport Property Line
Segmented Circle &
Lighted Windcone
ASOS
Windcone Localizer
Otec
R
o
a
d
Cyanotech Algae FarmCyanotech Algae FarmCyanotech Algae Farm
Anemometer &Anemometer &
WindvaneWindvane
Anemometer &
Windvane
A
South
ARFF
Service RoadE ( (AbandonedAbandoned)E (Abandoned)
G
BBBBBBBBDD
A
North
Runway 17 - 35 (11,000’ x 150’)
Terminal
ATCT &
Airport Beacon
RTRRTRRTR
Taxiway A
NELHANELHANELHA
MALSR
RENTAL CAR
FACILITIES
RENTAL CAR
FACILITIES
CCHH
75’75’75’
887’887’887’
WindconeWindconeWindcone
1-13
oriented north-south and is con-
structed of grooved asphalt. The run-
way is equipped with 35-foot wide
paved shoulders, and 400-foot over-
runs off each end. The north runway
overrun includes a 300-foot concrete
blast pad.
The load bearing strength of the run-
way is shown in Table 1E. Single
wheel loading (SWL) refers to the de-
sign of certain aircraft landing gear
which has a single wheel on each main
landing gear strut. Dual wheel load-
ing (DWL) refers to the design of cer-
tain aircraft landing gear which has
two wheels on each main landing gear
strut. Dual tandem wheel loading
(DTL) refers to the aircraft landing
gear struts with a tandem set of dual
wheels (four wheels) on each main
landing gear strut. Dual Double Tan-
dem Wheel Loading (DDTL) refers to
the aircraft landing gear struts with
double tandem sets of dual wheels
(eight wheels) on each main landing
gear strut.
The runway gradient describes the av-
erage slope of a runway. The gradient
is determined by dividing the run-
way’s high and low points by its
length. Runway 17-35 has a 0.086
percent gradient.
TAXIWAYS
Taxiways on the airfield are identified
by a single letter and include the fol-
lowing:
Taxiway A – Parallel taxiway to
Runway 17-35.
Taxiway B – Abandoned taxiway
now used as ramp.
Taxiway C– High-speed exit tax-
iway for Runway 17-35.
Taxiway D – Connecting taxiway
for south general aviation ramp to
Taxiway A.
Taxiway E – Abandoned taxiway.
Taxiway G – Exit taxiway for
Runway 17-35.
Taxiway H – Exit/connecting tax-
iway from terminal apron to Run-
way 17-35.
The airfield taxiways are all at least
75 feet wide with 35-foot wide paved
shoulders. The centerline separation
between the runway and the parallel
taxiway is 887 feet.
AIRFIELD LIGHTING
Airfield lighting systems extend an
airport’s usefulness into periods of
darkness and/or poor visibility. A va-
riety of lighting systems are installed
at the airport for this purpose. They
are categorized by function as follows:
Airport Identification Lighting:
The location of the airport at night or
during low-visibility weather is un-
iversally identified by a rotating bea-
con. A rotating beacon projects two
beams of light, one white and one
green, 180 degrees apart. The airport
beacon is located on top of the ATCT.
1-14
Runway Pavement and Edge
Lighting: Pavement edge lighting
utilizes light fixtures placed near the
edge of the pavement to define the lat-
eral limits of the pavement. This
lighting is essential for safe operations
during night and/or times of low visi-
bility in order to maintain safe and ef-
ficient access to and from the runway
and aircraft parking areas. Runway
17-35 is equipped with a high intensi-
ty runway lighting (HIRL) system.
Taxiway Lighting: All airfield tax-
iways, the apron edge taxilanes, as
well as associated connector taxiways,
are equipped with blue medium inten-
sity taxiway lights (MITL).
Obstruction Lighting: Objects
which obstruct the Federal Aviation
Regulation (FAR) Part 77 imaginary
surfaces are marked with red lights.
Obstructions marked at KOA include:
wind cones, weather reporting, navi-
gation and approach aid systems, and
the airport control tower.
Visual Approach Lighting: Visual
approach aids have been installed at
the airport to assist pilots in determin-
ing the correct descent path to the
runway end during an approach to the
airport. Precision approach path indi-
cators (PAPI-4s) are available on both
Runways 17 and 35. The PAPIs pro-
vide approach path guidance with a
series of light units. The four-unit
PAPIs give the pilot an indication of
whether their approach is above, be-
low, or on-path, through the pattern of
red and white light visible from the
light units.
Instrument Approach Lighting:
Runway 17 is equipped with a me-
dium intensity approach lighting sys-
tem with runway alignment indicator
lights (MALSR). The medium intensi-
ty approach light system (MALS) be-
gins at the runway end and extends
into the approach for 1,400 feet with
stations every 200 feet along the run-
way centerline. The runway align-
ment indicator lights (RAIL) begins at
the end of the MALS and extends
another 1,000 feet into the approach
with light stations every 200 feet, for a
total distance of 2,400 feet. Runway
35 has no approach light system.
AIRFIELD SIGNAGE
Airfield identification signs assist pi-
lots in identifying runways, taxiway
routes, and critical areas. All runways
are identified with lighted signs lo-
cated at each taxiway intersection.
Taxiways are identified using lighted
location, directional, and information-
al signs. Lighted signs are installed at
all taxiway and runway intersections.
These signs also identify the aircraft
holding position.
The glide slope critical area at the ap-
proach end to Runway 17 is protected
from signal disruption through the in-
stallation of a set-back Category I hold
line and an “ILS” sign displayed adja-
cent to Taxiway A North. Signs are
located at runway safety areas (RSAs)
adjoining the critical area to service
operators against inadvertent entry.
1-15
AIRPORT MARKINGS
Pavement markings aid in the move-
ment of aircraft along airport surfaces
and identify closed or hazardous areas
on the airport. KOA provides and
maintains marking systems in accor-
dance with Part 139.311(a) and Advi-
sory Circular 150/5340-1, Standards
for Airport Marking.
Runway 17-35 has precision instru-
ment runway (PIR) markings that
identify the runway centerline, thresh-
old, designation, touchdown point, and
aircraft holding positions.
In addition to pavement markings,
wind cones are available at the ap-
proach end of each runway.
All taxiways at KOA are marked with
yellow centerline and taxiway hold
markings. Centerline markings assist
pilots in maintaining proper clearance
from pavement edges and objects near
the taxiway edges. A continuous,
double yellow taxiway line is used to
the taxiway edge from the shoulder or
other contiguous paved surface not for
aircraft use. A dashed, double yellow
taxiway line is used where there is an
operational need to define the edge of
a taxiway or taxilane where a con-
tiguous paved surface is intended for
use by aircraft, such as an aircraft
apron or run-up pad.
Aircraft hold positions are also
marked at each runway/taxiway inter-
section. All holding position markings
are located 280 feet from the runway
centerline and are yellow, glass-
beaded, highlighted in black, and
double-sized in accordance with FAA
standards.
NAVIGATIONAL AIDS
Navigational aids are electronic devic-
es that transmit radio frequencies,
which pilots of properly equipped air-
craft translate into point-to-point
guidance and position information.
The types of electronic navigational
aids available for aircraft flying to or
from KOA include the VOR, the non-
directional beacon (NDB), and global
positioning system (GPS).
The VOR provides azimuth readings
to pilots of properly equipped aircraft
by transmitting a radio signal at every
degree to provide 360 individual navi-
gational courses. Frequently, distance
measuring equipment (DME) is com-
bined with a VOR facility to provide
distance as well as direction informa-
tion to the pilot. Military tactical air
navigation aids (TACANs) and civil
VORs are commonly combined to form
a VORTAC. A VORTAC provides dis-
tance and direction information to civ-
il and military pilots.
The Kona VORTAC serves the Kona
area, including KOA. The Kona VOR-
TAC is located approximately five
nautical miles south of KOA. The
FAA has plans in place to relocate the
facility to a new site within the south
airport boundary in the 2011-2012
timeframe.
The NDB transmits non-directional
radio signals, whereby the pilot of a
properly equipped aircraft can deter-
1-16
mine the bearing to or from the NDB
facility and then “home” or track to or
from the station. Pilots flying to or
from the airport can utilize the Brad-
shaw NDB located approximately 25
nautical miles east of KOA.
GPS was initially developed by the
United States Department of Defense
for military navigation around the
world. However, GPS is now used ex-
tensively for a wide variety of civilian
uses, including the civil aircraft navi-
gation.
GPS uses satellites placed in orbit
around the globe to transmit electron-
ic signals, which pilots of properly
equipped aircraft use to determine al-
titude, speed, and navigational infor-
mation. This provides more freedom
in flight planning and allows for more
direct routing to the final destination.
The present GPS provides for enroute
navigation and instrument approaches
with both course and vertical naviga-
tion. KOA has GPS approaches avail-
able to both runway ends.
WEATHER REPORTING
KOA is served by an automated sur-
face observing system (ASOS). The
ASOS provides automated aviation
weather observations 24 hours per
day. The system updates weather ob-
servations every minute, continuously
reporting significant weather changes
as they occur. The ASOS system re-
ports cloud ceiling, visibility, tempera-
ture, dew point, wind direction, wind
speed, altimeter setting (barometric
pressure), and density altitude (air-
field elevation corrected for tempera-
ture). The ASOS is located on the
west side of the runway near the pe-
rimeter fence.
AIRPORT TRAFFIC
CONTROL TOWER
The KOA ATCT is currently located
east of the runway along the flight line
south of the airline terminal. It is op-
erated as a federal contract tower dai-
ly from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
The current tower is a multi-level
wood structure with a cab height of
approximately 50 feet. The tower cab
does not meet current standards, is
undersized, and has line-of-sight is-
sues with northern portions of Tax-
iway A. A new ATCT has been pro-
grammed by the FAA for KOA to be in
service by 2012-13. The siting of this
tower is discussed in later chapters of
this Master Plan.
An airport traffic control beacon inter-
rogator (ATCBI-5) is located on the
airport. This facility is located mauka
(east) of the north end of the airfield.
The ATCBI-5 is a long-range radar
used in enroute air traffic control.
LANDSIDE FACILITIES
PASSENGER TERMINAL
Kona International Airport at Keahole
was relocated from its original site to
the current airport location on July 1,
1970. The existing KOA terminal
buildings were built at that time, and
their design character has been cele-
brated as unique architecture – ex-
pressive of Hawaii, connected to the
1-17
natural environment of the region,
and thus successfully representing
West Hawaii. The airport terminals
were designed to accommodate inter-
island travelers arriving on smaller
sized jet aircraft such as the Boeing
737 and McDonald Douglas DC9 (now
Boeing 717).
In December of 1990, a memorial
building was added to the center of the
terminal buildings in remembrance of
Col. Ellison Onizuka, son of West Ha-
waii and NASA astronaut, who per-
ished aboard the space shuttle Chal-
lenger on January 28, 1986.
The terminal facilities were expanded
in 1996. This project included the ad-
dition of gate holdroom areas. The
airport now serves passengers on di-
rect overseas flights from the main-
land United States as well as interna-
tional passengers from Japan. They
arrive on aircraft that are much larger
– such as Boeing 747 – than the air-
port terminals were designed to han-
dle. Consequently, processing of pas-
sengers and the boarding of aircraft
has led to capacity, safety, and con-
venience issues. The events of Sep-
tember 11, 2001, have also changed
airport requirements which have af-
fected the operation of KOA. Airport
capacity, level of service, safety, and
security issues requires KOA to plan
for current changes and future needs.
Terminal Area Overview
The passenger terminal area at KOA
is depicted on Exhibit 1E. This in-
cludes the aircraft parking apron, pas-
senger terminal facilities, terminal
curbs and drives, terminal roadways,
and public parking within the termi-
nal roadway loop. Generally, all ter-
minal area facilities are on one level,
beginning with the apron on the air-
side, through the terminals, to the
parking and roads on the landside.
The aircraft apron at KOA is linear,
parallel to the runway, and begins ad-
jacent to the General Aviation area to
the south and continues to the inter-
national arrivals buildings to the
north. Passenger terminal facilities at
KOA are located in two areas. The
main terminal facilities are for interis-
land and overseas (mainland and in-
ternational) travel sectors and are
centrally located. Directly adjacent to
the north are airport administration
buildings, and north of those are tem-
porary sprung structure type facilities
for international arrivals processing of
passengers.
The terminal area includes 358,901
square feet divided as shown in Exhi-
bit 1F.
The main terminal facilities are di-
vided into a north terminal and south
terminal, each serving both interis-
land and overseas travel sectors. Ap-
proximately equal in size, the north
and south terminals are separated by
the Ellison S. Onizuka Space Center.
Though the terminals each have a lin-
ear pier layout, the individual build-
ings comprising each terminal are
turned on a grid 45 degrees to the air-
craft apron and terminal drives.
The terminal curbs are linear from
north to south and form the western
edge of the counterclockwise travel
1-18
terminal roadway loop. There are two
parallel drives with inner and outer
curbs; the inner curb is used for pri-
vate vehicle drop-off and pick-up of
passengers, and the outer for use by
commercial vehicles such as rental car
shuttle vehicles.
Public parking is located within the
terminal roadway loop and includes
revenue control systems. Entrance is
on the approach located along the
northeast side of the roadway loop,
and exit is to the airport departures
drive on the southwest side of the
roadway loop.
The terminal roadway loop is con-
nected to regional access, Queen Kaa-
humanu Highway via Keahole Airport
Road, the airport entrance/exit road-
way.
Employee parking is located directly
adjacent to and east of the terminal
roadway loop and is currently being
expanded. The rental car facilities are
located between the employee parking
areas and the highway. The following
subsections discuss each of these areas
in more detail.
Aircraft Apron
The air carrier aircraft apron at KOA
is designed for 10 aircraft positions of
various sizes from turboprop to B-747.
Some interisland “narrowbody” type
aircraft operate in a “power-in/power-
out” mode. Other interisland aircraft
and most of the overseas aircraft pow-
er-in, but use aircraft tugs to push-
back.
Aircraft are serviced by vehicles; there
are no in-ramp services such as hy-
drant fueling. All aircraft are ground-
boarded using air stairs (lifts are used
for wheel chair access); there are no
passenger loading bridges at the air-
port. As such, passengers are exposed
to the weather elements as they walk
between the terminal and aircraft.
Apron Operations
Aircraft Movement on Apron:
Commercial passenger aircraft land-
ing at KOA either to the north or
south exit the runway to Taxiway A
then proceed to the terminal apron.
While the apron is continuous on the
west side of the terminal area, it is di-
vided into two functional areas, North
and South, corresponding to the two
terminals. The North Terminal apron
is open to the north. Consequently, in-
ternational and wide-bodied aircraft
park to the north as well as to the
west of the North Terminal. Airlines
include Japan Airlines, United, US
Airways, and Go!. The smaller interis-
land aircraft park to the west and
south and power in/power out.
Aircraft using the South Terminal are
somewhat constrained as all wide-
bodied aircraft must park to the west
of the terminal. Airlines include Amer-
ican, Northwest, Delta, Hawaiian, and
Island Air. Interisland aircraft use
Gate 6 as well as the apron west and
south of the terminal for power
in/power out operations.
At peak hours, the aprons can become
quite congested with maneuvering air-
EXISTING TERMINAL AREA FACILITIES Exhibit 1E
06
M
P
0
6
-
1
E
-
1
/
2
6
/
0
9
0 300 600
SCALE IN FEET
Employee ParkingEmployee Parking
Recent ParkingRecent Parking
AdditionsAdditions
Recent Parking AdditionsRecent Parking Additions
Recent Parking
Additions
Recent Parking Additions
Employee Parking
Public Automobile ParkingPublic Automobile ParkingPublic Automobile Parking
ARFFARFFARFF
InternationalInternational
TerminalTerminal
International
Terminal
AirportAirport
MangementMangement
OfficesOffices
Airport
Mangement
Offices
North PassengerNorth Passenger
TerminalTerminal
North Passenger
Terminal
2
3
1
4
7
5 6
ATCT
9
8
VehicleVehicle
Wash RackWash Rack
Vehicle
Wash Rack
11
10
NORTH
JTB Building1 Parking Lot2
South Passsenger Terminal7
Airport Cafe6Onizuka Memorial Museum5
International FederalInspection Facility4Airline Equipment Storage Area3
Terminal Apron Kupipi Road9 Keahole Street11810
EXISTING TERMINAL PLAN Exhibit 1F
06
M
P
0
6
-
1
F
-
3
/
2
2
/
1
0
3-D MODELING OF TERMINAL AREA
0 160 320
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
NORTH TERMINAL
INTERNATIONAL
ARRIVALS
AIRPORT
ADMINISTRATION
SOUTH TERMINAL
ARFF
ATCT
GateGate
1010
Gate
10
Kupipi Street
Kupipi Street
BagBag
ClaimClaim
B
Bag
Claim
B
BagBag
ClaimClaim
A
Bag
Claim
ATicketingTicketingTicketingTicketingTicketingTicketing
GateGate
9
GateGate
7
GateGate
6
Gate
9
Gate
7
Gate
6
Gate
8
ONIZUKA MEMORIALONIZUKA MEMORIALONIZUKA MEMORIAL
PUBLIC PARKING
Parking Exit
Parking Entrance
GateGate
5
GateGate
4
GateGate
2
GateGate
1
GateGate
3
Gate
5
Gate
4
Gate
2
Gate
1
Gate
3
Public Area 171,753 SF
Holdroom 17,713 SF
Airline 54,968 SF
Ticket Queuing 11,793 SF
Concessions 16,534 SF
Airport Administration/Support 12,788 SF
Security 2,674 SF
Security Queuing 2,376 SF
Restroom 5,043 SF
Baggage Tug Drive 45,129 SF
Customs/Border Protection 18,130 SF
Total 358,901 SF
1-19
craft, ramp equipment, and passen-
gers boarding or leaving their aircraft.
Rain and lightning make this situa-
tion more difficult. Security of the
apron area is also an issue.
In addition, seasonal peaks of general
aviation corporate air can also congest
aircraft parking.
Passenger Safety: There is a pas-
senger safety issue whenever travers-
ing an operating aircraft apron.
Ground service vehicles operate on the
apron and some transfer fuel to air-
craft as well as service aircraft lavato-
ries. Also of concern is use of air stair
boarding versus level access type
boarding provided by aircraft boarding
bridges. Some of the aircraft that are
ground boarded using stairs have very
high aircraft sill heights. Boarding
passengers in wheelchairs requires
use of mechanical lifts.
Weather Exposure: Although KOA
receives very small amounts of annual
rainfall, when rain occurs it tends to
be heavy and becomes an issue for
boarding passengers. The open-air ar-
chitecture is especially vulnerable to
wind-borne rain, which can only be
prevented with enclosures. Heavy del-
uges and wind-borne rain often pro-
duce significant roof leaks and pond-
ing in customer service areas. Curb-
side drainage structures are unable to
handle the volume, resulting in signif-
icant street flooding. On occasion,
passengers have departed with damp
clothes on air-conditioned aircraft for
long haul flights. The storms are fre-
quently accompanied by lightning that
can create other safety issues for pas-
sengers.
Aircraft noise and Jet-A fumes:
Passengers are exposed directly to air-
craft engine noise when in the hold-
room areas and as they traverse the
apron during arrival or departure.
The open-air holdrooms can also sub-
ject passengers to fuel fumes from
ramp operations.
North Terminal
The North Terminal is first on ap-
proach from the terminal drives with
air carrier passenger service provided
by United Airlines, US Airways, Ja-
pan Airlines, Island Air, and Go! Air-
lines. In 2006, the north terminal also
included Aloha Airlines and accommo-
dated 58 percent of the airline passen-
ger traffic.
The North Terminal serves Gates 1 –
5. Gates are numbered (i.e., 1A and
1B) and configured to allow two simul-
taneous passenger flows.
The terminal is comprised of separate
small sloped peaked roof structures,
some connected by flat-roofed walk-
ways and infill covered areas. Exhi-
bit 1F depicts the floor plan for the
terminals. The first buildings on ap-
proach are baggage claim areas, fol-
lowed by ticketing areas.
Departing passengers approach ticket-
ing areas from the terminal curbs or
from public parking. Within the tick-
eting areas there is the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture (USDA) screening
stations (all checked bag-gage leaving
the State must be USDA screened and
tagged prior to check-in) with one x-
ray unit. There are 110 linear feet
1-20
available for check-in counters with
space for 18 to 20 agent positions.
Ticketing includes standard check-in
counters and automated self-service
check-in stations. Checked baggage
security screening is done after check-
in. Beyond ticketing is a TSA passen-
ger screening checkpoint with two
lanes and two sets of magnetometers
and x-rays. Beyond the checkpoint is a
courtyard with restrooms and conces-
sions. There are five holdrooms serv-
ing the five gates. Gates 1 – 4 can be
secured for overseas departures to the
mainland after passengers clear the
single USDA station for screening
hand-carried bags prior to entering
the seating area.
Arriving passengers walk alongside
the holdroom seating areas on their
way through the courtyards, passing
beyond the security exit control point
and out to the baggage claim build-
ings. Greeters gather outside the se-
curity exit control point in areas that
include visitor information booths, lei
stands, and restrooms. The baggage
claim area has two claim areas with
one claim device each. Once baggage
is claimed, passengers proceed to the
terminal arrivals curb for pick-up or
for boarding rental car shuttles or
they proceed to public parking. Exhi-
bit 1G presents some of the survey
photos of the terminals.
North Terminal Operations
Departures:
Departure Lobby: United/US
Airways/Island Air/Go! - A mid-
day peak was observed during the
period of 11:30am to 12:30pm. Dur-
ing the observation period in No-
vember 2006, both Aloha and Unit-
ed Airlines passengers arrived to
check in for their flights. In the de-
parture lobby, which is open un-
protected space in front of ticket-
ing, passengers were queuing for
security checkpoint processing. At
this time, the queue extended to
the edge of the curb where other
passengers were unloading from
vehicles. As a result, the effective
curb area for passenger unloading
was reduced. In addition to securi-
ty checkpoint queuing, there was
also another queue for agricultural
check that also extended into the
lobby. When these queues merge
there is confusion for passengers
who don’t know which line they
were supposed to be in. Queues al-
so extend beyond the roof line caus-
ing discomfort for passengers
standing in the sun and heat.
United States Department of
Agriculture Screening
(Checked Baggage) – The loca-
tion of the agricultural check sta-
tion with regards to visibility is
good in the north terminal. Pas-
sengers who are flying to the main-
land at this terminal are checking
in at the United Airlines counters,
which are located past the agricul-
tural check. As a result, the pas-
sengers walk past the agricultural
check and the agents can alert
those who are not aware of this
processing requirement and advise
them to check their bags. On aver-
age, the time spent processing per
passenger was relatively low at 0.3
minutes (18 seconds).
06
M
P
0
6
-
1
G
-
5
/
7
/
1
0
TERMINAL SURVEY PHOTOS Exhibit 1G
KOA AIRCRAFT APRON TERMINAL DRIVES AND CURBS
BAGGAGE CLAIM A-1: UNITED AIRLINES FLT 55
FROM SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
BAGGAGE CLAIM A-1: PASSENGERS CROWDING
BETWEEN CLAIM DEVICE AND RAILING
DEPARTURE FACILITIES FOR
AMERICAN/ISLAND AIR
NORTH TERMINAL: UNITED AIRLINES
CHECK-IN QUEUING
KOA TERMINAL ROOF STRUCTURE NORTH TERMINAL DEPARTURES COURTYARD
1-21
Ticketing – During the observa-
tion time, both Aloha (which has
since ceased operation) and United
ticket lobbies were full with pas-
sengers queuing for check-in. At
the United lobby, there was one
lane for first class passengers and
one lane for coach class passengers.
There were eight check-in counters,
each with an electronic kiosk in
front, and four airline agents ser-
vicing passengers. For the first
class lane, the average time spent
per passenger in queue was 1.7
minutes. In the coach class lane, it
was 0.6 minutes (36 seconds). Most
passengers were carrying large
suitcases for check-in.
United States Department of
Agriculture Screening (Hand
Carried Baggage) – There is one
x-ray unit for USDA screening of
departing mainland passengers’
hand-carried baggage. This screen-
ing point serves Gates 1A, 2, and
3B. The queue was not observed to
be extensive, less than four min-
utes. First time passengers were
often unaware that they would be
required to undergo a second
USDA screening, this time for car-
ry-on baggage, and were not aware
of the regulations regarding fruits
they had carried for eating on the
plane.
Gate Holdrooms - The holdrooms
are arranged so that Gates 1A, 2,
and 3B can be secure following
USDA carry-on baggage inspection.
The combined holdroom can be-
come very crowded when multiple
mainland flight departures are
scheduled close to each other.
When mainland flights are not
scheduled, these gates are used for
interisland departures, as are
Gates 1B, 3A, 4, and 5. The railing
at the middle of each gate allows
simultaneous departures through
one half and arrivals through the
other at the same gate. Flight an-
nouncements for boarding provide
this information.
Arrivals:
Baggage Claim A1 and A2 – The
baggage claim areas were observed
during peak arrivals for the day of
the visual survey. It should be
noted, however, that the month of
the survey (November 2006) was
not the peak month. Claim device
A-1 was used by United Airlines
and Go! Airlines, and claim device
A-2 was used by Aloha Airlines.
The walking distance to baggage
claim is relatively short, as was de-
livery time of the first bags to ar-
rive at the claim device, approx-
imately eight minutes from arrival
of the aircraft. The baggage claim
devices are flat-plate type laid out
in a typical “T” shape with the long
stem of the “T” as the main claim
frontage. Each device has 30 feet of
stripping belt and 160 feet of claim
frontage. Claim devices are ade-
quately sized for smaller “narrow-
body” aircraft though they are sub-
stantially under-sized for the larg-
er “wide-body” type aircraft that
serve the overseas mainland mar-
ket. Floor space around the devic-
es (observed during off-peak time of
year) would be very inadequate to
serve large aircraft during peak
travel periods. Part of Claim A-1 is
1-22
cordoned off to stage unclaimed
bags resulting in decreased device
frontage for active claiming of bags.
Baggage information is provided
above the claim device on CRT
screens. The perimeter claim rail-
ings that deter theft limit available
floor space and free movement
within the claim area. Passengers
who have claimed their bags can-
not leave the claim area due to the
choke point at the head of the de-
vice, and they also do not move to
the far side of the device for same
reason. Seating benches are pro-
vided within the claim area as are
baggage cart rental stands.
Arrivals Courtyards – The court-
yard spaces are located between
the baggage claim buildings and
the terminal arrivals curbs and are
formed by the geometry of the lin-
ear curb and diagonal placed build-
ings. The spaces include landscap-
ing and seating both at curb pick-
up and for baggage claim. The
trees provide shade, and the court-
yard spaces are pleasant places to
wait and are valuable amenities for
passengers.
Ellison S. Onizuka Space Center
Centrally located between the North
and South Terminal is the Astronaut
Ellison S. Onizuka Space Center. The
space center is a two-story facility
which is completely handicapped ac-
cessible. It has a prominent central
tower including a large skylight. A
roadway behind the space center pro-
vides access to American Airlines and
Island Air check-in counters.
South Terminal
The South Terminal is second on ap-
proach from the terminal drives after
passing the Ellison S. Onizuka Space
Center at the center of the terminal
area. Air carrier passenger service is
provided by Hawaiian Airlines,
Northwest Airlines, Delta Airlines,
and American Airlines. The South
Terminal serves Gates 6 – 10.
South Terminal structures are iden-
tical to those in the North Terminal
and appear to be symmetrical in
layout about the airport center,
though not exactly. The first build-
ings on approach are ticketing areas
followed by baggage claim areas.
Departing passengers approach ticket-
ing areas from the terminal curbs or
from public parking. Within the tick-
eting areas are two TSA screening sta-
tions, each with a single Explosives
Detection System (EDS). One is lo-
cated at the center of the ticketing
lobby, the other on the south side of
the roadway behind the Ellison S.
Onizuka Space Center.
There is linear frontage for twelve
agent positions. Ticketing includes
check-in counters and automated self-
service check-in stations. The USDA
screening of checked baggage occurs
adjacent to the ticketing area. Beyond
ticketing is a TSA passenger screening
checkpoint. Beyond the checkpoint is
a courtyard with restrooms and con-
cessions. There are five holdrooms
serving the five gates. Gates 7 and 8
can be accessed after clearing the sin-
gle USDA station for screening hand-
carried bags prior to entering the seat-
ing area.
1-23
Arriving passengers walk alongside
the holdroom seating areas on their
way through the courtyards, passing
beyond the security exit control point
and out to the baggage claim build-
ings. Greeters gather outside the se-
curity exit control point in areas that
include a visitor information booth, lei
stand, and restrooms. Additionally,
there is a ground transportation area
to the south of baggage claim used for
taxi, limo, and shuttle bus staging.
The single baggage claim area has one
claim device. Once baggage is
claimed, passengers proceed to the
terminal arrivals curb for pick-up or
for boarding rental car shuttles or to
the public parking area.
South Terminal Operations
Departures:
Departures Lobby: Hawaii-
an/Northwest/Delta/ Japan Air-
lines - The departures lobby at the
South Terminal is identical in area
to the North Terminal. During ob-
servation of a peak time, queuing
from ticketing or security opera-
tions did not overflow into the de-
partures lobby. Generally, there
was adequate space for passengers
to unload from vehicles with their
baggage and walk directly to tick-
eting.
Departures Lobby American
Airlines - The ticketing lobby for
American is located directly behind
the Ellison S. Onizuka Space Cen-
ter. The vehicle drive splits at the
space center, allowing vehicles to
unload passengers in front of the
American departures lobby. Be-
cause there is inadequate depth
overall between the ticket counters
and the curb, the lobby area cur-
rently measures six feet in depth.
When ticket queuing extends out to
the lobby, vehicles need to unload
passengers a distance before or af-
ter the ticket lobby.
United States Department of
Agriculture Screening
(Checked Baggage) – At the
South Terminal, there are two lo-
cations for agricultural check. One
of them is in the main ticket lobby
where Hawaiian, Northwest, Delta,
and Japan Airlines are located. At
this location, the station is situated
in the queuing area between Ha-
waiian and Japan Airlines. Their
visibility is an issue since Ha-
waiian Airlines passengers do not
pass by the agricultural check be-
fore queuing for ticketing. Many of
the mainland bound passengers do
not know that they have to screen
their bags. The reason is partly due
to lack of adequate signage and
station configuration. The other
agriculture check location is behind
the Ellison S. Onizuka Space Cen-
ter and south of the American tick-
et lobby. It is not located within the
American departures court-yard,
and therefore is not visible to pas-
sengers who unload in front of
ticketing. Despite some signage,
most mainland bound passengers
do not know that they have to
screen their bags until they are
told by the airline agent at check-
in.
1-24
Ticketing – Hawaiian, Northwest,
and Delta Airlines check-in opera-
tions are located in the South Ter-
minal ticketing area. There are 110
lineal feet available for check-in
with space for 18 to 20 agent posi-
tions. Hawaiian Airlines occupies
half of the check-in frontage in this
terminal. They are further subdi-
vided into interisland and main-
land check-in with queuing to
match. There is a bank of electron-
ic check-in kiosks perpendicular to
and south of the counters. Japan
Airlines has six check-in positions
with one of them dedicated to ex-
ecutive class passengers. Delta has
one check-in counter and four elec-
tronic kiosks located perpendicular
to and south of the counters. At the
time of observation, the Delta elec-
tronic kiosks were out of service.
Northwest operates with two
check-in counters - one electronic
kiosk in front of the counters and
two against the side wall. During
peak departure times, passenger
processing at the counters was effi-
cient, and queuing remained rela-
tively short. Ticket lobby space
appeared adequate for queuing.
Centrally located between the ter-
minals and behind the Ellison S.
Onizuka Space Center is the ticket-
ing area for American. Covered
lobby depth in this area is inade-
quate. When the queues extend
beyond the tensile barriers, pas-
sengers are exposed to rain and
sun. American has six check-in
counters and no electronic kiosks.
During a mainland departure,
there were a total of six agents.
Queuing was divided into two
lanes: one for first class and anoth-
er for coach class. On average, the
processing time per passenger for
check-in was approximately 1.43
minutes, and queuing time was
1.47.
United States Department of
Agriculture Screening (Hand
Carried Baggage) – There is one
x-ray unit for USDA screening of
departing mainland passengers
hand carried baggage. This screen-
ing point serves Gates 7 and 8. The
queue was not observed to be ex-
tensive, less than four minutes.
Some passengers may be unaware
that they are required to undergo a
second USDA screening, this time
for carry-on baggage, and were not
aware of the regulations.
Gate Holdrooms - The holdrooms
are arranged so that Gates 7 and 8
can be secured following USDA
carry-on baggage inspection. The
combined holdroom can become
very crowded when multiple main-
land flight departures are sched-
uled close to each other. When
mainland flights are not scheduled,
these gates are used for interisland
departures as are Gates 6, 9 and
10. The railing at the middle of
each gate allows simultaneous de-
partures through one half and ar-
rivals through the other at the
same gate. Flight announcements
for boarding provide this informa-
tion.
Arrivals:
Baggage Claim B – As with the
North Terminal, the baggage claim
1-25
area was observed during peak ar-
rivals for day and time of day of the
survey and not during peak airport
operations time of year. The walk-
ing distance to baggage claim is
similar to the North Terminal as
was delivery time of the first bags
to the claim device, approximately
eight minutes from arrival of air-
craft. The single baggage claim
device is a flat-plate type approx-
imately 136 feet in actual claim
length and is sized for small “nar-
row-body” aircraft similar to Bag-
gage Claim A1/A2. Floor space
around the devices would be very
inadequate to serve larger aircraft
during peak travel periods. Part of
the device frontage is cordoned off
for storage of unclaimed bags. Pe-
rimeter railings around the bag
claim area limit both floor space
and free movement within and out
of the claim area. The Hawaiian
Airlines baggage office is easily ac-
cessible and outside of the claim
area.
Arrivals Courtyards – The arriv-
als courtyard spaces are similar to
those at the North Terminal. They
provide a convenient and pleasant
place for waiting at the curb for
pick-up after arrival.
International Arrivals Building
At KOA, passengers arriving on inter-
national originating flights proceed
through Customs and Border Protec-
tion (CBP) processes within a tempo-
rary type building structure. The
building is a metal arched “sprung
type” structural frame that is covered
in fabric material for enclosure, in-
cludes air-conditioning, and has ade-
quate lighting for functions. The
building currently occupies an area of
approximately 18,000 square feet.
There are two connected buildings of
this type, as well as other ancillary
temporary wood-framed small struc-
tures. There is a fabric-covered metal
arch open-aired structure where pas-
sengers are greeted upon exit that is
also used for tour bus staging and
boarding.
Japan Airlines provides direct service
to KOA from Narita International
Airport. Departing passengers on Ja-
pan Airlines flights process through
ticketing in the North Terminal and
board the aircraft from Gate 1. This
flight is considered an interisland de-
parture to Honolulu International
Airport, where it will pick up addi-
tional passengers prior to departing
for Japan.
Passenger Services
Concessions – Post-security conces-
sions include basic food and beverage
restaurant, gift shop, and
news/sundries shop. The concessions
are located at the edges of the open air
courtyard with good exposure to pas-
sengers. Concessions are small and,
consequently, the size and variety of
offering is limited. Circulation within
the spaces is very tight and inconven-
ient when several passengers are
within shops. Larger floor area would
help increase inventory offering as
well as improve movement within the
stores. The concessions are air-
conditioned.
1-26
Pre-security concessions are located
immediately after passing from the
secure departure areas on the path to baggage claim. They have good visi-
bility and include lei stands and visi-
tor industry greeter’s services. Vend-
ing machines are also available,
though not highly visible. A food and
beverage concession is located across
the terminal drives in the center of the
airport within the former rental car
building.
Restrooms – There are five pairs of
public restrooms – two each in the
North and South Terminal areas, one
each in the non-secure and secure
areas, and a single pair in the Inter-
national Arrivals area. The restrooms
have serviceable layouts and during
the times observed, appear to be in
good condition and adequately sized.
The restrooms would benefit from
modernization that would increase
their size and improve layout to meet
current travel needs such as larger
stalls with out-swinging doors, in-
creased number of towel dispensers
located between sinks, and family
restroom. Post-security restrooms are
also located at the edge of the court-
yard and are visible to the public.
Pre-security restrooms are located on
the path to security between ticketing
and baggage claim, though visibility is
not adequate. It is difficult to find
these restrooms on approach to the
baggage claim area.
TERMINAL PARKING
AND ACCESS
Terminal Access Roadways
The airport is afforded regional access
via Queen Kaahumanu Highway that
runs along the east property boun-
dary. The terminal entrance is at a
signalized intersection of the highway. Keahole Street is the airport entrance
road. As shown on Exhibit 1E, it is a
two-lane paved roadway that extends
west towards the terminal area. The
two 12-foot lanes with 10-foot wide
shoulders have a design speed of 45
miles per hour and extends for 3,050
feet to the terminal loop where the
two-way lanes splits to form a one-way loop road that flows counterclockwise
around the parking lot.
The loop or periphery road is named
Kupipi Street. It begins with a two-
lane road on the east side of the park-
ing lot that widens to four lanes in the
curve around the north end. After the
road turns to the south to approach
the North Terminal, it widens to six
lanes with a median curb.
The median curb and the outside lanes
are dedicated to commercial transpor-
tation providers (e.g., rental car and
hotel shuttle buses, taxis, and limou-
sines). The outer drive is 23 feet wide
(one thru lane and one loading lane).
The median curb is 11 feet wide with a
canopy cover and bench seating. The
three sections of median curb provide
850 feet of frontage for loading and
unloading passengers, as well as for
staging taxis.
The three inside lanes are reserved for
private automobiles dropping off or
picking up passengers and baggage.
The inner drive is 42 feet wide (two
thru lanes, one maneuver lane, and
one loading lane). The curb is 20 feet
wide and includes seating along
landscaped area walls. The inner curb
1-27
does not have a continuous canopy for
shade or protection from rain.
The North and South Terminals each
have approximately 690 feet of curb
front available. This includes a sec-
tion of curb front that branches off be-
hind the Ellison S. Onizuka Space
Center. Taxis are permitted to drop
off departing passengers at the ter-
minal curb, but must return to the
median curb to await arriving passen-
gers.
Landscaping along the drives and
curbs is extensive and includes large
trees, creating a pleasant experience
and needed shade.
At the south end of the terminals, the
roadway gradually begins to reduce in
the number of available 12-foot lanes.
One lane continues directly south to
the air cargo and general aviation fa-
cilities, turning into U`u Street. The
remaining loop roadway continues to
narrow down to two lanes around the
south curve. One then continues east
bound to tie back into Keahole Street
to exit the airport while the other
turns to the north to return to the
terminal.
Vehicle Parking
Exhibits 1E and 1F also depict the
locations of the vehicle parking related
to the passenger terminal. There are
760 spaces located in the public park-
ing lot within the terminal loop road.
Access to this parking lot is available
from the Kupipi Street loop road
through the ticket booth on the east
side of the lot. A toll booth exit is lo-
cated on the west side near the south
end of the lot. Exiting vehicles turn
left out of the lot then proceed on the
loop road to return to the terminal or
exit the airport.
An additional 366 new stalls are
available mauka (east) and accessible
from Kupipi Street loop road. 263
spaces are available for employees at
the Pao’o Street lot.
Parking for the staging of tour buses
is available at all three terminals.
There are five loading spaces located
at the International Arrivals area.
There are an additional four spaces
farther north for storage or staging of
buses. The North Terminal bus park-
ing is located at the north end and has
six spaces available. A similar lot is
available off the south end of the
South Terminal.
Rental Car Facilities
There are no longer rental car coun-
ters or ready/return spaces available
at the terminal. As depicted on Exhi-
bit 1D, all rental car facilities are re-
mote and are located on the north side
of the airport entrance road between
Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the
terminal. Arriving rental car custom-
ers proceed from the terminal to the
median curb where they are picked up
by shuttles operated by each of the
eight rental car companies on the air-
port. These currently include Alamo,
Avis, Budget, Dollar, Enterprise,
Hertz, National, and Thrifty.
All rental car transactions are con-
ducted on the leasehold of the respec-
tive rental car companies. The lease-
hold not only includes the rental car
1-28
counter, offices, and ready/return, but
also all service and storage. There are
approximately 14 acres currently
leased to the rental car companies.
AIR CARGO FACILITIES
In 2006, KOA handled over 30,000
tons of air cargo (freight and mail).
FedEx (contracted through Aloha Air
Cargo), United Parcel Service (UPS),
and United Cargo serve the airport as
cargo carriers. Air cargo is also han-
dled as belly freight by several of the
other passenger airlines serving the
airport. Freight forwarders located on
the airport include Big Island Parcel,
Commodity Freight Forwarders, and
Direct Freight Services.
Two air cargo buildings are located
south of the terminal between the
general aviation facilities, as shown on
Exhibit 1H. The northernmost build-
ing is 19,828 feet and the southern-
most is 20,482 feet. Truck docks and
parking are provided on the land side
of the buildings. This space is approx-
imately 850 feet long and 125 feet
deep.
A parking apron approximately 280
feet deep is available on the airside of
the buildings. This is used primarily
by Boeing 737 aircraft, smaller cargo
aircraft, and for ground service
equipment storage. The cargo apron
is not sufficient to handle larger wide-
body aircraft. Widebody cargo aircraft
are currently handled and serviced at
the terminal apron. The only regular
widebody aircraft cargo service as of
early 2007 was by UPS, which oper-
ates one flight six days a week using
either a Boeing 767 or Boeing 747 air-
craft.
GENERAL AVIATION
FACILITIES
While designated a commercial service
airport, KOA remains a vital link to
general aviation on the island. Gen-
eral aviation operations account for
approximately half of the airport’s an-
nual operations. The general aviation
facilities at KOA are located along the
south flight line, as depicted on Exhi-
bit 1H.
Based general aviation aircraft are
primarily stored on the ramp and in
the two 48-foot wide by 203-foot long
T-hangars immediately south of the
ARFF. There are seven tie-down
spaces on the ramp immediately in
front of the ATCT, and 36 spaces in
front of and immediately south of the
T-hangars.
Additional ramp for general aviation
uses is located to the south of the air
cargo area. There are 15 parking posi-
tions on the ramp in front of the
Commuter Air Terminal that are used
primarily by air tour, charter, rental,
flight training, and other aircraft as-
sociated with the general aviation/air
taxi businesses on the airport. There
are also three helipads at the south
end of this ramp.
Further to the south is the newest sec-
tion of apron known as the South
General Aviation Ramp. This pave-
ment encompasses approximately
37,000 square yards and is utilized
primarily to park and service tran-
sient corporate aircraft visiting the
island.
EXISTING CARGO AND GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES Exhibit 1H
06
M
P
0
6
-
1
H
-
1
1
/
1
0
/
0
8
NORTH
0 300 600
SCALE IN FEET
ARFF1 T-Hangars2
21
North General Aviation Apron3
3
4
Maintenance Facility4
6
5
Tropicbird Flight Service5 Air Cargo Facilities6
7
Cargo Apron7
Air Service Hawaii8
8
Commuter Air Terminal9
9
Paradise Helicopters10
10
Mauna Loa Helicopters12
12
Fuel Farm13Hawaii Flight Academy /Island Hoppers11
13
11
South GA Apron14
14
Bradley PacificBradley Pacific
AviationAviation
Bradley Pacific
Aviation
HelipadsHeHeHeHeHeHelilililililiipapapapapapapadsdsdsdsdsdsdsHelipads
Civil Air PatrolCivil Air PatrolCivil Air Patrol
Uu Street
ATCTATCTATCT
Blast WallBlast WallBlast Wall
1-29
There are nine general aviation/air
taxi service operators located on the
airport. All utilize building space in
the 2,240 square foot Commuter Air
Terminal and/or surrounding build-
ings, as identified on Exhibit 1H.
These operators and the basic services
they provide are outlined in Table 1F.
SUPPORT FACILITIES
Several support facilities serve as crit-
ical links in providing the necessary
efficiency to aircraft ground opera-
tions, such as aircraft rescue and fire-
fighting (ARFF), airport administra-
tion, airport maintenance, and fuel
storage.
TABLE 1F
General Aviation Services Operators
Kona International Airport
Air
Tours
Charter
Flight
Training
Fuel
Ground
Handling
Parts/
Supplies
Rentals
Air Service Hawaii X X X X
Big Island Air X X
Bradley Pacific X X
Hawaii Flight Academy X X X
KOAA – Service X X X X
Mauna Loa Helicopters X X X
Mokulele Flight Service X X
Paradise Helicopters X
Tropicbird Flight Service X
Sources: Airnav; Operators’ websites; Interviews November 2006
Aircraft Rescue and
Firefighting Facilities (ARFF)
Part 139 airports are required to pro-
vide aircraft rescue and fire fighting
(ARFF) services during air carrier op-
erations. Each airport certificated un-
der CFR Part 139 maintains aircraft
rescue and fire fighting (ARFF)
equipment and personnel. There are
five indices, A through E, with E the
largest based on aircraft length. KOA
maintains ARFF Index D.
The 6,034 square-foot ARFF facility is
centrally located on the airfield to the
south of the ATCT. The major equip-
ment stored and maintained at the fa-
cility includes one 3,000-gallon storage
capacity fire fighting vehicle and two
1,500-gallon storage capacity fire
fighting vehicles. Each of these ve-
hicles is new within the past three
years. Other vehicles on-site include:
a chief vehicle, a captain truck, and a
reserve 1,500-gallon Oshkosh T-series
vehicle. A mobile incident command
post vehicle is programmed to be add-
ed to the fleet in fiscal year 2008.
An ARFF training facility is located on
airport property to the northeast of
the terminal area and is used for live-
fire exercises. This facility currently
meets the Index D requirements.
1-30
Airport Administration
The airport administrative offices are
located in two buildings between the
passenger terminal and the interna-
tional arrivals building. Each 2,674
square-foot building is designed in the
architecture of the adjacent terminal.
The southernmost building includes
the office of the District Airport Man-
ager and other related administrative
personnel as well as the airport secu-
rity badging and ID (identification)
office. The adjacent building includes
a training room as well as the office of
the District Airport Engineer.
Maintenance Facilities
The airport field maintenance facili-
ties are located mauka (east) of the
general aviation and cargo area of the
airfield. Security gates permit access
to the airside of the airport. This
building has approximately 15,000
square feet which provides office space
and storage of some equipment. A
7,800 square-foot shade hangar also
provides additional equipment stor-
age.
Fuel Storage
There is currently one active fuel farm
on the airport. As depicted on Exhi-
bit 1H, the 2.8-acre fuel farm located
south of the terminal area has a total
storage capacity of 90,000 gallons of
Jet A fuel and 12,000 gallons of Avgas
(100LL).
The Jet A fuel storage is owned by
Hawaii Fuel Facilities Corporation
and operated by Bradley Pacific Avia-
tion. Fuel is distributed to aircraft us-
ing several fuel trucks by Bradley Pa-
cific Aviation and Air Service Hawaii.
The Avgas storage is part of a self-
service fuel facility. It is owned and
operated by Douglas Aviation.
UTILITIES
The availability and capacity of the
utilities serving the airport are factors
in determining the development po-
tential of the airport property, as well
as the land immediately adjacent to
the facility. As part of the Master
Plan update, an inventory of the cur-
rent utility infrastructure was con-
ducted. Some of the information was
found through a review of existing
drawing documents and studies. The
information gathered was insufficient;
therefore, it is recommended that the
DOT-A conduct an infrastructure mas-
ter plan study. This study is crucial
for the terminal expansion and future
airport development.
Of primary concern in the inventory
investigation is the availability of wa-
ter, gas, sewer, and power sources.
Exhibit 1J depicts the utilities in the
core of the terminal area.
Electric Power
Electricity is provided to the airport by
Hawaiian Electric Light Company
(HELCO) via two 1,247 kilovolt (kV)
feeder lines from the Keahole substa-
tion located east of Queen Kaahuma-
nu Highway. The power lines extend
along Keahole Street and enter the
1-31
electrical control building located ad-
jacent to the ATCT to the east and dis-
tributed to the various airside and
landside facilities. A 175 kilowatt
(KW) diesel engine emergency genera-
tor is located in the electrical control
building. A 1,000-gallon diesel storage
tank located adjacent to the control
building supplies the emergency gene-
rator with fuel. A second 23 kilowatt
diesel engine generator provides a
separate emergency power system to
the airfield.
Telecommunications
The main telephone line was original-
ly brought to the site through the
same underground duct bank as the
HELCO feeder lines. Switching was
then accomplished in the electrical
control building. The main line was
later relocated and connected to the
electrical control building. There are
14 public telephones, with seven in
each terminal. A public address sys-
tem is utilized in the terminal for pag-
ing and flight announcements.
Water
In June 1995, the State of Hawaii,
Department of Land and Natural Re-
sources, Division of Water and Land
Development, prepared a North Kona
Water Master Plan. In conjunction
with the Water Master Plan Study, a
Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) for water allocation by State
agencies was prepared. This MOU
was approved by all the affected State
agencies.
The MOU outlined water allocations
from 1990 to 2010, with scheduled in-
creases every five years. Per the
MOU, the airport’s initial allocation
was 330,000 gallons per day (GPD).
In 2007, the airport used approximate-
ly 145,000 GPD or about 44 percent of
its allocation. Today the airport’s
usage continues to be around 50 per-
cent of the allocation. Presently, the
airport is looking at several alterna-
tives to reduce its use of potable wa-
ter. Proposed upgrades to airport fa-
cilities will probably require around
four times the current airport alloca-
tion. In order to develop the vacant
lands on airport property, as indicated
in Exhibit 5A, about another 1-1.2 mil-
lion GPD would be required. Discus-
sions have begun in 2009 on the de-
velopment of new water wells, water
availability, water allocation and oth-
er alternative resources.
The airport’s water supply is main-
tained in two storage reservoirs. The
airport’s original 0.5 million gallon
tank is connected to a newer one mil-
lion gallon tank that also serves the
NELHA facilities to the south of the
airport. A 12-inch municipal water
main along Queen Kaahumanu High-
way supplies the tank. A 12-inch line
follows the airport access road in from
the highway and then extends north
along the periphery road to feed the
airport’s distribution system. An
eight-inch line extends south along the
U`u Street to serve the air cargo and
general aviation facilities. Pressure
for fire flows in the areas are created
by a 0.5 million gallon storage reser-
voir at 280 feet above mean sea level
mauka (east) of Queen Kaahumanu
Highway.
1-32
Sanitary Sewer
Wastewater is collected and trans-
ferred via a collection line which runs
parallel to Kupipi Street to an on-site
wastewater treatment plant located
north of the terminal area. The
wastewater treatment plant has the
capacity to handle 100,000 gallons per
day and is maintained under contract.
Secondary treatment is provided
through an extended aeration opera-
tion followed by clarification and chlo-
rination. Wastewater at KOA is
treated to an R-1 level and re-used as
landscape irrigation along the airport
access roadways. When treatment is
not able to attain an R-1 classification,
the effluent is disposed through 20-
foot deep injection wells into the por-
ous lava rock at an on-site lagoon.
Maintenance of the treatment facility
is provided under contract.
Drainage System - Storm runoff in
the airfield and parking areas is col-
lected using a system of swales,
ditches, and concrete bridge culverts.
A system of pipelines (18-inch and 30-
inch) and intake boxes provide drain-
age for the terminal facility. The wa-
ter runoff is then injected into dry
wells or porous depressions on proper-
ty for disposal. This is regulated by
State of Hawaii Department of Health
Underground Injection Control per-
mits.
The airport is not located within a
100-year floodplain. Due to the ex-
tremely porous lava rock surrounding
the airport facilities, large scale flood-
ing is rarely a problem. During heavy
downpours, short term ponding can
occur on the ramp and some gate loca-
tions; however, the present drainage
system is adequate for its purposes.
AREA AIRSPACE AND
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Act of 1958 established the FAA
as the responsible agency for the con-
trol and use of navigable airspace
within the United States. The FAA
has established the National Airspace
System (NAS) to protect persons and
property on the ground and to estab-
lish a safe and efficient airspace envi-
ronment for civil, commercial, and mil-
itary aviation. The NAS covers the
common network of U.S. airspace, in-
cluding air navigation facilities; air-
ports and landing areas; aeronautical
charts; associated rules, regulations,
and procedures; technical information;
and personnel and material. The sys-
tem also includes components shared
jointly with the military.
AIRSPACE STRUCTURE
Airspace within the United States is
broadly classified as either “con-
trolled” or “uncontrolled.” The differ-
ence between controlled and uncon-
trolled airspace relates primarily to
requirements for pilot qualifications,
ground-to-air communications, navi-
gation and air traffic services, and
weather conditions. Six classes of air-
space have been designated in the
United States, as shown on Exhibit
1K. Airspace designated as Class A,
B, C, D, or E is considered controlled
airspace. Aircraft operating within
controlled airspace are subject to vary-
- Above Ground Level
- Flight Level in Hundreds of Feet
- Mean Sea Level
AGL
FL
MSL
CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION
CLASS A
CLASS B
CLASS C
CLASS D
CLASS E
CLASS G
Generally airspace above 18,000 feet MSL up to and including FL 600.
Generally multi-layered airspace from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the
nation's busiest airports.
Generally airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet AGL surrounding towered airports with
service by radar approach control.
Generally airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet AGL surrounding towered airports.
Generally controlled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D.
Generally uncontrolled airspace that is not Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E.
Source: "Airspace Reclassification and Charting Changes for VFR Products," National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service. Chart adapted by Coffman Associates from AOPA Pilot, January 1993.
LEGEND
NOT TO SCALE
06
M
P
0
6
-
1
K
-
1
1
/
1
0
/
0
8
AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION Exhibit 1K
1-33
ing requirements for positive air traf-
fic control.
The KOA Class D airspace is effective
only during the time the ATCT is op-
erational, which is from 6:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. daily. At all other times,
the airport is in Class E airspace. Air-
space in the vicinity of KOA is de-
picted on Exhibit 1L.
Class A Airspace: Class A airspace
includes all airspace from 18,000 feet
mean sea level (MSL) to flight level
(FL) 600 (approximately 60,000 feet
MSL) over the contiguous 48 states
and Alaska. There is no Class A air-
space over Hawaii. This airspace is
designated in Federal Aviation Regu-
lation (F.A.R.) Part 71.33, for positive
control of aircraft. All aircraft must be
on an instrument flight rules (IFR)
clearance to operate within Class A
airspace.
Class B Airspace: Class B airspace
has been designated around some of
the country’s major airports, such as
Honolulu International Airport, to
separate all aircraft within a specified
radius of the primary airport. Each
Class B airspace is specifically tailored
for its primary airport. All aircraft
operating within Class B airspace
must have an ATC clearance. Certain
minimum aircraft equipment and pilot
certification requirements must also
be met. This airspace is the most re-
strictive controlled airspace routinely
encountered by pilots operating under
visual flight rules (VFR) in an uncon-
trolled environment. There is no
Class B airspace in the vicinity of
KOA.
Class C Airspace: The FAA has es-
tablished Class C airspace at approx-
imately 120 airports around the coun-
try that have significant levels of IFR
traffic. Class C airspace typically con-
sists of a five nautical mile (nm) ra-
dius shelf extending from 1,200 feet
AGL to 4,000 feet AGL. In order to fly
inside Class C airspace, the aircraft
must have a two-way radio, an encod-
ing transponder, and have established
communication with an ATC facility.
Aircraft may fly below the floor of the
Class C airspace or above the Class C
airspace ceiling without establishing
communication with ATC. Kahului
Airport on Maui has Class C airspace.
There is no Class C airspace at KOA
or any of the other Big Island airports.
Class D Airspace: Class D airspace
is controlled airspace surrounding air-
ports with an ATCT. The Class D air-
space typically constitutes a cylinder
with a horizontal radius of four or five
nautical miles (NM) from the airport,
extending from the surface up to a
designated vertical limit, typically set
at approximately 2,500 feet above the
airport elevation. If an airport has an
instrument approach or departure, the
Class D airspace sometimes extends
along the approach or departure path.
KOA (as indicated earlier) and Hilo
International Airport both operate in
Class D airspace. The Class D air-
space extends for approximately four
nautical miles around the airport,
from the surface to 2,500 feet MSL.
When the ATCT at KOA is closed, the
airspace reverts to Class G or E.
Class E Airspace: Class E airspace
consists of controlled airspace de-
1-34
signed to contain IFR operations near
an airport and while aircraft are tran-
sitioning between the airport and
enroute environments. Unless other-
wise specified, Class E airspace termi-
nates at the base of the overlying air-
space. Only aircraft operating under
IFR are required to be in contact with
air traffic control when operating in
Class E airspace. While aircraft con-
ducting visual flights in Class E air-
space are not required to be in radio
communications with air traffic con-
trol facilities, visual flight can only be
conducted if minimum visibility and
cloud ceilings exist.
Airports with Class E airspace in the
vicinity of KOA include Waimea-
Kohala, Upolu, and Hilo International.
Class G Airspace: Airspace not des-
ignated as Class A, B, C, D, or E is
considered uncontrolled, or Class G,
airspace. Air traffic control does not
have the authority or responsibility to
exercise control over air traffic within
this airspace. Class G airspace lies
between the surface and the overlay-
ing Class E airspace (700 to 1,200 feet
above ground level). Class G airspace
extends below the floor of the Class E
airspace at KOA.
While aircraft may technically operate
within this Class G airspace without
any contact with ATC, it is unlikely
that many aircraft will operate this
low to the ground. Furthermore, fed-
eral regulations specify minimum alti-
tudes for flight. F.A.R. Part 91.119,
Minimum Safe Altitudes, generally
states that except when necessary for
takeoff or landing, pilots must not op-
erate an aircraft over any congested
area of a city, town, or settlement, or
over any open-air assembly of persons,
at an altitude of 1,000 feet above the
highest obstacle within a horizontal
radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
Over less congested areas, pilots must
maintain an altitude of 500 feet above
the surface, except over open water or
sparsely populated areas. In those
cases, the aircraft may not be operated
closer than 500 feet to any person,
vessel, vehicle, or structure. Finally,
this section states that helicopters
may be operated at less than the min-
imums prescribed above if the opera-
tion is conducted without hazard to
persons or property on the surface. In
addition, each person operating a heli-
copter shall comply with any routes or
altitudes specifically prescribed for
helicopters by the FAA.
Special Use Airspace
Special use airspace is defined as air-
space where activities must be con-
fined because of their nature or where
limitations are imposed on aircraft not
taking part in those activities. These
areas are depicted on Exhibit 1L with
the use of green shading.
State Park/Wilderness Areas: As
depicted on Exhibit 1K, the Hakalau
Forest National Wildlife Refuge and
the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
are located east of KOA. Hakalau
Forest National Wildlife Refuge en-
compasses 32,733 acres and is home to
many endangered forest birds and
plant species. Hawaii Volcanoes Na-
tional Park encompasses 323,431
acres and features two of the world’s
most active volcanoes (Mauna Loa and
Kilauea). Aircraft are requested to
maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000
feet above the surface of designated
Source: Hawaiian Islands Sectional Charts, US Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
06/08/2006
Compass Rose
Wilderness Area
Class D Airspace
Class E Airspace
Class E Airspace with floor
700 ft. above surface
Victor Airways
Restricted Area
NORTHNORTHNORTH
NOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
UPOLU UPOLU UPOLU
HILO HILO
INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL
HILO
INTERNATIONAL
KamuelaKamuela
VOR-DMEVOR-DME
Kamuela
VOR-DME
WAIMEA-KOHALAWAIMEA-KOHALAWAIMEA-KOHALA
Upolu PointUpolu Point
VORTACVORTAC
Upolu Point
VORTAC
HAWAII VOLCANOESHAWAII VOLCANOES
NATIONAL PARKNATIONAL PARK
HAWAII VOLCANOES
NATIONAL PARK
HiloHilo
VORTACVORTAC
Hilo
VORTAC
BradshawBradshaw
NDBNDB
PahoaPahoa
NDBNDB
Bradshaw
NDB
Pahoa
NDB
V
5
V
2
2
V
2
-
1
5
V 2
V 16
V 3
V 21
V
2
5
V
1
-
7
V
2
0
V 23
V 1
1
V 3
KONA INTERNATIONAL/KONA INTERNATIONAL/
KEAHOLEKEAHOLE
KONA INTERNATIONAL/
KEAHOLE
12,000 - 13,796
9,000 - 12,000
7,000 - 9,000
5,000 - 7,000
3,000 - 5,000
2,000 - 3,000
1,000 - 2000
0 - 1,000
RESTRICTEDR-3103
HAKALAU FORESTHAKALAU FOREST
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGENATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
HAKALAU FOREST
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
BRADSHAW BRADSHAW
AAFAAF
BRADSHAW
AAF
06
M
P
0
6
-
1
L
-
1
1
/
1
0
/
0
8
ISLAND AIRSPACE Exhibit 1L
Airport with hard-surfaced runways
1,500' to 8,069' in length
Airports with hard-surfaced runways
greater than 8,069' or some multiple
runways less than 8,069'
VORTAC
VOR-DME
Non-Directional Radiobeacon (NDB)
1-35
National Park areas, which includes
wilderness areas and designated
breeding grounds. FAA Advisory Cir-
cular 91-36C defines the “surface” as
the highest terrain within 2,000 feet
laterally of the route of flight or the
uppermost rim of a canyon or valley.
Victor Airways: For aircraft arriv-
ing or departing the regional area us-
ing very high frequency omni-
directional range (VOR) facilities, a
system of Federal Airways, referred to
as Victor Airways, has been estab-
lished. Victor Airways are corridors of
airspace eight miles wide that extend
upward from 1,200 feet AGL to 18,000
feet MSL and extend between VOR
navigational facilities. Victor Airways
are shown with solid blue lines on
Exhibit 1L.
For aircraft enroute or departing the
Kona area, there are several Victor
Airways available. The Kona VOR-
TAC, located approximately five nau-
tical miles (nm) south of the airport at
the Old Kona Airport State Park, is
the converging point for Victor Air-
ways in the Kona area.
Restricted Airspace: Restricted
areas are depicted on Exhibit 1L with
blue hatched lines. There is a single
restricted area (R-3103) on the island
to the east of KOA. Restricted air-
space is off-limits for public-use unless
granted permission from the control-
ling agency.
AIRSPACE CONTROL
The FAA has established 21 Air Route
Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC)
throughout the continental United
States to control aircraft operating
under IFR within controlled airspace
and while enroute. An ARTCC as-
signs specific routes and altitudes
along federal airways to maintain sep-
aration and orderly traffic flow. The
Honolulu Control Facility (HCF) con-
trols IFR airspace enroute over KOA
and areas west. The HCF performs
some of the functions associated with
an ARTCC, but primarily serves as an
Approach Control Facility.
The HCF delegates certain airspace to
local terminal facilities which assume
responsibility for the orderly flow of
air traffic arriving and departing ma-
jor terminals. The HCF is also
charged with radar approach and de-
parture control in the KOA terminal
area. The KOA ATCT is responsible
for providing aircraft with proper sep-
aration and guidance for landing and
departure stages. As discussed in the
airfield section, the current ATCT at
KOA is located to the east of the run-
way, south of the terminal. The KOA
tower operates daily from 6:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.
Instrument Approach Procedures
Instrument approach procedures are a
series of predetermined maneuvers
established by the FAA using electron-
ic navigational aids that assist pilots
in locating and landing at an airport,
especially during instrument flight
conditions. There is currently one
published precision instrument ap-
proach and seven published non-
precision instrument approaches into
KOA. Precision instrument approach-
es provide vertical descent information
and course guidance information to
the pilot. Non-precision approaches
1-36
only provide course guidance to the
pilot.
The capability of an instrument is de-
fined by the visibility and cloud ceiling
minimums associated with the ap-
proach. Visibility minimums define
the horizontal distance the pilot must
be able to see in order to complete the
approach. Cloud ceilings define the
lowest level a cloud layer (defined in
feet above the ground) can be situated
for the pilot to complete the approach.
If the observed visibility or ceilings are
below the minimums prescribed for
the approach, the pilot cannot com-
plete the instrument approach. Table
1G summarizes instrument approach
minima for KOA.
TABLE 1G
Instrument Approach Data
WEATHER MINIMUMS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE
Category A Category B Category C Category D Category E
CH VIS CH VIS CH VIS CH VIS CH VIS
ILS RWY 17
Straight-In ILS Straight- In Localizer Circling
200 400 500
0.5 0.5 1.0
200 400
500
0.5 0.5
1.0
200 400
500
0.5 0.5
1.5
200 400
600
0.5 0.75 2.0
200 400 600
0.5 0.75
2.0
RNAV (GPS) RWY 17
LNAV/VNAV DA LNAV MDA Circling
500 600 600
1.25 0.5 1.75
500 600 600
1.25 0.5 1.75
500 600 600
1.25 1.0 1.75
500 600 600
1.25 2.0 2.0
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 35
LNAV MDA Circling 400 500 1.0 1.0 400 500 1.0 1.0 400 500 1.0 1.25 400 600 1.25 2.0 400 600 1.25 2.0
RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 35
LNAV/VNAV DA LNAV MDA Circling
500 600 600
1.75 1.0 1.75
500 600 600
1.75 1.0 1.75
500 600 600
1.75 1.75 1.75
500 600 600
1.75 2.0 2.0
500 600 600
1.75 2.25 2.25
LOC RWY 17
Straight-In Circling 600 600 0.5 1.0 600 600 0.5 1.0 600 600 1.5 1.5 600 600 1.75 2.0 600 600 2.0 2.0
LOC BC RWY 35
Straight-In Circling 400 500 1.0 1.0 400 500 1.0 1.0 400 500 1.0 1.25 400 600 1.25 2.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
VOR/DME or TACAN RWY 17
Straight-In Circling 600 600 1.0 1.0 600 600 1.0 1.0 600 600 1.5 1.5 600 600 1.75 2.0 600 600 2.0 2.0
VOR or TACAN RWY 35
Straight-In Circling 600 600 1.0 1.0 600 600 1.0 1.0 600 600 1.5 1.5 600 600 1.75 2.0 600 600 1.75 2.0
Aircraft categories are based on the approach speed of aircraft, which is determined by 1.3 times the stall speed in landing
configuration. The approach categories are as follows: Category A 0-90 knots (Cessna 172) Category B 91-120 knots (Beechcraft KingAir) Category C 121-140 knots (Canadair Challenger)
Category D 141-165 knots (Gulfstream IV) Category E Speed greater than 166 knots (F-16) Abbreviations:
CH: Cloud Height (in feet above ground level) RNAV: Area Navigation GPS: Global Positioning System VIS: Visibility (in statute miles) ILS: Instrument Landing System VNAV: Vertical Navigation LNAV: Lateral Navigation VOR: Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range LOC: Localizer TACAN: Tactical Air Navigation
MDA: Minimum Descent Altitude N/A: Not Available NDH: No Decision Height Source: U.S. Terminal Procedures
1-37
Visual Flight Procedures
Most flights at KOA are conducted
under visual flight rules (VFR). Un-
der VFR flight, the pilot is responsible
for collision avoidance. Typically, the
pilot will make radio calls announcing
the position of the aircraft relative to
the airport and the intentions of the
pilot.
In most situations, under VFR and ba-
sic radar services, the pilot is respon-
sible for navigation and choosing the
arrival and departure flight paths to
and from the airport. The results of
individual pilot navigation for se-
quencing and collision avoidance are
that aircraft do not fly a precise flight
path to and from the airport. There-
fore, aircraft can be found flying over a
wide area around the airport for se-
quencing and safety reasons.
While aircraft can be expected to op-
erate over most areas of the airport,
the density of aircraft operations is
higher near the airport. This is the
result of aircraft following the estab-
lished traffic patterns for the airport.
The traffic pattern is the traffic flow
that is prescribed for aircraft landing
or taking off from an airport. The
components of a typical traffic pattern
are upwind leg, crosswind leg, down-
wind leg, base leg, and final approach.
a. Upwind Leg - A flight path parallel
to the landing runway in the direc-
tion of landing.
b. Crosswind Leg - A flight path at
right angles to the landing runway
off its upwind end.
c. Downwind Leg - A flight path pa-
rallel to the landing runway in the
direction opposite to landing. The
downwind leg normally extends be-
tween the crosswind leg and the
base leg.
d. Base Leg - A flight path at right
angles to the landing runway off its
approach end. The base leg normal-
ly extends from the downwind leg
to the intersection of the extended
runway centerline.
e. Final Approach - A flight path in
the direction of landing along the
extended runway centerline. The
final approach normally extends
from the base leg to the runway.
Essentially, the traffic pattern defines
which side of the runway aircraft will
operate on. For example, at KOA,
Runway 17 has an established right-
hand traffic pattern. For this runway,
aircraft make a right turn from base
leg to final for landing. Therefore, air-
craft operating to Runway 17 remain
west of the runway. When landing to
Runway 35, aircraft make left-hand
turns. This also allows aircraft to re-
main west of Runway 17-35.
While the traffic pattern defines the
direction of turns that an aircraft will
follow on landing or departure, it does
not define how far from the runway an
aircraft will operate. The distance
laterally from the runway centerline
an aircraft operates or the distance
from the end of the runway is at the
discretion of the pilot, based on the
operating characteristics of the air-
craft, number of aircraft in the traffic
pattern, and meteorological condi-
tions. The actual ground location of
each leg of the traffic pattern varies
from aircraft operation to aircraft op-
eration for the reasons of safety, navi-
1-38
gation, and sequencing described
above. The distance that the down-
wind leg is located laterally from the
runway will vary based mostly on the
speed of the aircraft. Slower aircraft
can operate closer to the runway as
their turn radius is smaller.
The FAA has established that small
piston-powered aircraft operating in
the KOA traffic pattern fly at 800 feet
MSL when on the downwind leg.
Larger turbine-powered aircraft fly
the downwind leg at 1,500 feet MSL.
The traffic pattern altitude is estab-lished so that aircraft have a predict-
able descent profile on base leg to final
for landing.
SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE
The following sections will analyze the
population, employment, and income
of the island as it compares to state and national figures. Historical so-
cioeconomic figures were obtained
from the U.S. Census, the U.S. De-
partment of Labor, the Bureau of Eco-
nomic Analysis, the County Social,
Business and Economic Trends in
Hawaii: 1990 – 2005, and the State of
Hawaii Data Book, 2006.
POPULATION
Historical population information for
the Kona/Kohala Districts, Hawaii
County, and the State of Hawaii is
summarized in Table 1H. As indi-
cated in the table, the western dis-
tricts of Hawaii County comprised of North Kona, South Kona, North Koha-
la, and South Kohala have expe-
rienced growth steadily over the past
25 years. The Kona/Kohala Districts
have grown in each decade and expe-
rienced a higher average annual growth percentage than both Hawaii
County and the State of Hawaii.
TABLE 1H
Population History
North Kona, Hawaii County, and State of Hawaii
Year
Kona/Kohala
Districts
%
Change
Hawaii
County
%
Change
State of
Hawaii
%
Change
1980 27,518 N/A 92,900 N/A 968,500 N/A
1990 43,373 57.6% 121,572 14.8% 1,113,491 7.1%
2000 56,301 29.8% 149,261 6.2% 1,212,670 1.3%
2005 63,001 11.9% 163,000 9.2% 1,277,950 5.4%
Average Annual % Change 3.4% 2.3% 1.1%
Source: The State of Hawaii Data Book,2006 Kona/Kohala Districts: Comprised of the western Hawaii County Districts of North Kona, South Kona, North Koha-
la, and South Kohala.
EMPLOYMENT
The major industries on the island of Hawaii area include retail trade, ac-
commodation, and state government.
Total employment in Hawaii County
has experienced an average annual
growth rate of 1.9 percent since 1990.
A breakdown of employment by sector
for Hawaii County is presented in Ta-
ble 1J.
1-39
TABLE 1J
Employment By Sector Hawaii County
Sector 1990 1995 2000 2005
%
Change
Avg. Annual
% Change
Natural Resources/Mining/Construction 3,600 2,800 3,100 4,850 34.7% 2.0%
Manufacturing 2,400 1,700 1,600 1,450 -39.6% -3.3%
Wholesale Trade 1,300 1,200 1,300 1,650 26.9% 1.6%
Retail Trade 6,900 7,600 7,900 8,900 29.0% 1.7%
Transportation/Warehousing/Utilities 2,400 2,200 2,200 2,850 18.8% 1.2%
Information 600 700 700 650 8.3% 0.5%
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 2,300 2,300 2,200 2,600 13.0% 0.8%
Professional/Business Services 2,500 3,200 4,100 4,750 90.0% 4.4%
Educational Services 300 400 600 950 216.7% 8.0%
Health Care/Social Assistance 2,500 3,500 4,900 5,850 134.0% 5.8%
Arts/Entertainment/Recreation 600 900 1,100 1,550 158.3% 6.5%
Accommodation 6,200 5,500 7,100 7,100 14.5% 0.9% Food Service/Drinking Places 3,900 3,700 4,200 5,250 34.6% 2.0%
Other Services 1,300 1,300 1,300 2,000 53.8% 2.9%
Federal Government 800 900 1,000 1,250 56.3% 3.0%
State Government 5,600 7,100 7,600 8,000 42.9% 2.4%
Local Government 2,000 2,100 2,300 2,350 17.5% 1.1%
Agriculture 3,500 2,450 2,700 2,450 -30.0% -2.3%
Total Employment 48,700 49,550 55,900 64,450 33.3% 1.9%
Source: County Social, Business and Economic Trends In Hawaii 1990 – 2005, (2006)
Unemployment rates are also a good
indicator of the state of the local econ-
omy. Hawaii County has experienced
a lower than average unemployment
rate when compared to the United
States in recent years. However, the
county unemployment has historically
been higher than that of the state as a
whole. The historical unemployment
rate comparisons since 1990 can be
found in Table 1K.
TABLE 1K Historical Unemployment Rate (Percentage of Labor Force) Hawaii County, State of Hawaii, United States Year Hawaii County State of Hawaii U.S.
1990 3.5 2.4 5.6 1991 4.5 2.8 6.9 1992 7.5 4.2 7.5 1993 7.6 4.4 6.9
1994 9.2 5.1 6.1
1995 9.6 5.5 5.6 1996 9.2 5.9 5.4 1997 9.3 5.8 4.9 1998 8.7 5.7 4.5 1999 7.8 5.0 4.2
2000 4.7 4.0 4.0 2001 5.0 4.2 4.7 2002 4.6 4.1 5.8 2003 4.6 3.9 6.0 2004 3.9 3.3 5.5
2005 3.3 2.8 5.1
Source: Hawaii County and State of Hawaii, County
Social, Business and Economic Trends in Hawaii: 1990 - 2005, (2006) U.S., U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
1-40
INCOME
Table 1L, Historical Per Capita Per-
sonal Income, compares the per capita
income (PCPI) for Hawaii County, the
State of Hawaii, and the United States
between 1990 and 2004. As illu-
strated in the table, Hawaii County’s
PCPI has grown at a faster pace than
that of the State of Hawaii. However,
both the County and the State are
growing at a slower pace than the
United States. The Hawaii County
PCPI was approximately 76 percent of
the national average, while the State
of Hawaii was approximately 99 per-
cent of the national average.
TABLE 1L
Historical Per Capita Personal Income
Hawaii County, State of Hawaii, United States
Year Hawaii County State of Hawaii U.S.
1990 $16,477 $22,186 $19,477
1991 $17,032 $22,895 $19,892
1992 $17,478 $24,089 $20,854
1993 $17,903 $24,555 $21,346
1994 $18,134 $24,777 $22,172
1995 $18,166 $25,004 $23,076
1996 $18,505 $25,024 $24,175
1997 $18,650 $25,587 $25,334
1998 $19,648 $26,132 $26,883
1999 $20,324 $26,937 $27,939
2000 $21,404 $28,422 $29,845
2001 $22,217 $28,748 $30,574
2002 $23,020 $29,464 $30,810
2003 $23,771 $30,536 $31,484
2004 $25,096 $32,625 $33,050
Avg. Annual % Change 3.1% 2.8% 3.8%
Source: Hawaii County and State of Hawaii, County Social, Business and Economic Trends in Ha-
waii: 1990 – 2005 (2006)
U.S., Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table CA 1-3
REGIONAL LAND USE
EXISTING AREA LAND USE
The area surrounding the airport is
largely undeveloped with scattered in-
dustrial and governmental uses. To
the north, the land is owned by the
State of Hawaii. East of Queen Kaa-
humanu Highway, the land uses in-
clude residential, agricultural, and
conservation/open space. Directly
west of the airport is the Natural
Energy Laboratory of Hawaii and the
Pacific Ocean. Directly south of the
airport, the land uses include light in-
dustrial uses as well as government
and conservation lands. Exhibit 1M
displays the existing land use classifi-
cations for the areas surrounding the
airport. A more specific description of
existing and planned developments in
the airport area is provided in Ap-
pendix D.
EXISTING AREA LAND USE STATE LAND USE DISTRICTS
EXISTING LAND USE AND LAND USE DISTRICTS Exhibit 1M
06
M
P
0
6
-
1
N
-
3
/
1
9
/
0
9
1-41
LAND USE DISTRICTS
Land use planning in Hawaii County
occurs through regulatory and non-
regulatory means. Land within Ha-
waii County is regulated by a two-
tiered system that includes regulation
at the state and county levels. All
lands within the county have been as-
signed one of four state land use des-
ignations: Conservation, Agricultural,
Rural, or Urban. These designations
are established by the State Land Use
Commission, a body which is ap-
pointed by the Governor. The State
Land Use District designations on and
around the airport are presented on
Exhibit 1M.
An additional classification, Special
Management Area (SMA), was created
to protect environmental resources
along the coast. Projects within this
area receive additional scrutiny to en-
sure that they do not impact coastal
resources. The SMA exists between
the shoreline and the SMA line as de-
lineated on Exhibit 1M. The width of
the area varies along the coast and is
no wider than one mile.
GENERAL PLAN
Future land use guidance in Hawaii
County is provided by the Hawaii
County General Plan, which was
adopted by the Hawaii County Council
in February 2005. The general plan
consists of a text portion which out-
lines the overall development goals for
the County, and the map portion iden-
tifies the areas in which development
should occur. The zoning ordinance
governs the manner in which land is
developed by providing specific criteria
for each zoning district. Recommen-
dations on land use planning issues
typically originate from the County’s
Planning Commission and are ap-
proved by the County Council.
The goals, policies, and courses of ac-
tion included in the current Hawaii
County General Plan support airport
land use compatibility planning in
airport environs. Adhering to the
plan’s guidance will promote airport
land use compatibility in the future.
In addition to the goals and policies
outlined in the General Plan, the Land
Use Pattern Allocation Guide
(LUPAG) Map included in the plan
identifies the areas where develop-
ment will occur. Exhibit 1N shows
the future land use map from the Ha-
waii County General Plan. In many
cases, the lines demarcating land use
boundaries are not exact, but are
meant to show the general location
and distribution of land uses.
As shown on the map, much of the
airport as well as the areas imme-
diately south and west are identified
for industrial development. Preferred
land uses for these areas include
manufacturing and processing, whole-
saling, large storage and transporta-
tion facilities, power plants, and gov-
ernment baseyards.
The east side of the airport’s property,
as well as land to the north, is desig-
nated for conservation uses. Conser-
vation uses are defined as forest and
water reserves, natural and scientific
preserves, and open lands within the
State Land Use Conservation District.
1-42
Portions of land east of the airport are
designated for agricultural uses. Typ-
ical agriculture uses include raising
livestock and growing crops and nurs-
ery products. In addition to agricul-
ture uses, these lands may also be
used as open space or as a green belt
to provide a buffer between uses or to
preserve areas as undeveloped.
Areas south of the industrial designa-
tion, as well as portions of the area
east of Queen Kaahumanu Highway,
are designated for Urban Expansion.
According to the plan, the Urban Ex-
pansion areas could include “a mix of
high density, medium density, low
density, industrial, industrial-
commercial and/or open designations
in areas where new settlements may
be desirable, but where the specific
settlement pattern and mix of uses
have not yet been determined.” This
land could be developed with a variety
of land uses both compatible and non-
compatible with airport operations.
Beyond the Urban Expansion areas to
the south of the airport there are par-
cels planned for low and medium-
density urban development. These
areas could include village, neighbor-
hood, and convenience retail uses,
public uses, and single and multiple
family dwellings ranging between one
and 35 dwelling units per acre.
The areas along the coast and near the
highway are designated as open space
and are to remain undeveloped.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
In addition to the General Plan,
Community Development Plans
(CDPs) are also developed for com-
munities on the Island of Hawaii. The
CDP is intended to provide more spe-
cific planning guidance for individual
communities in a manner consistent
with the General Plan. The CDP is
also intended to serve as a forum for
Community input into land use, deliv-
ery of government services, and any
other matters relating to the planning
area.
The Kona Community Development
Plan was adopted by County Council
Ordinance on September 25, 2008.
The Kona CDP generally supports the
LUPAG Map. A guiding principle of
the CDP is “To direct future growth
patterns to compact villages, preserv-
ing Kona’s rural, diverse, and histori-
cal character.” As a result, the majori-
ty of urban growth in Kona is intended
to be directed to the Kona Urban Area
which spans from Kona International
Airport south to Keahou.
ZONING
While land use plans are intended to
establish policies and goals to guide
future development and land use, land
use is legislatively controlled through
the local zoning ordinance and devel-
opment codes. Lands near the airport
LAND USE PATTERN ALLOCATION GUIDANCE GENRALIZED ZONING
LUPAG AND ZONING MAPS Exhibit 1N
06
M
P
0
6
-
1
N
-
3
/
1
9
/
0
9
1-43
which are subject to the Hawaii Coun-
ty zoning ordinance are those within
the State’s Urban District, as identi-
fied on Exhibit 1M.
Each zone outlined in the County or-
dinance has a list of permitted uses
and performance standards for devel-
opment. As depicted on the Zoning
Map on the right side of Exhibit 1N,
the Urban District property on the
airport and in NELHA to the south
and west are zoned industrial.
ENVIRONMENTAL
INVENTORY
Available information about the exist-
ing environmental conditions at KOA
has been derived from internet re-
sources, agency maps, and existing lit-
erature, including the Final Environ-
mental Assessment for the Kona Inter-
national Airport at Keahole Master
Plan Update completed in November
of 2000. The intent of this task is to
inventory potential environmental
sensitivities that might affect future
improvements at the airport. These
resources are discussed further within
the following sections.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Fish, Wildlife, and Plants
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) are charged with
overseeing the requirements contained
within Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. This Act was put into
place to protect animal or plant spe-
cies whose populations are threatened
by human activities. In coordination
with the FAA, the FWS and the
NMFS review projects to determine if
a significant impact to these protected
species will result with implementa-
tion of a proposed project. Significant
impacts occur when the proposed ac-
tion could jeopardize the continued ex-
istence of a protected species or would
result in the destruction or adverse
modification of federally designated
critical habitat in the area.
In a similar manner, states are al-
lowed to prepare statewide wildlife
conservation plans through authori-
zations contained within the Sikes Act.
Airport improvement projects should
be checked for consistency with the
State Wildlife Conservation Plan
where such a plan exists.
Hawaii has the largest number of
listed endangered and threatened spe-
cies in the nation. There are 329
threatened and endangered species in
the State of Hawaii, of which 273 are
plants. The 56 endangered animals
include:
32 species of birds
Four sea turtle species
Hawaiian monkseal
Humpback whale
Hawaiian hoary bat
Two species of snails
Twp arthropods
Blackburn’s sphinx moth
12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies
The vegetation within the study site is
characterized as a Lowland Vegetation
Community. The habitat is dominated
by fountain grass, an alien African
1-44
grass. Additionally, several native
plants are present in small numbers.
There is little vegetation on the lava
flows, especially along the western,
northern, and portions of the north-
east side of the airfield.
A faunal survey was completed at, and
in the vicinity of, the airport in De-
cember of 1999 to determine if habitat
is present that would support the exis-
tence of any state or federally listed
endangered, threatened, proposed, or
candidate avian or mammalian spe-
cies. The results of the survey indi-
cated a lack of habitat for any federal-
ly listed species. Only one mamma-
lian species (Indian Mongoose) was
encountered on airport property. A
total of 14 avian species were detected,
13 of which are alien species to the
Hawaiian Islands. The only native
species recorded was the Pacific Gold-
en Plover, a common indigenous mi-
gratory species. The endangered Ha-
waiian Stilt has previously been re-
corded within airport boundaries in
2000 and 2001.
Floodplains
Floodplains are defined in Executive
Order 11988, Floodplain Management,
as “the lowland and relatively flat
areas adjoining inland and coastal wa-
ters…including at a minimum, that
area subject to a one percent or great-
er chance of flooding in any given
year” (i.e., that area would be inun-
dated by a 100-year flood). Federal
agencies, including the FAA, are di-
rected to “reduce the risk of loss, to
minimize the impact of floods on hu-
man safety, health, and welfare, and
to restore and preserve the natural
and beneficial values served by flood-
plains.” According to Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency (FEMA)
Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
panel number 155166 0681C, airport
facilities are not located in a 100-year
floodplain or floodway. A 100-year
floodplain is located west of the air-
field along the coast. The location of
this floodplain is depicted on Exhibit
1P.
The County of Hawaii, Civil Defense
Tsunami Evacuation Zone is also de-
picted on Exhibit 1P. As illustrated
on the exhibit, the limits of the evacu-
ation zone are west of the existing
runway. The terminal buildings at
the airport are located outside of the
evacuation zone.
Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
regulates the discharge of dredged
and/or fill material into waters of the
United States, including adjacent wet-
lands, under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Wetlands are defined in
Executive Order 11990, Protection of
Wetlands, as “those areas that are in-
undated by surface or groundwater
with a frequency sufficient to support
and under normal circumstances does
or would support a prevalence of vege-
tation or aquatic life that requires sat-
urated or seasonably saturated soil
conditions for growth and reproduc-
tion.” Categories of wetlands include
swamps, marshes, bogs, sloughs, pot-
holes, wet meadows, river overflows,
mud flats, natural ponds, estuarine
areas, tidal overflows, and shallow
0 1800 3600
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
LEGEND
CLASS AA
CLASS AA
CLASS AA
Tsunami Evacuation Area
Floodplain
Anchaline Pond
06
M
P
0
6
-
1
P
-
1
1
/
2
0
/
0
8
WATER RESOURCES Exhibit 1P
1-45
lakes and ponds with emergent vege-
tation. Wetlands exhibit three charac-
teristics: hydrology, hydrophytes
(plants able to tolerate various degrees
of flooding or frequent saturation), and
poorly drained soils.
The FWS interactive wetland mapper
did not identify any wetlands on air-
port property. However, during a site
survey completed in December of
1999, a small anchialine wetland sys-
tem (approximately 58 feet by 62 feet),
located at the southern end of the
runway was identified. The location of
this wetland is depicted on Exhibit
1P.
Farmlands
The Farmland Protection Policy Act
(FPPA) authorizes the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to
develop criteria for identifying the ef-
fects of federal programs on the con-
version of farmland to nonagri-
cultural uses. Farmland protected by
the FPPA is classified as either unique
farmland, prime farmland (which is
not already committed to urban devel-
opment or water storage), or farmland
which is of state or local importance
(as determined by the appropriate
government agency and the Secretary
of Agriculture). The Land Study Bu-
reau, Detailed Land Classification Re-
port for the Island of Hawaii has des-
ignated the land at the airport as
Class E, which is land that is very
poor and least suited for agriculture.
No soils designated as supporting
prime or unique farmlands have been
identified on airport property.
Geology and Soils
Hawaii is located in a region which is
subject to earthquakes and volcanic
eruptions. The soil type at the airport
has been classified as predominately
ʻaʻā and pāhoehoe lava flow. ʻAʻā is
characterized by a rough or rubbly
surface composed of broken lava
blocks called clinker. The surface is
characterized as being loose, broken,
sharp, and spiny. Pāhoehoe is basaltic
lava that has a smooth, billowy, undu-
lating, or ropy surface. Pāhoehoe can
turn into ʻaʻā if it becomes turbulent
due to meeting impediments or steep
slopes.
Both ʻaʻā and pāhoehoe lava flows
have little to no soil covering and are
virtually devoid of vegetation with the
exception of mosses, lichens, ferns,
and small ohia trees.
Air Quality
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has adopted air quality stan-
dards that specify the maximum per-
missible short-term and long-term
concentrations of various air contami-
nants. The National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) consist of
primary and secondary standards for
six criteria pollutants which include:
Ozone (O3), Carbon Monoxide (CO),
Sulfur Dioxide (SOx), Nitrogen Oxide
(NOx), Particulate Matter (PM10), and
Lead (Pb).
Primary air quality standards are es-
tablished at levels to protect the
1-46
public health and welfare from any
known or anticipated adverse effects
of a pollutant. All areas of the country
are required to demonstrate attain-
ment with NAAQS. According to the
EPA website, the entire State of Ha-
waii is in attainment for all federal
criteria pollutants.
Hawaii has adopted air quality stan-
dards which are more stringent than
federal standards. Table 1M com-
pares federal and state air quality
standards.
TABLE 1M
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Air Pollutant Hawaii Federal
Carbon Monoxide
1-hour
8-hour
9 (ppm)
4.4 (ppm)
35 (ppm)
9 (ppm)
Nitrogen Dioxide
1-hour
24-hour
Annual
-
-
0.04 (ppm)
-
-
0.05 (ppm)
Sulfur Dioxide
3-hour
24-hour
Annual
0.5 (ppm)
0.14 (ppm)
0.03 (ppm)
-
0.14 (ppm)
0.03 (ppm)
Ozone
1-hour
8-hour
-
0.08 (ppm)
0.12 (ppm [limited])
0.08 (ppm)
PM10 24-hour
Annual
150 μg/m3
50 μg/m3
150 μg/m3
Revoked
PM2.5 24-hour
Annual
-
-
35 μg/m3
15.0 μg/m3
Lead
Quarterly Average
1.5 μg/m3
1.5 μg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide
1-hour
35 μg/m3
-
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Hawaii State Department of Health
Abbreviations: ppm = parts per million; μg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter
As mentioned earlier in this chapter,
air quality on the west coast can be
affected by vog (volcanic smog). The
combination of the volcanic emissions
with trade winds and other weather
conditions can create spikes in sulfur
dioxide to alert levels.
Water Quality
The stormwater runoff generated from
the airport rapidly percolates through
the cracks and crevasses of the lava
flow that lies beneath the airport and
surrounding area. Water Quality
1-47
Monitoring was included as part of the
November 2000 Environmental As-
sessment. According to the results of
the monitoring, the sampled water fell
within an acceptable water quality pa-
rameter. There were no unexpected
features found within the water.
A new monitoring well is planned by
the Palamaui development makai
(west) of Queen Ka`ahumanu High-
way near the ATCBI-5. This data will
be incorporated into the airport’s mon-
itoring program to include potential
effects migrating onto the airport
property from this new offsite devel-
opment.
The coastal nearshore waters have
been identified by the Hawaii State
Department of Health as Class AA
waters. Class AA waters are intended
to remain in their natural pristine
state as nearly as possible with an ab-
solute minimum of pollution or altera-
tion of water quality from any human
caused source or actions. Class AA
waters are the most stringently regu-
lated of open coastal water classifica-
tions.
CULTURAL AND
SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES
Historical, Architectural,
and Cultural Resources
Determination of a project’s impact to
historic and cultural resources is made
in compliance with the National His-
toric Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966,
as amended for federal undertakings.
The NHPA requires that an initial re-
view be made of an undertaking’s Area
of Potential Effect (APE) to determine
if any properties in or eligible for in-
clusion in the National Register of
Historic Places are present in the
area.
The coastal area, once a significant
settlement area for the native Ha-
waiians, exhibits medium to high
archaeological site densities, generally
within 100 meters of the shore. Typi-
cal sites that are found include per-
manent house structures, subsidence
sites, heiau, petroglyph clusters, tem-
porary shelters, and coastal trails.
The airport and its environs have been
surveyed numerous times for histori-
cal and cultural sites. In April of
2000, an archaeological survey was
conducted to validate prior findings,
identify potential new sites not pre-
viously studied, and to collect informa-
tion on traditional native Hawaiian
uses of the airport site. Six previously
recorded sites were re-evaluated and it
was confirmed within the Archaeologi-
cal Survey that these sites are no
longer significant. Three previously
unidentified areas consist-ing of near-
circular one- and two-course cobble
and boulder alignments were found.
These sites were described and photo-
graphed, and their locations were es-
tablished for the record. The sites
were evaluated due to the significant
information regarding Hawaiian his-
tory and prehistory that they have
yielded. Sufficient information has
been gathered and documented from
these sites. According to the 2000
Archaeological Survey, the sites are
now considered “no longer significant.”
1-48
Department of Transportation
Act: Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) properties include publicly
owned land from a public park,
recreation area, or wildlife and water-
fowl refuge of national, state, or local
significance; or any land from a histor-
ic site of national, state, or local signif-
icance. Exhibit 1Q depicts the Sec-
tion 4f properties located in the vicini-
ty of Kona International Airport at
Keahole.
The Mamalahoa Trail runs from Kai-
lua/Kona north about seven miles to
the 1801 lava flow near Keahole Point.
The Mamalahoa Trail is a straight,
curbed, cut and fill path that was built
by labor forces conscripted by the is-
land governors to transport food and
other goods to the neighboring ahu-
puaas and the harbor of Kailua/Kona.
The Trail was also a major route along
the west side of the island.
Numerous public recreation areas are
located in the vicinity of the airport.
Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historic
Park is located approximately 3.5
miles south of the airport and is man-
aged by the National Park Service.
North of the airport approximately
two miles is the Kekaha Kai State
Park which is managed by the State of
Hawaii Department of Land and Nat-
ural Resources.
Additionally, there are three sites
listed on the National Register of His-
toric Places near the airport. These
include Kalaoa Permanent House, Hu-
lihee Palace, and Mokuaikaua Church.
!C
!C
!C
KALOKO-HONOKOHAU
NATIONAL
HISTORICAL PARK
KEKAHA
KAI STATE
PARK
KEKAHA
KAI STATE
PARK
HONUAULA
FOREST
RESERVE
OLD KONA
AIRPORT STATE
RECREATION AREA Kailua
Mahaiula
Kalaoa
Hulihee
Palace
KalaoaPermanent
House Site
Mokuaikaua
Church
UV180
UV19
UV190
M
a
m
a
l
a
h
o
a
T
r
a
il
Exhibit 1P
Pacific
Ocean
Kailu a-Kona
17
35
01234Miles
!C National Historic Register Site
Parks and Reserves
National Historic Park
State Park/Recreation Area
Forest Reserve (Not 4f)
Airport Property Line
Mamalahoa Trail
Major Roads
Highways
Secondary Roads
Streams
Legend
06
M
P
0
6
-
1
Q
-
1
1
/
1
Q
/
0
8
SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES Exhibit 1Q
01
Miles
2
NORTH
Chapter Two
FORECASTS
2-1
Chapter Two
An important factor in facility planning
involves a definition of demand that may
reasonably be expected to occur during
the useful life of the facility’s key
components. In airport master planning,
this involves projecting potential
aviation activity over at least a
twenty-year timeframe. For small-hub,
primary commercial service airports
such as Kona International Airport at
Keahole (KOA), forecasts of passengers,
cargo, based aircraft, and operations
(takeoffs and landings) serve as a basis
for facility planning.
The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) has a responsibility to review
aviation forecasts that are submitted to
the agency in conjunction with airport
planning, including master plans, CFR
Part 150 Studies, and environmental
studies. The FAA reviews such forecasts
with the objective of including them in
its Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) and the
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
(NPIAS). In addition, aviation activity
forecasts are an important input to the
benefit-cost analyses associated with
airport development, and FAA reviews
these analyses when federal funding
requests are submitted.
As stated in FAA Order 5090.3C, Field
Formulation of the National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), dated
December 4, 2004, forecasts should be:
• Realistic
• Based on the latest available data
• Reflect current conditions at the airport
• Supported by information in the study
FORECASTSFORECASTS
2-2
Provide adequate justification for
the airport planning and develop-
ment
The forecast process for an airport
master plan consists of a series of ba-
sic steps that can vary depending
upon the issues to be addressed and
the level of effort required to develop
the forecast. The steps include a re-
view of previous forecasts, determina-
tion of data needs, identification of da-
ta sources, collection of data, selection
of forecast methods, preparation of the
forecasts, and evaluation and docu-
mentation of the results.
The following forecast analysis for Ko-
na International Airport at Keahole
was produced following these basic
guidelines. Other forecasts dating
back to the previous master plan were
examined and compared against cur-
rent and historic activity. The histori-
cal aviation activity was then ex-
amined along with other factors and
trends that could affect demand. The
intent is to provide an updated set of
aviation demand projections for KOA
that will permit the Hawaii Depart-
ment of Transportation Airports Divi-
sion (DOT-A) to make planning ad-
justments as necessary to maintain a
viable, efficient, and cost-effective fa-
cility.
This forecast effort was completed in
mid-2007 using 2006 as its base year.
This chapter reflects the conditions at
that time as well as utilizes socioeco-
nomic and aviation industry forecasts
in effect at that time. Since that time,
Aloha Airlines ceased operations.
The economic downturn and recession
in the last half of 2008 has affected at
least the short term outlook for avia-
tion activity. History has shown that
aviation activity is affected in the
short term by events such as an air-
line’s bankruptcy and economic hard
times. Over the long term, however,
traffic has generally recovered. That
assumption is maintained for the pur-
poses of this master plan.
NATIONAL
AVIATION TRENDS
Each year, the FAA updates and pub-
lishes a national aviation forecast. In-
cluded in this publication are forecasts
for the large air carriers, regional/
commuter air carriers, general avia-
tion, and FAA workload measures.
The forecasts are prepared to meet
budget and planning needs of the con-
stituent units of the FAA and to pro-
vide information that can be used by
state and local authorities, the avia-
tion industry, and the general public.
The current edition when this chapter
was prepared was FAA Aerospace
Forecasts - Fiscal Years 2007-2020,
published in March 2007. The fore-
casts used the economic performance
of the United States as an indicator of
future aviation industry growth. Sim-
ilar economic analyses were applied to
the outlook for aviation growth in in-
ternational markets.
In the seven years prior to the events
of September 11, 2001, the U.S. civil
aviation industry experienced unprec-
2-3
edented growth in demand and profits.
The impacts to the economy and avia-
tion industry from the events of 9/11
were immediate and significant. The
economic climate and aviation indus-
try, however, has been on the recov-
ery.
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) expected the U.S. economy to
continue to grow in terms of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) at an average
annual rate of 2.9 percent through
2020. The world GDP was forecast to
grow at an even faster rate of 3.1 per-
cent over the same period. This was
expected to positively influence the
aviation industry, leading to passen-
ger, air cargo, and general aviation
growth throughout the forecast period
(assuming there will be no new suc-
cessful terrorists incidents against ei-
ther U.S. or world aviation).
U.S. airline passengers (combined do-
mestic and international) have sur-
passed pre-9/11 levels and were pro-
jected to grow at an average of 3.5
percent annually through 2020. Main-
line air carriers were projected to grow
at 3.7 percent annually, while the re-
gional/commuter airlines were ex-
pected to maintain a pace of 3.1 per-
cent annually. Total international
traffic to and from the U.S. was fore-
cast to grow even faster at a 4.9 per-
cent annual rate.
U.S. airline air cargo revenue-ton-
miles (RTMs) were projected to grow
at 5.3 percent annually through 2020.
The number of active general aviation
aircraft was expected to grow at 1.4
percent annually.
COMMERCIAL PASSENGER
AIRLINES
The passenger airlines in the United
States are comprised of 33 mainline
carriers and 81 regional carriers. The
mainline carriers are airlines that
primarily use passenger jets with over
90 seats, while the regional carriers
are airlines that primarily use smaller
propeller and jet aircraft up to 90
seats. The mainline carriers have also
emerged into two other groupings:
legacy network carriers and low-cost
carriers.
Legacy Network Carriers - This
group includes the airlines established
prior to deregulation in 1978 (e.g.,
Alaska Airlines, Aloha Airlines, Amer-
ican Airlines, Continental Airlines,
Delta Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines,
Northwest Airlines, United Airlines,
US Airways). The legacy airlines were
the most impacted by 9/11, and many
are now undergoing restructuring ef-
forts to redefine themselves in the new
operating environment of the industry.
These airlines operate primarily in
hub-and-spoke networks and generally
have higher operating costs. The lega-
cy airlines have been downsizing and
cost-cutting to become competitive
with the low-cost carriers. The string
of negative external events, out of the
control of the airlines, made it difficult
for most of the legacy carriers to
achieve profitability. Many have gone
through bankruptcy as part of their
restructuring.
Low-Cost Carriers - This group is
comprised of established low-cost car-
riers, new entrants, and a few restruc-
2-4
tured legacy carriers (American Trans
Air, AirTran, Frontier Airlines, Jet-
Blue Airways, Southwest Airlines, and
Spirit Air Lines). These carriers typi-
cally operate point-to-point and have
lower operating costs than their legacy
counterparts. Their post-9/11 strategy
has been growth in airports and city-
pairs served, aircraft fleet, and longer-
haul flights. The recent sharp in-
creases in oil prices have impacted the
profits of the low-cost airlines.
Regionals/Commuters - This group’s
operating strategy focuses around
providing feeder traffic through a
code-sharing arrangement with a leg-
acy airline. Some, like ExpressJet on
the mainland and Mesa Airlines in
Hawaii (Go! Airlines) have attempted
point-to-point service in competition
with the larger carriers. Since 9/11,
the regional commuters have bene-
fited from the route restructuring and
cost-cutting of the legacy network,
taking over service to thinner me-
dium-haul and long-haul markets.
While continuing to recover from 9/11,
new challenges and uncertainties un-
folded. A slowed economy, the Severe
Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)
epidemic, and the war in Iraq all add-
ed to the difficulties already facing the
industry.
Jet fuel prices have affected the carri-
ers worldwide, but the impacts to the
bottom line have been greatest on the
U.S. airlines. A relatively strong
world economy allowed the world air-
lines to pass on the increased fuel
costs through higher fares with min-
imal effect. The U.S. Airlines, howev-
er, raised fares, cut capacity, and in-
creased international flying. In spite
of this, the U.S. airline industry lost
money for the sixth consecutive year
in 2006, while the world airlines made
an estimated $3.2 billion.
Following two years of strong growth
in rebounding from 9/11, the U.S. car-
riers’ passenger demand was flat in
2006. While demand remained
healthy for the regional carriers, high-
er fares and capacity cuts by the lega-
cy carriers reduced mainline carrier
demand. Despite flat domestic de-
mand, international markets expe-
rienced a five to six percent growth.
Capacity and demand growth were
expected to rebound in 2007, with ca-
pacity (available seat-miles or ASMs)
expected to grow 2.8 percent on the
premise that the legacy carrier domes-
tic market capacity stabilizes while
capacity in their international mar-
kets and the capacity of the low-cost
carriers grows. In addition, regional
carrier capacity was expected to grow
by 3.0 percent.
As the capacity begins to grow again
in 2007, revenue passenger miles
(RPMs) were also forecast to increase
by 3.4 percent, while enplanements
grow by 3.7 percent. In 2008, growth
was expected to accelerate with capac-
ity up 4.3 percent, RPMs up 4.2 per-
cent, and passengers up 3.4 percent.
For the remainder of the forecast pe-
riod, system capacity is expected to
average 4.4 percent per year. Solid
economic growth and falling real
yields contribute to a projection of 4.5
percent average annual growth rate
through 2020 for RPMs. System pas-
2-5
sengers are projected to increase at an
average of 3.5 percent per year, with
the mainline carriers growing faster
(3.7 percent) than regional carriers
(3.0 percent). Exhibit 2A depicts the
history and projected growth in U.S.
passenger enplanements.
Load factors are expected to continue
to increase from an all-time high of
79.0 percent to 80.3 percent by 2020.
Growth in longer international trips
and more point-to-point service on
domestic routes contributes to a pro-
jected growth in average passenger
trip length of more than 130 miles to
1,198.1 miles by 2020.
Domestic Market Forecast
Capacity in the domestic markets de-
clined in 2006 with legacy carriers
cuts in aircraft and shifts of other air-
craft to international markets. The
cuts by Chapter 11 carriers not only
affected mainline capacity, but also
that of their regional carrier partners.
As the airlines restructure, domestic
capacity is expected to rebound and
grow at an annual rate of 4.0 percent,
with the mainline carrier growth
slightly slower at 3.8 percent and the
regional carriers averaging 5.0 percent
through the planning period.
RPMs are expected to average 4.1 per-
cent growth annually, again with
mainline growth slower (4.0 percent)
than regional carrier growth (5.2 per-
cent). Domestic passenger growth is
expected to average 3.4 percent an-
nually; however, mainline traffic is
expected to grow faster at 3.5 percent
compared to 3.0 percent for regional
carriers. While total domestic traffic
exceeded pre-9/11 levels in 2005, the
mainline carrier traffic is not forecast
to reach pre-9/11 levels until 2009.
International Market Forecast
The FAA forecasts total international
traffic (that carried by both U.S. and
foreign flag carriers) for travel be-
tween the U.S. and the three world
travel areas of Atlantic, Latin Ameri-
ca, and Asia/Pacific. Total U.S. inter-
national traffic grew 2.9 percent in
2006. The 141.5 million enplanements
surpassed pre-9/11 levels for the first
time. World and U.S. economic
growth was expected to result in a 5.2
percent passenger increase in 2007
and 5.3 percent in 2008. After that,
the FAA projected an average annual
increase of 4.8 percent through 2020
to a total of 274.7 million enplaned
passengers.
High economic growth expected in the
Asia/Pacific region lead it to the high-
est regional growth rate of 7.0 percent
annually. U.S./Canadian transborder
markets are projected to grow at 3.6
percent annually.
AIR CARGO
Air cargo traffic is comprised of
freight/express and mail. Air cargo is
moved either in the bellies of passen-
ger aircraft or in dedicated all-cargo
aircraft. FAA data and forecasts are
presented in revenue-ton-miles
(RTMs).
2-6
Air cargo activity has historically had
a high correlation to Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). Other factors that af-
fect air cargo growth are real yields,
improved productivity, and globaliza-
tion. Ongoing trends that are and will
continue to improve the air cargo
market include the opportunities from
open skies agreements, decreasing
costs from global airline alliances, and
increasing business volumes from e-
commerce. At the same time, trends
that could limit air cargo growth in-
clude increased use of e-mail, de-
creased costs of sending documents by
facsimile, and increased airline costs
due to environmental and security re-
strictions.
Before 2001, air cargo was the fastest
growing sector of the aviation indus-
try. From 1994 through 2000, total
tons and RTMs grew at annual aver-
age rates of 8.0 and 8.6 percent. An
economic slowdown in the U.S., com-
bined with the collapse of the high-
tech industry and a slowing of im-
ports, resulted in declines of 5.0 per-
cent in tons and 3.9 percent in RTMs.
Traffic began to recover in 2002 and is
setting new record RTMs, especially in
the international market.
The FAA notes there are several
structural changes that are occurring
within the air cargo industry. Among
them are the following:
Security regulations – Security
regulations put in place shortly af-
ter 9-11 shifted cargo from the pas-
senger airlines to the all-cargo air-
lines. Additional regulations have
been put in place since. These in-
clude requiring the carriers to con-
duct random inspections, codifying
and strengthening the “known
shipper” program, and establishing
a security program specifically to
all-cargo operations by aircraft
over 20,000 pounds.
Market maturation – The ex-
press market in the United States
has matured after dramatic growth
over the last two decades. This is
the majority of domestic air cargo
activity.
Modal shift – Improved service
and economics from the use of al-
ternative modes of cargo trans-
ported by the integrated cargo car-
riers (e.g., FedEx, UPS, and DHL)
has matured.
Increased USPS use of all-
cargo carriers – This initially re-
sulted from the U.S. Postal Ser-
vice’s (USPS) need to improve con-
trol over delivery. The trend has
continued due to security regula-
tions.
Increased use of mail substi-
tutes – Substitutes such as e-mail
affect mail volume. The residual
fear of mail because of terrorism
has also been a factor.
FAA’s forecasts of air cargo RTMs are
predicated on several assumptions:
1) Security restrictions concerning air
cargo transportation will stay in
place;
2) There will be no additional terror-
ist attacks in the U.S.;
Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, FY 2007-2020
U.S. MAINLINE AIR CARRIER PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS
InternationalDomestic
PA
S
S
E
N
G
E
R
S
(
i
n
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
HISTORICAL FORECAST
Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, FY 2007-2020
U.S. REGIONAL/COMMUTER SCHEDULED PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS
PA
S
S
E
N
G
E
R
S
(
i
n
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
HISTORICAL FORECAST
50
100
150
200
250
25
75
125
175
225
200
400
600
800
1,000
100
300
500
700
900
‘20‘19‘18‘17‘16‘15‘14‘13‘12‘11‘10‘09‘08‘07‘06‘05‘04‘03‘02‘01‘00
‘20‘19‘18‘17‘16‘15‘14‘13‘12‘11‘10‘09‘08‘07‘06‘05‘04‘03‘02‘01‘00
HISTORICAL FORECAST
‘20‘19‘18‘17‘16‘15‘14‘13‘12‘11‘10‘09‘08‘07‘06‘05‘04‘03‘02‘01‘00
HISTORICAL FORECAST
06
M
P
0
6
-
2
A
-
5
/
2
9
/
0
7
U.S. LARGE AIR CARRIER AND
REGIONAL/COMMUTER FORECASTS Exhibit 2A
2-7
3) There will be continued domestic
and international economic growth;
4) Most of the modal shift from air to
ground has occurred; and
5) In the long term, cargo activity will
be tied to economic growth.
The number of RTMs flown by U.S.
carriers grew by 1.2 percent in 2006 to
39.7 billion. Total RTMs flown are
forecast to increase 4.6 percent in
2007 and 6.1 percent in 2008. Over
the following twelve years, total RTMs
are projected to increase at an annual
average rate of 5.2 percent. Exhibit
2B depicts the FAA forecasts for air
cargo and mail.
Domestic cargo RTMs decreased 2.4
percent in 2006, to 15.7 billion. This
followed a 1.6 percent decline in 2005,
and was primarily due to the modal
shift from air to ground and the im-
pact of jet fuel surcharges. Domestic
RTMs are projected to increase 2.7
percent in 2007 and 4.7 percent in
2008. From 2008 through 2020,
growth is expected to average 3.3 per-
cent annually, based upon projected
U.S. economic growth.
Between 1997 and 2006, the all-cargo
carrier percentage of U.S. domestic
RTMs grew from 65.4 percent to 79.4
percent. Significant growth in express
service coupled with combined higher
passenger load factors leaving less
room for belly cargo were key factors
in this shift. The October 2001 FAA
security directive that strengthened
security standards for cargo on pas-
senger flights also impacted belly
freight. By 2020, this share is pro-
jected to increase to 83.6 percent
based upon increases in wide-body ca-
pacity for all-cargo carriers and securi-
ty considerations.
International RTMs flown by U.S. car-
riers grew to 24.0 billion in 2006, a 3.7
percent increase over the previous
year. The FAA forecasts a 5.9 percent
increase in 2007, and a 7.0 percent in-
crease in 2008, followed by an average
annual increase of 6.3 percent through
2020. The all-cargo carriers’ percent-
age of the international market is pro-
jected to increase from 65.5 percent in
2006, to 69.7 percent by 2020, due to
increased capacity.
The all-cargo large jet aircraft fleet is
expected to grow from 997 in 2006, to
1,468 by 2020. Narrow-body aircraft
in the fleet are projected to decline by
four aircraft per year over this period.
Meanwhile, wide-body aircraft are
projected to increase by more than 37
aircraft annually.
GENERAL AVIATION
Following more than a decade of de-
cline, the general aviation industry
was revitalized with the passage of the
General Aviation Revitalization Act in
1994, which limits the liability on gen-
eral aviation aircraft to 18 years from
the date of manufacture. This legisla-
tion sparked an interest to renew the
manufacturing of general aviation air-
craft due to the reduction in product
liability, as well as renewed optimism
for the industry. The high cost of
product liability insurance had been a
major factor in the decision by many
American aircraft manufacturers to
2-8
slow or discontinue the production of
general aviation aircraft.
The sustained growth in the general
aviation industry slowed considerably
in 2001, negatively impacted by the
events of September 11. Thousands of
general aviation aircraft were
grounded for weeks due to no-fly zone
restrictions imposed on operations of
aircraft in security-sensitive areas.
This, in addition to the economic re-
cession that began in early 2001, had
a negative impact on the general avia-
tion industry. General aviation ship-
ments by U.S. manufacturers declined
for three straight years from 2001
through 2003.
Stimulated by an expanding U.S.
economy as well as accelerated depre-
ciation allowances for operators of new
aircraft, general aviation staged a rel-
atively strong recovery with over ten
percent growth in each of the last
three years.
Resilience being demonstrated in the
piston aircraft market offers hope that
the new aircraft models are attracting
interest in the low-end market of gen-
eral aviation. The introduction of
new, light sport aircraft is expected to
provide further stimulation in the
coming years.
New models of business jets are also
stimulating interest for the high-end
of the market. The FAA still expects
the business segment to expand at a
faster rate than personal/sport flying.
Safety and security concerns combined
with increased processing time at
commercial terminals make busi-
ness/corporate flying an attractive al-
ternative. In addition, the bonus de-
preciation provision of the President’s
economic stimulation package began
to help business jet sales late in 2004.
In 2006, there were an estimated
226,422 active general aviation air-
craft in the United States. Exhibit
2C depicts the FAA forecast for active
general aviation aircraft. The FAA
projects an average annual increase of
1.4 percent through 2020, resulting in
274,914 active aircraft. Piston-
powered aircraft are expected to grow
at an average annual rate of 0.4 per-
cent. This is driven primarily by a 5.7
percent annual increase in piston-
powered rotorcraft and growth in ex-
perimental and sport aircraft, as sin-
gle engine fixed wing piston are pro-
jected to increase at just 0.3 percent
annually, and multi-engine fixed wing
piston aircraft are projected to de-
crease by 0.2 percent per year. This is
due, in part, to declining numbers of
multi-engine piston aircraft, and the
attrition of approximately 1,500 older
piston aircraft annually. In addition,
it is expected that the new, light sport
aircraft and the relatively inexpensive
microjets will dilute or weaken the re-
placement market for piston aircraft.
Owners of ultralight aircraft could be-
gin registering their aircraft as “light
sport” aircraft in 2005. The FAA es-
timates there will be a registration of
5,600 aircraft by 2010, and then grow
to 13,200 aircraft by 2020.
Turbine-powered aircraft (turboprop
and jet) are expected to grow at an av-
erage annual rate of 3.6 percent over
the forecast period. Even more signif-
icantly, the jet portion of this fleet is
expected to double in size in 12 years,
with an average annual growth rate of
DOMESTIC AIR CARGO REVENUE TON MILES (RTM’s)
U.S. COMMERCIAL CARRIER
INTERNATIONAL AIR CARGO REVENUE TON MILES (RTM’s)
U.S. COMMERCIAL CARRIER
All Cargo Carrier Passenger Carrier
All Cargo Carrier Passenger Carrier
RT
M
’
s
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
RT
M
’
s
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
00
5
1010
1515
2020
2525
3030
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
20202020‘19‘19‘18‘18‘17‘17‘16‘16‘15‘15‘14‘14‘13‘13‘12‘12‘11‘1120102010‘09‘09‘08‘08‘07‘07‘06‘06‘05‘05‘04‘04‘03‘03‘02‘02‘01‘0120002000 2020‘19‘18‘17‘16‘15‘14‘13‘12‘112010‘09‘08‘07‘06‘05‘04‘03‘02‘012000
HistoricHistoricHistoric Forecasts
0
1010
2020
3030
4040
5050
6060
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
20202020‘19‘19‘18‘18‘17‘17‘16‘16‘15‘15‘14‘14‘13‘13‘12‘12‘11‘1120102010‘09‘09‘08‘08‘07‘07‘06‘06‘05‘05‘04‘04‘03‘03‘02‘02‘01‘0120002000 2020‘19‘18‘17‘16‘15‘14‘13‘12‘112010‘09‘08‘07‘06‘05‘04‘03‘02‘012000
Historic Forecasts
Domestic figures prior to 2003 exclude Airborne Express Inc.
Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2007-2020
06
M
P
0
6
-
2
B
-
5
/
2
9
/
0
7
U.S. AIR CARGO FORECASTS Exhibit 2B
U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT (in thousands)U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT (in thousands)
2006
(Est.)
2010
2015
2020
148.2
150.4
154.0
155.6
8.0
8.2
8.5
8.8
6.6
6.8
6.7
6.6
226.4
242.8
261.4
274.9
24.5
27.7
31.1
33.9
10.0
13.4
18.0
22.8
19.4
19.2
19.0
18.8
3.4
4.8
6.3
7.4
5.9
6.5
7.2
7.9
0.4
5.6
10.5
13.2
Year
FIXED WING
PISTON ROTORCRAFTTURBINE
Single
Engine Other
Sport
Aircraft TotalExperimentalTurbojet
Multi-
Engine Piston TurbineTurboprop
ACTUALACTUALACTUAL FORECASTFORECASTFORECAST
150
175
200
225
250
AI
R
C
R
A
F
T
(
i
n
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
YEAR
2010
275
125
2015 2020
Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2007-2020.
Notes: An active aircraft is one that has a current registration and was flown
at least one hour during the calendar year.
U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT
06
M
P
0
6
-
2
C
-
5
/
2
9
/
0
7
U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION
AIRCRAFT FORECASTS Exhibit 2C
2-9
6.0 percent. The total number of jets
in the general aviation fleet is pro-
jected to grow from 10,032 in 2006, to
22,797 by 2020.
At the October 2006 workshop spon-
sored by the FAA and the Transporta-
tion Research Board, industry experts
suggested that the market for the
new, very light jet (VLJ), or microjet
aircraft, could add 500 more aircraft a
year to the fleet by 2010. These twin-
engine jets are expected to be priced
between $1 million and $2 million,
and are believed to have the potential
to redefine business jet flying with the
capability to support a true on-
demand air taxi business service. The
FAA forecast assumes that microjets
will begin to enter the active fleet in
2007, with 350 new aircraft. After
this year’s introduction, they are fore-
cast to grow by 400 to 500 aircraft per
year, contributing a total of 6,300 air-
craft to the jet forecast by 2020.
SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS
Local and regional forecasts developed
for key socioeconomic variables pro-
vide an indicator of the potential for
creating growth in aviation activities
at an airport. Typical variables used
in evaluating potential for traffic
growth include population and em-
ployment. This data is readily avail-
able on an annual historic basis at the
state and county level.
In Hawaii, the tourism and visitor in-
dustry plays a key factor in passenger
traffic as well. As a result, the Re-
search and Economic Analysis Divi-
sion of the State of Hawaii Depart-
ment of Business, Economic Develop-
ment, and Tourism (DBEDT) main-
tains data on both mainland and in-
ternational visitors to the island. The
DBEDT also prepares and regularly
updates projections of visitors as well
as population and other economic sta-
tistics. The most recent update was in
August 2004 and provided projections
on a state and county basis through
2030. Tables 2A and 2B as well as
Exhibit 2D depict historic and fore-
cast numbers of key factors for the
state and Hawaii County. These in-
clude civilian employment, per capita
personal income, visitors by air, the
average daily visitor census, popula-
tion, and de facto population.
Civilian employment in Hawaii has
grown at an annual average rate of 1.4
percent over the last twenty years.
The DBEDT forecast that statewide
civilian employment would grow at 0.8
percent annually through 2030. Ha-
waii County’s civilian employment
comprised 10.2 percent of the state
employment in 1985. Averaging near-
ly 2.2 percent growth per year, the
county now comprises 11.9 percent of
the statewide civilian employment.
The DBEDT forecasts employment in
the county to grow at 1.2 percent in
the future. This would result in 12.6
percent of the state’s civilian employ-
ment in Hawaii County by 2030. As
presented on Table 2A and Exhibit
2D, state and county employment ap-
pears to continue to trend along with
the 2004 DBEDT forecasts.
Per capita personal income (PCPI) for
the state and county is also presented
on Table 2A and Exhibit 2D and are
inflation-adjusted to year 2000 dollars.
2-10
Inflation-adjusted PCPI for the state
has been growing at an annual aver-
age of 0.96 percent over the last twen-
ty years. The DBEDT projects future
growth at 1.6 percent annually.
TABLE 2A
Socioeconomic Trends and Projections
Hawaii County
Visitors by Air
Civilian Employment
Per Capita Income
(2000$)
State County State County State County
ACTUAL
1985 4,843,414 NA 452,000 46,150 $25,107 $18,760
1986 5,569,067 NA 468,050 47,500 $25,730 $19,460
1987 5,770,585 NA 494,000 50,950 $26,098 $19,392
1988 6,101,483 NA 501,750 52,200 $27,178 $19,990
1989 6,488,422 NA 511,000 54,700 $28,498 $21,317
1990 6,723,531 1,127,373 527,000 55,200 $29,230 $21,669
1991 6,518,460 1,111,035 557,750 60,900 $28,947 $21,534
1992 6,473,669 1,139,978 557,400 60,050 $29,572 $21,456
1993 6,070,995 1,117,656 560,850 60,400 $29,262 $21,335
1994 6,364,674 1,079,535 545,000 58,300 $28,790 $21,071
1995 6,546,759 1,081,047 542,650 57,600 $28,252 $20,526
1996 6,723,141 1,163,700 555,700 60,550 $27,465 $20,310
1997 6,761,135 1,205,081 558,550 61,950 $27,453 $20,010
1998 6,595,790 1,340,767 559,750 62,050 $27,607 $20,757
1999 6,741,037 1,307,720 559,550 63,350 $27,879 $21,007
2000 6,948,594 1,267,965 566,100 65,000 $28,422 $21,410
2001 6,303,790 1,181,551 564,200 65,950 $27,963 $21,631
2002 6,389,058 1,243,313 557,400 66,150 $28,229 $22,101
2003 6,380,439 1,207,164 NA NA $28,427 $22,072
2004 6,912,094 1,281,156 NA NA $29,773 $23,111
2005 7,416,574 1,521,536 593,376 70,643 $30,410 $23,446
2006 7,414,613 1,590,495 NA NA NA NA
DBEDT 2030 Series, August 2004
2010 7,810,000 1,420,000 621,451 74,863 $33,339 $25,084
2015 8,620,000 1,570,000 647,372 78,954 $35,940 $27,382
2020 9,290,000 1,700,000 672,912 83,045 $38,780 $30,142
2025 10,010,000 1,830,000 698,967 87,275 $41,823 $32,846
2030 10,780,000 1,980,000 725,838 91,726 $44,906 $35,215
Source: Population and Economic Projections for the State of Hawaii to 2030, DBEBT 2030 Series;
Research and Economic Analysis Division – Department, Department of Business, Economic Devel-
opment and Tourism; August 2004
Hawaii County inflation-adjusted
PCPI has grown at an average of 1.12
percent annually over the last twenty
years. The DBEDT forecasts future
growth at 1.7 percent annually.
Annual visitors by air to the state
grew dramatically in the late 1980s
from 4.84 million in 1985 to 6.72 mil-
lion in 1990, for an increase of 39 per-
cent. Since 1990, however, statewide
visitor growth has totaled just over 10
06
M
P
0
6
-
2
D
-
6
/
1
/
0
7
SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS Exhibit 2D
.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
VISITORS BY AIR AVERAGE DAILY VISITOR CENSUS
POPULATION CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
VI
S
I
T
O
R
S
B
Y
A
I
R
(
i
n
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
1985 1990
Source: Population and Economic Projections for the State of Hawaii to 2030, DBEDT Series 2030; August 2004.
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
PO
P
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
(
i
n
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
CI
V
I
L
I
A
N
E
M
P
L
O
Y
M
E
N
T
(
i
n
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
State
County
LEGEND
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
AV
E
R
A
G
E
D
A
I
L
Y
V
I
S
I
T
O
R
C
E
N
S
U
S
(
i
n
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
.25
.50
.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
State
County
LEGEND
State
County
LEGEND
State
County
LEGEND
HISTORICAL FORECAST HISTORICAL FORECAST
HISTORICAL FORECAST HISTORICAL FORECAST
2-11
percent. The DBEDT projects a future
annual growth rate of 1.5 percent for
10.78 million by 2030. After statewide
air visitor growth slowed in 2006, the
DBEDT forecasts appear to continue
to reflect the statewide trend.
TABLE 2B
Population and Visitor Trends and Projections
Hawaii County
Population
Average Daily
Visitor Census
De Facto
Population
State County State County State County
ACTUAL
1985 1,039,698 105,900 89,515 6,167 1,136,160 112,343
1986 1,051,762 108,362 104,787 7,781 1,165,826 116,451
1987 1,067,917 111,735 105,787 8,044 1,185,394 120,289
1988 1,079,827 113,439 109,290 8,262 1,198,637 122,038
1989 1,094,588 116,585 133,664 13,991 1,234,640 131,153
1990 1,113,491 121,572 154,516 16,698 1,240,013 137,103
1991 1,136,754 127,266 147,323 17,535 1,252,265 141,240
1992 1,158,613 131,630 152,249 19,245 1,271,662 146,421
1993 1,172,838 135,085 147,498 18,974 1,267,849 148,014
1994 1,187,536 137,713 156,630 18,902 1,289,804 150,311
1995 1,196,854 140,492 157,098 18,547 1,298,096 152,482
1996 1,203,755 141,935 158,297 19,285 1,303,915 154,364
1997 1,211,640 144,445 157,188 21,656 1,327,930 161,225
1998 1,215,233 145,833 157,389 23,993 1,334,125 165,205
1999 1,210,300 146,970 164,439 22,736 1,332,442 164,570
2000 1,212,113 149,243 168,637 21,831 1,334,599 166,428
2001 1,221,419 151,538 158,247 21,064 1,333,100 167,979
2002 1,233,249 154,348 160,195 22,277 1,346,687 171,556
2003 1,245,606 157,801 161,048 21,934 1,353,207 174,042
2004 1,259,299 161,798 171,481 23,376 1,373,299 179,053
2005 1,273,278 166,461 185,445 27,579 1,393,049 186,836
2006 1,285,498 171,191 184,930 28,011 1,407,616 191,733
PROJECTIONS
DBEDT 2030 Series, August 2004
2005 1,277,950 163,000 1,406,650 180,800
2010 1,346,600 176,750 196,849 25,479 1,490,500 196,500
2015 1,418,650 190,300 216,849 28,219 1,579,400 212,250
2020 1,489,500 203,050 233,288 30,411 1,663,450 226,800
2025 1,560,400 216,150 249,863 32,740 1,748,600 241,800
2030 1,630,450 229,700 268,082 35,479 1,834,200 257,700
Updated Time-Series County Projections, Coffman Associates, August 2006
2010 180,736 29,117 203,421
2015 195,409 32,777 220,946
2020 210,083 36,438 238,472
2025 224,757 40,098 255,997
2030 239,430 43,759 273,523
Source: Population and Economic Projections for the State of Hawaii to 2030, DBEBT 2030 Series;
Research and Economic Analysis Division – Department of Business, Economic Development and
Tourism; August 2004
2-12
In contrast, visitors to the Big Island
have increased 41 percent since 1990.
The DBEDT forecast a 1.7 percent av-
erage annual growth rate for Hawaii
County annual visitors by air. That
forecast, however, used a base year
prior to 2004. Since 2004 alone, visi-
tors to the Big Island have increased
by 24 percent, and the 1.59 million vis-
itors in 2006 exceed the 1.57 million
forecast for 2015. This growing dis-
parity is graphically depicted on Ex-
hibit 2D.
As with visitors by air, the average
daily visitor census for the state also
increased 39 percent between 1985
and 1990, but has increased a total of
20 percent since then. The statewide
visitor census was forecast by DBEDT
to grow at a 1.5 percent average an-
nual rate through 2030. As shown on
Table 2B and Exhibit 2D, statewide
growth is still trending with the
DBEDT forecast.
The Hawaii County visitor census was
forecast to grow at a 1.8 percent an-
nual rate. As with the annual visitors,
the average daily visitor census on the
Big Island has increased dramatically
since 2003. The actual figures for
2006 have reached the level DBEDT
forecast for 2015.
Since 1985, the state population has
been growing at an annual average
rate of 1.0 percent per year. The
DBEDT projects the state population
to continue to grow at a similar rate
through 2030. As shown on Table 2B
and Exhibit 2D, the state’s popula-
tion is following closely the 2004
DBEDT forecast.
By comparison, the population of Ha-
waii County has grown at an annual
average rate of 2.3 percent over the
past 21 years. Subsequently, the per-
centage of the state’s population on
the Big Island has grown from 8.3 per-
cent in 1985 to an estimated 13.3 per-
cent in 2006. The county’s population
was forecast to grow at an average
annual rate of 1.3 percent through
2030. Based upon this forecast, Ha-
waii County would comprise 14.1 per-
cent of the state’s population by 2030.
A review of the county population
since 2003 indicates that it has grown
nearly 8.5 percent (13,390 residents)
and is exceeding the forecast trend.
Table 2B also examines the de facto
population of the state and county. De
facto population is defined as the
number of persons physically present
in an area, regardless of military sta-
tus or usual place of residence. It in-
cludes persons present, but excludes
residents temporarily absent, both
calculated as an average daily census.
De facto population is important in
examining the socioeconomics of Ha-
waii and each island. Not only are
there short term visitors, but there are
a growing number of second homes.
The second home, or nonresident
housing market on the Big Island has
grown significantly over the past two
decades. This is illustrated in the fol-
lowing nonresident housing data col-
lected by the U.S. Census Bureau.
1980 – 1,114 units
1990 – 2,045 units
2000 – 5,101 units
2-13
DBEDT also forecast de facto popula-
tion for the state and each county in
its 2030 series forecasts in 2004. As
with resident population and the daily
visitor census, the recent state de facto
population data is still in line with the
DBEDT forecasts. Hawaii County,
however, is growing faster than pre-
viously forecast.
From each of the socioeconomic indica-
tors, it is clear that economic growth
on the Big Island has been and is fore-
cast to continue to increase at a faster
rate than the state as a whole.
Because of the growing disparity be-
tween the actual and projected growth
in county resident and de facto popu-
lation as well as visitors, an updated
projection was examined for each.
Table 2B presents updated county
projections for population, average
daily visitor census, and de facto popu-
lation based upon a time-series analy-
sis of annual data on each category
since 1970. A correlation coefficient
(Pearson's "r") measures the associa-
tion between changes in the depen-
dent variable and the independent
variable(s) (calendar years). An r2
greater than 0.90 indicates good pre-
dictive reliability. A value below 0.90
may be used with the understanding
that the predictive reliability is lower.
The r2 for the population time-series
was very strong at 0.996. The result-
ing forecast, shown at the bottom of
Table 2B, represents an annual aver-
age growth rate of 1.4 percent.
The r2 for the daily visitor census
time-series was not as strong but also
good at 0.910. This resulting updated
projection of Table 2B would
represent an average annual visitor
growth rate of 1.8 percent through
2030.
For de facto population, the times se-
ries correlation was again strong at
0.974. This updated projection reflects
and average annual growth rate of 1.5
percent.
While the Big Island demographics
are growing faster than that of the
state as a whole, the west side of the
island is growing even faster. Table
2C presents the population data and
forecasts for the west coast districts as
included in the 2005 Hawaii County
General Plan. The share of the county
population in the four west coast dis-
tricts of North and South Kohala and
North and South Kona grew from less
than 30 percent in 1980 to 36 percent
in 1990. The west coast share of the
population grew another two percent
over the next decade, and was forecast
to comprise 42.3 percent of the coun-
ty’s population by 2020. Although
specific data was not available, much
of the nonresident housing that has
developed on the island is on the west
side as well. There are also several
new developments in various stages of
permitting that will contribute to the
continuance of this growth in both res-
ident and de facto population.
2-14
TABLE 2C
Population Trends and Projections
Big Island West Coast Districts
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
County Population 92,053 120,317 148,677 176,938 217,718
West Coast Districts
North Kohala
South Kohala
North Kona
South Kona
West District Total
3,249
4,607
13,478
5,914
27,248
4,291
9,140
22,284
7,658
43,373
6,038
13,131
28,543
8,589
56,301
7,917
18,184
34,024
11,414
71,539
11,273
24,426
42,275
14,092
92,066
Percent of County 29.6% 36.0% 37.9% 40.4% 42.3%
Source: Hawaii County General Plan, 2005
STATEWIDE PASSENGER
FORECASTS
The last statewide update of aviation
demand forecasts were prepared for
the DOT-A in 2004. These were based
on activity statistics through 2002 as
well as the previous DBEDT socioeco-
nomic projections (2025 Series Projec-
tions) published in February 2000. In
general, the 2004 DBEDT projections
discussed in the previous section are
more optimistic than the preceding
forecasts.
The DOT-A forecasts were prepared
based upon a series of regression anal-
yses both statewide and for individual
counties. A linear regression of histor-
ic passenger versus population and
visitor data was found to have a good
correlation and was used to prepare
the passenger forecast. Exhibit 2E
graphically presents the resulting
forecast for statewide passenger
growth.
As indicated on Table 2D, passengers
(excluding transits) were forecast to
grow at an average annual rate of 1.4
percent from 32.0 million in 2002 to
43.9 million by 2025. Hawaii County
passengers were forecast to grow the
fastest at 1.7 percent annually, from
4.0 million in 2002 to 5.8 million in
2025. The Hawaii County share of the
state’s passengers was forecast to
grow from 12.5 percent in 2002 to 13.2
percent by 2025.
TABLE 2D
Hawaii Statewide Passenger Demand Forecasts
DOT-A 2004
Actual Forecast
2002 2005 2005 2010 2015 2025
Total Passengers
Statewide
Hawaii County
County Percentage of State
31,959,439
4,006,465
12.5%
33,230,288
4,265,261
12.8%
33,703,500
4,244,200
12.6%
36,166,300
4,615,600
12.8%
38,561,300
4,982,800
12.9%
43,848,600
5,802,800
13.2%
County Airport Passengers
Kona International
Hilo International
Waimea-Kohala
2,601,739
1,401,664
3,062
2,959,727
1,300,736
4,798
2,793,400
1,447,300
3,500
3,064,500
1,547,300
3,800
3,344,400
1,634,400
4,000
3,974,900
1,823,400
4,500
Source: Hawaii Aviation Demand Forecasts Update; Hawaii DOT-A; 2004.
06
M
P
0
6
-
2
E
-
5
/
2
9
/
0
7
STATEWIDE PASSENGER FORECASTS Exhibit 2E
Lihue Airport
KAUAI
NIIHAU OAHU
MOLOKAI
LANAI
KAHOOLAWE
MAUI
HAWAII
Kahului AirportHonolulu International Airport
Lanai Airport
Molokai Airport
Kona International
Airport at Keahole
Hilo International
Airport
20,000,000
30,000,000
PA
S
S
E
N
G
E
R
S
40,000,000
50,000,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 20252000199519901985
Source: Hawaii Aviation Demand Forecasts Update; State of Hawaii Department of Transportation Airports Division, 2004.
HISTORICAL
STATEWIDE AIRPORT SYSTEM PASSENGER FORECAST
DOT-A FORECAST (2004)
2-15
A review of the forecasts to date re-
veals The DOT-A statewide passenger
forecast for 2005 was 33.7 million.
The actual total in 2005 of 33.2 million
was slightly behind, but still compared
favorably with the forecast. Passenger
levels in 2006 were 33.3 million.
The table also compares Hawaii Coun-
ty passengers. Comprised primarily of
those using KOA and Hilo Interna-
tional Airport (ITO), county passen-
gers were forecast at 4.24 million for
2005. This compares very favorably
with the actual total of 4.26 million in
2005. If broken down by airport, how-
ever, the 2005 figures reveal that ITO
actual passengers of 1.3 million were
behind the DOT-A forecast of 1.45 mil-
lion. Meanwhile, the KOA 2005 pas-
senger total of 2.96 million was ahead
of the 2.79 million forecast for that
year. The following section will ex-
amine the passenger activity and fore-
casts for Kona International Airport at
Keahole in more detail.
AIRLINE ACTIVITY
FORECASTS
To determine the types and sizes of
facilities necessary to properly ac-
commodate present and future airline
activity at any airport, two basic ele-
ments must be forecast: annual pas-
sengers and annual aircraft opera-
tions. Annual passengers serve as the
most basic indicator of demand for
commercial service activity. From a
forecast of annual passengers, opera-
tions and other activity descriptors
can be projected based upon behavior-
al factors characteristic of Kona Inter-
national Airport at Keahole or the air-
line industry as a whole.
AIR SERVICE HISTORY
Table 2E and Exhibit 2F provide a
review of the history of passenger traf-
fic at KOA back to its opening in 1970.
Over the past 36 years, KOA has seen
its passenger activity grow from
508,681 in 1970, to an all-time high of
3,033,212 in 2006. The average an-
nual growth rate over the 36-year pe-
riod has been 5.1 percent, but the ta-
ble and graph show how traffic has
fluctuated on an annual basis.
TABLE 2E
Passenger Traffic History
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Year Kona Passengers % Change
1970
1971 1972
1973
1974
1975 1976
1977
1978 1979
1980
1981
1982 1983
1984
1985 1986
1987
1988
1989 1990
1991
1992 1993
1994
1995 1996
1997
1998
1999 2000
2001
2002 2003
2004
2005
2006
508,681
515,378 635,914
728,200
808,970
865,961 1,294,556
1,106,257
1,253,379 1,278,712
1,118,413
1,057,881
1,150,618 1,227,799
1,427,432
1,485,813 1,691,342
1,803,590
1,823,549
2,097,931 2,178,696
2,118,777
2,161,936 2,179,062
2,238,583
2,303,455 2,524,402
2,628,157
2,652,955
2,668,182 2,842,097
2,640,318
2,601,739 2,542,566
2,653,562
2,959,727
3,033,212
NA
1.3% 23.4%
14.5%
11.1%
7.0% 49.5%
-14.5%
13.3% 2.0%
-12.5%
-5.4%
8.8% 6.7%
16.3%
4.1% 13.8%
6.6%
1.1%
15.0% 3.8%
-2.8%
2.0% 0.8%
2.7%
2.9% 9.6%
4.1%
0.9%
0.6% 6.5%
-7.1%
-1.5% -2.3%
4.4%
11.5%
2.5%
Source: Hawaii Department of Transportation -Airports Division
2-16
Traffic has declined from the previous
year just seven times since 1970. The
only consecutive year declines were in
1980-81 following deregulation and in
2001-03 in the aftermath of 9/11.
As can be seen from the exhibit, the
first several years after the airport
opened comprised a period of strong
growth as passenger traffic increased
150 percent. The largest single-year
increase in the airport’s history oc-
curred in 1976, when traffic jumped
49.5 percent to exceed one million pas-
sengers for the first time. This was
followed the next year by the largest
single-year decline of 14.5 percent.
The 1970s ended with deregulation of
the airline industry. The two-year
period of decline immediately followed
in the early 1980s as a prolonged na-
tional recession and rising fuel prices
combined with the initial uncertain-
ties of deregulation to affect traffic
throughout the airline industry. As
the airlines became more acclimated
to their deregulated environment, traf-
fic responded to the economic recovery
and grew very strongly through the
remainder of the decade. A major
change at KOA resulting from deregu-
lation was the introduction of direct
mainland flights in 1983 by United
Airlines. The runway was extended to
9,500 feet and the terminal expanded
in 1988. The next year, passengers
eclipsed the 2.0 million mark for the
first time in 1989. As the 1990s be-
gan, traffic had more than doubled
since 1981.
The economic recession in the early
1990s resulted in a 2.8 percent decline
in passengers in 1991. Another dec-
ade of growth began the next year.
Each year from 1993 through 2000,
new all-time highs in passenger traffic
were set at the airport, culminating in
2.84 million passengers to begin the
new millennium. The extension of the
runway in 1994 to its current length of
11,000 feet opened the airport to more
direct overseas flights by widebody
aircraft.
A national recession began in March
of 2001, which on its own, likely would
have slowed passenger growth for that
year. The events of September 11,
2001 had an immediate impact on
traffic in the last quarter of the year.
The impact to air travel, however, was
prolonged, and KOA passenger traffic
continued to decline through 2003.
Positive growth returned in 2004, but
it was not until 2005 that traffic final-
ly exceeded the levels experienced in
2000, as traffic increased by 11.5 per-
cent from 2004. In 2006, the airport
surpassed the 3.0 million passenger
level for the first time with an all-time
high of 3,033,212.
Over the years, the airport has grown
from supporting only interisland
flights to both mainland and interna-
tional flights. Exhibit 2G depicts the
non-stop destinations served from
KOA during the peak month of August
2006. There were 58 daily flights from
KOA according to the August 18, 2006
schedule. In addition to three interis-
land destinations, seven U.S. main-
land destinations were served non-
stop. International service to and
from Narita, Japan is available as
well. During the winter months,
there is also international traffic from
Canada.
06
M
P
0
6
-
2
F
-
2
/
2
2
/
0
7
HISTORIC PASSENGER TRAFFIC Exhibit 2F
.5
0
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
20052000199519901985198019751970
Ko
n
a
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
(
i
n
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Years
National Recession
United Begins Direct
Mainland Flights
Runway Extended
to 9,500 Feet
Runway Extended
to 11,000 Feet
Current Airport Opens
Deregulation Begins
National Recession
9/11 and
National Recession
INTERISLAND DESTINATIONS
06
M
P
0
6
-
2
G
-
5
/
2
9
/
0
7
KOA NON-STOP FLIGHTS Exhibit 2G
KAUAI
• Hilo (ITO)
• Honolulu (HNL)
• Kahului (OGG)
• Kapalua (JHM)
NIIHAU OAHU
MOLOKAI
LANAI
KAHOOLAWE
MAUI
HAWAII
Kona International
Airport at Keahole (KOA)
ITO
OGGO
JHMHNL
HAWAII
I
NL
l
KOA NON-STOP FLIGHTS BY DESTINATIONS (August 2006)
• Narita, Japan (NRT)
INTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS
• Chicago, Illinois (ORD)
• Los Angeles, California (LAX)
• Oakland, California (OAK)
• Phoenix, Arizona (PHX)
• Salt Lake City, Utah (SLC)
• Santa Ana, California (SNA)
• San Francisco, California (SFO)
MAINLAND DESTINATIONS
KOAKOAKOA
NRTNRTNRT
SLCSLCSFOSFO
OAK
ORDORD
PHXKKAKA
SNA PHPPH
LAXLAX
SLCSFO
OAK
ORD
PHXSNA
LAX
2-17
PASSENGER FORECASTS
As discussed in this chapter’s intro-
duction, the first steps involved in up-
dating an airport’s forecasts include
reviewing previous forecasts in com-
parison to actual activity to determine
what changes, if any, may be neces-
sary. After that comes the considera-
tion of the effects of any potential new
factors that could affect the forecasts,
such as changes in the socioeconomic
climate, or the potential effects of ser-
vice changes at KOA or other island
airports.
Previous Passenger Forecasts
The first step in this forecast update is
to compare actual activity to previous
forecasts prepared for KOA. Several
sets of previous forecasts were re-
viewed and are outlined in Table 2F.
These include projections from the
previous master plan update for KOA
(dated 1998), the Hawaii Aviation
Demand Forecasts Update in 2004,
prepared by Aries Consultants for
DOT-A, and the FAA Terminal Area
Forecasts (TAF), issued in December
2006. This is the FAA’s most current
forecast of activity for Kona Interna-
tional Airport at Keahole. The projec-
tions in this table are also depicted on
Exhibit 2H for graphic comparison.
TABLE 2F
Previous Passenger Projections
Kona International Airport at Keahole
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total Passengers
Actual 2,842,097 2,959,727
1998 Master Plan Update 2,654,000 2,923,000 3,201,000 3,489,000 3,780,000
2004 DOT-A Forecasts 2,793,400 3,064,500 3,344,400 3,649,500 3,974,900
2006 TAF* 3,120,268 3,385,822 3,674,420
*For comparison, the enplanement projections in the 2006 FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) were
doubled to reflect total passengers.
As can be seen from the exhibit, actual
passenger traffic is higher than each
of the earlier forecasts for the airport.
As of 2005, the projections used in the
1998 Master Plan are within 1.2 per-
cent of the actual traffic, while the
2004 DOT-A forecast is over 5.6 per-
cent below the actual number. The
more recent FAA forecasts as included
in the TAF fall between the two earli-
er forecasts.
As indicated earlier in the discussion
of statewide forecasts, the 2004 DOT-
A forecast was derived from regression
analyses relating passengers to popu-
lation and island visitors. Also indi-
cated earlier, the DBEDT forecasts of
these variables have been updated
since the 2004 forecasts were pre-
pared. To examine the potential effect
on passenger traffic at KOA, the fol-
2-18
lowing section will consider this up-
dated information.
Analytical Projections
Two analytical techniques were re-
examined for their applicability to pro-
jecting airline passengers at KOA.
These included time-series extrapola-
tion and regression analyses consider-
ing population and visitor statistics as
independent variables.
A time-series analysis of airline pas-
sengers was prepared based upon the
historic passengers between 1970 and
2006. The r2 value for the 36-year
time frame was very strong at 0.960.
Several shorter periods beginning in
later years were also tested, but all
resulted in lower statistical correla-
tions.
Thus, the longer period time-series
was felt to be the most representative
of past trends. The time-series projec-
tion for 1970-2006 is shown for com-
parison with the FAA TAF and the
DOT-A forecast in Table 2G and on
Exhibit 2H. As can be seen from the
exhibit, the updated time series pro-
jection is higher than both the DOT-A
and the FAA-TAF forecasts.
Next, a correlation analyses was run
to re-examine the relationship be-
tween KOA passengers and the Ha-
waii County population and visitor
census dating back to 1970. The cor-
relation (r2 = 0.962) was found to be as
high as the time-series correlation.
The resulting projection is also shown
on Table 2G and Exhibit 2H. As the
exhibit shows, the updated regression
projection is very similar to the time-
series projection.
TABLE 2G
Passenger Forecast Update
Kona International Airport at Keahole
2012 2017 2030
2004 DOT-A Forecast* 3,171,200 3,461,500 4,332,500
Time Series Analysis (1970-2006) 3,476,192 3,824,304 4,729,396
Regression Analysis vs. County Population
And Visitor Census (1970-2005)
3,471,629
3,818,715
4,721,138
Master Plan Forecast Update 3,472,000 3,819,000 4,721,000
2006 FAA TAF* 3,223,846 3,498,388 4,328,139
Percentage Difference 7.70% 9.16% 9.08%
*2030 projection extrapolated by Coffman Associates.
Recommended Planning Forecast
The updated time-series and regres-
sion projections vary by less than two
percent over the planning period. The
updated population and visitor census
forecasts (Table 2A) for Hawaii Coun-
ty were used in the regression projec-
tion to account for the fact that the
DBEDT forecasts for each are already
tracking well below the 2006 actual
estimates. Because of the similarity
in the time-series and regression pro-
jections, the regression projection was
selected as the preferred forecast as it
best represents an update using the
DOT-A forecast methodology.
06
M
P
0
6
-
2
H
-
2
/
2
2
/
0
7
PASSENGER FORECASTS Exhibit 2H
00
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
20302030202520252020202020152015
‘12‘12‘121
201020102005200520002000199519951990199019851985198019801975197519701970 2030202520202015201020052000199519901985198019751970
Total Passengers (Actual)
2004 DOT-A Forecast
2006 FAA-TAF
1998 Master Plan
Time Series 1970-2006
Regression 1970-2006
(Selected Forecast)
LEGEND
.5.5.5
1.51.51.5
2.52.52.5
3.53.53.5
4.54.54.5
KO
A
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
(
i
n
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
KOA Passengers (in millions)
KO
A
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
(
i
n
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
YEARSYEARSYEARS
HISTORIC FORECASTS
2-19
As depicted on Table 2G, the recom-
mended forecast compares favorably
with the FAA TAF. For 2012, the
Master Plan forecast is within 7.7 per-
cent of the TAF. For 2017, the Master
Plan forecast is within 9.2 percent of
the TAF.
Table 2H outlines the breakdown of
interisland and overseas passengers
since 1995, the first year after the
runway was extended to 11,000 feet.
From this table, it is evident that the
airport’s passenger growth has been in
passengers flying directly to and from
KOA from mainland and international
markets. In fact, direct overseas pas-
senger traffic has increased nearly five
times, while 2006 interisland passen-
gers were slightly lower than in 1995.
TABLE 2H
Interisland/Overseas Passenger Forecasts
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Interisland Overseas
Year
Total
Interisland
Passengers
Interisland
Percent
Overseas
Passengers
Overseas
Percent
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2,303,455
2,524,402
2,628,157
2,652,955
2,668,182
2,842,097
2,640,318
2,601,739
2,542,566
2,653,562
2,959,727
3,033,212
2,081,368
2,248,511
2,257,218
2,241,765
2,215,953
2,271,216
2,009,138
1,940,181
1,824,130
1,807,289
1,913,344
1,984,319
90.4%
89.1%
85.9%
84.5%
83.1%
79.9%
76.1%
74.6%
71.7%
68.1%
64.6%
65.4%
222,087
275,891
370,939
411,190
452,229
570,881
631,180
661,558
718,436
846,273
1,046,383
1,048,893
9.6%
10.9%
14.1%
15.5%
16.9%
20.1%
23.9%
25.4%
28.3%
31.9%
35.4%
34.6%
Master Plan Forecast
2012
2017
2030
3,472,000
3,819,000
4,721,000
2,153,000
2,253,000
2,502,000
62.0%
59.0%
53.0%
1,319,000
1,566,000
2,219,000
38.0%
41.0%
47.0%
The change represents the availability
of more non-stop flights with overseas
destinations on the U.S. mainland as
well as Canada and Japan. The need
to connect to flights in Honolulu has
been reduced. Where less than 10
percent of the traffic was directly
overseas in 1995, over one-third was
in 2006. This percentage is expected
to continue to grow, but at a slower
rate, towards fifty percent.
The resulting forecast of interisland
and overseas passengers is depicted at
the bottom of Table 2H. Overseas
passengers are projected to grow at an
annual average rate of 3.2 percent
through 2030. Interisland passengers
are projected to grow at an average of
1.0 percent annually.
Table 2J provides an even more de-
tailed breakdown of the passenger
2-20
forecasts, with enplanements (depart-
ing passengers) separated from de-
planements (arriving passengers).
Transit passengers are those that
connect between aircraft at the air-
port. Currently, there are more inter-
island enplanements than deplane-
ments, but more overseas deplane-
ments than enplanements. This is, in
part, because of interisland “hopping”
where some overseas visitors arrive at
one island, visit other islands by plane
or ship, then leave the state from the
last island they visit. Another factor
noticed in the statistical data is that
the passengers arriving on interna-
tional flights from Japan are counted
as overseas deplanements, but depart-
ing passengers have generally been
included in the interisland statistics.
Over the long range, this differential
is assumed to balance out.
TABLE 2J
Passenger Forecast Summary
Kona International Airport and Keahole
Actual Forecast
2006 2012 2017 2030
Interisland Passengers
Enplaned (Departures)
Deplaned (Arrivals)
1,025,378
958,941
1,098,000
1,055,000
1,138,000
1,115,000
1,251,000
1,251,000
Total Interisland 1,984,319 2,153,000 2,253,000 2,502,000
Overseas Passengers
Enplaned (Departures) 497,060 628,000 753,000 1,077,000
Deplaned (Arrivals)
Mainland Arrivals
International Arrivals
451,319
69,650
562,000
91,000
660,000
108,000
817,000
151,000
Subtotal Deplaned 520,969 653,000 768,000 1,078,000
Transits 30,864 38,000 45,000 64,000
Total Overseas 1,048,893 1,319,000 1,566,000 2,219,000
TOTAL PASSENGERS 3,033,212 3,472,000 3,819,000 4,721,000
Table 2J also includes a forecast for
international arrivals. Since 1996,
KOA has had a scheduled non-stop
flight from Japan. The airport also
has seasonal flights from Canada.
The Canadian flights, however, are
pre-cleared in Canada and are not in-
cluded in the international arrival sta-
tistics shown in Tables 2J and 2K.
The DOT-A forecast assumptions indi-
cated that most other international
markets are more likely to continue to
utilize connections through Honolulu
to reach the other islands in Hawaii.
Table 2K compares historic KOA in-
ternational arrivals with total over-
seas arrivals at KOA and with state-
wide international arrivals. The air-
port’s international arrivals peaked at
87,521 in 1998, but declined to 65,652
by 2003. Over the next two years,
traffic recovered to 86,111 in 2005, but
in 2006 was down to 69,650.
Statewide, international traffic peaked
in 2000 at 2.66 million arrivals. In-
ternational traffic declined after 9-11
and SARS concerns. This traffic has
still not grown back to pre-9-11 levels.
2-21
The 2004 DOT-A forecasts projected
the state’s international traffic to grow
at an average annual rate of 1.8 per-
cent. This is much lower than the
FAA’s current projected growth rate of
5.9 percent for U.S international traf-
fic.
TABLE 2K
International Arrivals Forecast
Kona International Airport at Keahole
KOA Arrivals Statewide
Year
Overseas
International
% International
International
Arrivals*
KOA %
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
154,187
213,268
251,899
253,630
316,211
356,118
366,760
397,057
461,170
486,730
520,969
29,371
40,988
87,521
80,087
78,895
65,141
66,871
65,652
78,918
86,111
69,650
19.0%
19.2%
34.7%
31.6%
25.0%
18.3%
18.2%
16.5%
17.1%
17.7%
13.4%
2,610,459
2,664,373
2,209,722
2,195,631
2,031,586
2,207,944
2,259,386
2,143,799
3.07%
2.96%
2.95%
3.05%
3.23%
3.57%
3.81%
3.25%
FORECAST
2012
2017
2030
653,000
768,000
1,077,000
91,000
108,000
151,000
14.0%
14.0%
14.0%
2,722,890
3,027,830
3,931,950
3.34%
3.57%
3.84%
* Statewide International Arrivals forecast interpolated and extrapolated from Hawaii Aviation
Demand Forecasts Update, DOT-A, 2004.
For planning purposes, international
arrivals at KOA were projected, at
best, to grow at a rate similar to that
of mainland passengers. This would
essentially represent a doubling of in-
ternational arrivals by 2030. The 3.3
percent annual growth rate is higher
than the 1.8 percent rate projected
statewide, suggesting a potential in-
crease in market share for KOA. As
depicted on Table 2K, however, that
market share would remain within the
range previously experienced at KOA.
With just one daily international flight
currently serving KOA, the Master
Plan forecast essentially allows plan-
ning for an eventual second interna-
tional flight over the long term.
AIRLINE OPERATIONS
The commercial service fleet mix is
needed to project airline operations for
the airport. A projection of the fleet
mix for Kona International Airport at
Keahole has been developed by re-
viewing the equipment used by the
carriers serving the airport.
Changes in equipment, airframes, and
engines have always had a significant
impact on airlines and airport plan-
2-22
ning. There are many ongoing pro-
grams by the manufacturers to im-
prove performance characteristics.
These programs continue to focus on
improvements in fuel efficiency. Re-
gional jets have also become a larger
factor as the airlines look for ways to
reduce costs. On the mainland, many
airlines have replaced larger commer-
cial jets on smaller emerging routes
with regional jets. In Hawaii, go! Air-
lines, a subsidiary of Mesa Air Group,
has introduced the 50-seat regional jet
into serving interisland routes.
At the same time as these smaller air-
craft have been introduced at KOA,
overseas traffic has been increasing.
These routes are being served primari-
ly by aircraft like the Boeing 757 up to
the Boeing 747.
Table 2L compares the airline opera-
tional fleet mix by seat capacity for
the last three years at KOA. The table
includes a breakdown of interisland
and overseas operations as well as the
combined analysis. Exhibit 2J de-
picts the aircraft fleet mix and seating
capacities of the airlines serving the
airport.
Overall, the average seats per depar-
ture have declined from 131.6 in 2004,
to 118.7 in 2005. This is primarily due
to an increase in operations by aircraft
with 60 seats or less. In 2004, less
than 13 percent of the total flights
were by aircraft with 60 seats or less.
In two years, this percentage has in-
creased to nearly 30 percent of all air-
line operations.
It appears that these aircraft have
added to operations rather than re-
place other aircraft in the fleet, as to-
tal airline operations increased from
26,768 in 2004 to 37,426 in 2006. The
percentage of operations by larger air-
craft with 165 or more seats has re-
mained relatively constant over the
last three years at around 19 percent.
The medium-sized jet in the 105 to
134 seat range has seen its percentage
decline from 68 to 51 percent. Like
the regional aircraft, these aircraft are
used primarily for interisland flights.
While their market percentage has de-
clined, the total number of annual op-
erations by medium-sized jets has ac-
tually increased by approximately 800
operations in the last two years.
The boarding load factor (BLF) is de-
fined as the ratio of passengers board-
ing aircraft compared to the seating
capacity of the aircraft. With the in-
crease in operations, the BLF at the
Kona International Airport at Keahole
has declined in recent years, from 75.3
percent in 2004, to 68.2 percent in
2005. By comparison, the BLF at
most airports on the mainland has
been increasing as airlines have
worked to improve efficiency and re-
duce costs.
B747-400 403 347
B777-200A 348
B747 310
B767-400 287
A330-300 298 286 270
A340-300 282
B777-200 245 268
A330-200 243
B767-300 212 250 244 212
B757-300 224
B767-200 158 203 207
B757-200 188 184 182 182 193
B747 400 347403403
AIRCRAFT TYPE
DELTA
American
Airlines
UNITEDAIRLINES
06
M
P
0
6
-
2
J
-
1
/
2
7
/
0
9
AIRCRAFT SEATING FOR
KOA CARRIERS
Exhibit 2J
NORTHWEST
AIRLINES
B747-400 384
B767-300 260 240
B737-200 127
B737-200A 127
B737-700 124
B717 123
CRJ200 50
DHC Dash 8 Q400 37
Cessna 208B 14
Bold faced figures represent aircraft that regularly operated at KOA in 2006-2007.
B747 400 384
AIRCRAFT TYPE
AIR CANADA
AI
R
L
I
N
E
S
2-23
TABLE 2L
Airline Fleet Mix and Operations Forecast
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Historic Forecast
Seating Capacity 2004 2005 2006 2012 2017 2030
TOTAL AIRLINE OPERATIONS
>320 250-320
200-249
165-199
135-164
105-134
75-104 60-79
40-59
20-39 <19
1.0% 1.6%
5.6%
11.0%
0.0%
68.2%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
10.6% 2.0%
4.2% 0.5%
5.6%
9.6%
0.0%
57.6%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
16.1% 6.5%
2.3% 1.1%
5.7%
10.3%
0.0%
50.9%
0.0% 0.0%
8.4%
16.1% 5.2%
2.6% 1.6%
6.2%
10.8%
0.0%
49.2%
0.0% 3.2%
8.0%
14.4% 4.0%
2.5% 2.2%
6.0%
10.8%
0.9%
45.6%
3.9% 5.5%
6.3%
13.3% 3.1%
3.4% 3.4%
6.5%
11.1%
4.5%
38.5%
7.4% 7.4%
3.7%
11.1% 3.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Average Seat per Op.
Boarding Load Factor
Passengers per Op.
131.6
75.3%
99.1
126.1
73.9%
93.1
118.7
68.2%
81.0
122.6
69.5%
85.3
123.8
74.5%
92.2
131.0
78.7%
103.1
Annual Passengers 2,653,562 2,959,727 3,033,212 3,472,000 3,819,000 4,721,000
Annual Operations 26,768 31,776 37,436 39,800 41,400 45,800
INTERISLAND OPERATIONS
>320
250-320
200-249
165-199
135-164
105-134
75-104
60-79
40-59
20-39
<19
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
83.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
14.0%
2.7%
2.2%
0.0%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
66.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
8.1%
2.0%
0.0%
2.4%
0.6%
0.0%
58.8%
0.0%
0.0%
10.3%
19.6%
6.4%
2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
58.0%
0.0%
4.0%
10.0%
18.0%
5.0%
1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
56.0%
5.0%
7.0%
8.0%
17.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
4.0%
51.0%
10.0%
10.0%
5.0%
15.0%
4.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Average Seat per Op.
Boarding Load Factor
Passengers per Op.
109.6
81.5%
89.3
106.2
70.9%
75.2
100.3
64.0%
64.3
101.1
67.0%
67.7
97.9
71.0%
69.5
95.9
77.0%
73.8
Annual Interisland Pas-sengers 1,812,930 1,923,503 1,970,937 2,153,000 2,253,000 2,502,000
Annual Interisland
Operations
20,296
25,566
30,666
31,800
32,400
33,900
OVERSEAS OPERATIONS
>320
250-320
200-249
165-199
135-164
105-134
4.0%
6.4%
24.1%
45.0%
0.0%
20.5%
12.5%
2.4%
16.9%
48.9%
0.0%
19.3%
3.6%
6.0%
20.9%
54.2%
0.0%
15.2%
5.0%
8.0%
23.0%
50.0%
0.0%
14.0%
8.0%
10.0%
24.0%
46.0%
4.0%
8.0%
13.0%
13.0%
25.0%
40.0%
6.0%
3.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Average Seat per Op.
Boarding Load Factor
Passengers per Op.
201.2
63.6%
128.0
208.1
80.2%
166.9
202.1
76.7%
154.9
208.0
79.0%
164.3
217.3
80.0%
173.8
231.0
81.0%
187.1
Annual Overseas Passengers 840,632 1,036,224 1,048,893 1,319,000 1,566,000 2,219,000
Annual Overseas
Operations
6,566
6,210
6,770
8,000
9,000
11,900
2-24
The BLF decline at KOA can be at-
tributed to the increased competition
brought on by the entry of more re-
gional aircraft flights on interisland
routes. The interisland BLF at KOA
has declined from 81.5 percent to 64
percent while the island airlines com-
pete for market share. Over the same
period, the overseas BLF has in-
creased from 63.6 percent to 76.7 per-
cent. In the future, boarding load fac-
tors can be expected to begin to return
to previous levels and even grow into
the upper 70s.
The decline in seating capacity as well
as load factor has resulted in a net de-
crease in passengers per flight at
KOA. The average passengers per op-
eration fell from 99 in 2004 to 81 in
2006. Again, the influx of operations
on interisland routes was the primary
factor as passengers per operation on
overseas routes actually increased
from 128 to 155.
Kona International Airport at Keahole
can expect regional aircraft to contin-
ue to affect interisland service into the
future. The 50-passenger regional jet
has recently been introduced to the
islands, but new airline orders for re-
gional jets (RJs) are now focused on
70- and 90-seat aircraft. While the
medium-sized commercial jet will con-
tinue to have the majority of interis-
land flights, these larger regional jet
aircraft are likely to become more of a
factor in the future.
The mix of aircraft used on overseas
flights is expected to continue to grow
in size. This will result in a net in-
crease in aircraft seating capacity and
in passengers per operation over the
long term. Table 2L presents the fleet
mix and operations forecast for KOA.
AIR CARGO
Air cargo is comprised of air freight
and air mail. Air cargo is critical to
the Hawaiian Islands for timely deliv-
ery of mail as well as time-sensitive
freight. Cargo is handled both in the
bellies of the passenger airlines as
well as by all-cargo carriers. Table
2M and Exhibit 2K depict the growth
of air cargo at Kona International Air-
port at Keahole since it opened in
1970.
Most cargo at the airport was handled
by the passenger airlines in the 1970s.
Cargo grew steadily through the 1970s
from 1,255 tons in 1970 to 8,812 tons
in 1980. Virtually all of the cargo at
that time was interisland with little
overseas cargo.
The advent of express package carri-
ers in the 1980s began to change cargo
activity and handling at airports. The
extension of the runway to 9,500 feet
in the late 1980s brought the first sig-
nificant overseas cargo to KOA. By
1990, the airport was handling 19,591
tons of freight and mail annually.
Traffic continued to grow through the
1990s and the runway was extended
to 11,000 feet. A new high of 29,206
tons of cargo was handled in 1999.
Cargo traffic reached its next new
high in 2002 at 31,361 tons then
slowed for the next three years. While
air freight has actually declined each
year since 2002, air mail has more
than doubled. This growth in air mail
06
M
P
0
6
-
2
K
-
6
/
8
/
0
7
AIR CARGO FORECASTS Exhibit 2K
TO
N
S
O
F
F
R
E
I
G
H
T
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 20302000199519901985198019751970
HISTORICAL FORECAST
LEGEND
1998 Master Plan Forecast
2004 DOT-A Forecast
Time-Series Projection
Market Share Projection
Master Plan Forecast
1
2
T
M
M
2-25
TABLE 2M
Air Cargo Forecast
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Air Freight
Annual Tons
Air Mail
Annual Tons
Total Cargo
Annual Tons
Domestic Cargo
RTMs (millions)
KOA Market
Share %
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980 1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
686
724
949
939
3,714
3,742
4,664
4,991
5,155
6,630
7,826 8,498
7,326
7,430
7,730
8,212
8,835
16,047
14,912
16,813
17,290
18,720
19,766
21,565
23,482
19,512
22,486
24,636
22,085
23,317
15,223
21,540
27,323
25,836
25,588
24,477
23,878
569
613
637
743
806
912
986
1,027
1,095
1,152
986 1,006
1,061
1,239
1,401
1,346
1,548
1,751
1,863
2,008
2,301
2,425
2,579
2,668
2,821
2,710
2,448
2,222
2,994
5,889
6,450
5,907
4,038
4,710
5,130
6,290
8,512
1,255
1,337
1,586
1,682
4,520
4,654
5,650
6,018
6,250
7,782
8,812 9,504
8,387
8,669
9,131
9,558
10,383
17,798
16,775
18,821
19,591
20,695
22,345
24,233
26,303
22,222 24,934
26,858
25,079
29,206
21,673
27,447
31,361
30,546
30,718
30,767
32,390
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10,394.1
11,323.3
12,415.7 12,781.7
13,454.1
13,828.1
13,974.9
14,698.8
13,934.0
12,967.3
14,972.4
16,340.9
16,089.6
15,710.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.000233%
0.000232%
0.000179% 0.000195%
0.000200%
0.000181%
0.000209%
0.000147%
0.000197%
0.000242%
0.000204%
0.000188%
0.000191%
0.000206%
Time Series Analysis
2012
2017
2030
27,947
31,316
40,078
10,868
12,179
15,586
38,815
43,495
55,664
19,473.4
22,701.1
33,416.2
0.000199%
0.000192%
0.000167%
Market Share Projection
2012
2017
2030
28,042
32,690
48,119
10,905
12,713
18,713
38,947
45,402
66,832
19,473.4
22,701.1
33,416.2
0.000200%
0.000200%
0.000200%
2004 DOT-A Forecast
2012
2017
2030
38,100
42,900
57,000
4,600
5,000
5,400
42,700
47,900
61,400
19,473.4
22,701.1
33,416.2
0.000219%
0.000211%
0.000184%
Master Plan Forecast
2012
2017
2030
28,000
32,400
44,500
11,000
12,600
17,500
39,000
45,000
62,000
19,473.4
22,701.1
33,416.2
0.000200%
0.000198%
0.000186%
2-26
resulted in the most cargo traffic to
date at 32,390 tons for 2006.
Exhibit 2K compares the air cargo
forecasts prepared for the 1998 Master
Plan and the 2004 DOT-A Forecast to
the actual traffic that has occurred
since. With the slowdown in cargo
growth since 2002, the actual activity
is still ahead of the 1998 Master Plan,
but is behind the 2004 DOT-A Fore-
cast pace.
To update the forecasts, the enplaned
cargo data was evaluated using time-
series, regression, and market share
analyses in a manner similar to the
passenger projections. The updated
time-series analysis of the past 36
years resulted in a strong correlation
(r2 = 0.962). The resulting projection
is presented for comparison on Exhi-
bit 2K and in Table 2M. This projec-
tion has a slope similar to that of the
DOT-A Forecast, but would lag ap-
proximately three years behind.
Regression analyses with Hawaii
County population, defacto population,
and employment were examined, but
all resulted in correlations below 0.90.
Table 2M presents a market share
review of cargo tons at KOA versus
U.S. domestic cargo revenue ton-miles
(RTMs). The percentage has been
fluctuating around an average of
0.0000490 percent over the past eight
years. A projection of cargo based
upon maintaining this percentage into
the future is presented on the table
and exhibit as well.
The constant market share would
project the airport’s cargo to grow at
the industry rate for domestic air car-
go. As can be seen from the exhibit,
this projection is lower through at
least the first ten years, then grows
beyond the DOT-A forecast. For the
purposes of this master plan update, a
hybrid projection representing the
middle range between the time-series
and market share projections was se-
lected as the recommended forecast for
air cargo, and is presented on Table
2M as well as Exhibit 2K. This fore-
cast essentially falls in line with the
2004 DOT-A forecast over the long
term.
Table 2M also presents a breakdown
of air mail and air freight forecasts.
In the past ten years, the air mail per-
centage of the total air cargo has in-
creased from 8.3 percent in 1997 to
26.3 percent in 2006. This percentage
was projected to grow in the short
term to 28 percent then remain rela-
tively stable over the long term.
ALL-CARGO OPERATIONS
Kona International Airport at Keahole
is served by several all-cargo carriers
or their contract carriers. United Par-
cel Service (UPS) and Aloha Airlines
operate all-cargo commercial jet air-
craft to KOA. There are also several
contract carriers operating commuter
aircraft. UPS primarily utilizes Boe-
ing 747 or 767 aircraft, while Aloha
utilizes Boeing 737-200 cargo aircraft.
The primary commuter aircraft are
turboprops such as the Beech 1900
and the Shorts 360.
A combination of additional flights
and more of the larger all-cargo air-
2-27
craft can be expected as cargo volumes
increase. Thus, air cargo operations
were projected to increase, although
not as fast as the cargo tonnage.
As shown on Table 2N, all-cargo op-
erations totaled 4,372 in 2006. This
was down from 2005, when there were
4,842 all-cargo operations. This was
due to a decline in commuter opera-
tions from 1,952 to 1,360. Cargo jet
operations actually increased from
2,890 to 3,012 in the last year.
TABLE 2N
All-Cargo Operations Forecast
Kona International Airport at Keahole
ALL-CARGO OPERATIONS
Total Commercial Jet Commuter Aircraft
ACTUAL
2004
2005
2006
4,484
4,842
4,372
2,926
2,890
3,012
1,558
1,952
1,360
FORECAST
2012
2017
2030
4,700
5,100
6,100
3,300
3,700
4,700
1,400
1,400
1,400
The table also presents the forecasts
for all-cargo operations. The growth
in operations is expected primarily in
commercial jets, with commuter air-
craft operations remaining fairly sta-
ble after declining in recent years.
GENERAL AVIATION
FORECASTS
General aviation encompasses all por-
tions of civil aviation except commer-
cial operations. To determine the
types and sizes of facilities that should
be planned to accommodate general
aviation activity, certain elements of
this activity must be forecast. These
indicators of general aviation demand
include based aircraft, aircraft fleet
mix, and annual operations.
BASED AIRCRAFT
The number of based aircraft is the
most basic indicator of general avia-
tion demand. By first developing a
forecast of based aircraft, the growth
of other general aviation activities and
demands can be projected.
Aircraft basing at an airport is some-
what dependent upon the nature and
magnitude of aircraft ownership in the
local service area. As a result, aircraft
registrations in the area were re-
viewed and forecast first.
Aircraft Registrations
Data was collected on the history of
aircraft ownership in Hawaii County
2-28
over the last two decades. This infor-
mation was obtained from records of
the FAA’s Aircraft Registry over the
years and is presented in Table 2P, as
well as on Exhibit 2L.
Registered aircraft in Hawaii County
have grown steadily since the early
1990s. Between 1990 and 2006, regis-
tered aircraft in the county grew from
97 to 167. There are no recently pre-
pared forecasts of registered aircraft to
examine and compare. As a result, a
projection of county registrations was
developed.
The Hawaii County share of the U.S.
general aviation (GA) active aircraft
market is examined in Table 2P. Be-
cause of a change in how the FAA
counts active aircraft, this comparison
could only be extended back to 1993.
From 1993 through 2006, Hawaii
County’s market share has grown
from 0.0574 percent 0.0738 percent. A
projection that would maintain a con-
stant share of 0.738 percent into the
future results in 221 registered air-
craft by 2030.
TABLE 2P
Hawaii County Registered Aircraft
Registered Aircraft U.S. Active Aircraft County Market Share
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
97
87
96
102
104
106
104
107
114
116
117
118
121
144
155
156
167
NA
NA
NA
177,719
172,936
188,089
191,129
192,414
204,710
219,464
217,533
211,535
211,345
209,788
219,426
224,352
226,422
NA
NA
NA
0.0574%
0.0601%
0.0564%
0.0544%
0.0556%
0.0557%
0.0529%
0.0538%
0.0558%
0.0572%
0.0686%
0.0706%
0.0695%
0.0738%
Constant Market Share Projection
2012
2017
2030
185
197
221
250,587
267,470
299,766
0.0738%
0.0738%
0.0738%
Next, trend line or “time-series” analy-
sis was conducted for the period dat-
ing back to 1990. The correlation coef-
ficient, or r2, was 0.857. While not as
strong a correlation as preferred, the
resulting projection does provide
an indication if the historic growth
trend continued. This would result in
255 registered aircraft by 2030. The
projection is included for comparison
on Exhibit 2L as well as in Table 2Q.
06
M
P
0
6
-
2
L
-
6
/
1
1
/
0
7
HAWAII COUNTY REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS Exhibit 2L
5050
100100
150150
RE
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
A
I
R
C
R
A
F
T
REGISTERED AIRCRAFT
200200
250250
300300
350350
20052005 20102010 20152015 20202020 20252025 20302030200020001995199519901990
50
100
150
RE
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
A
I
R
C
R
A
F
T
200
250
300
350
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030200019951990
HISTORICAL FORECAST
LEGEND
Constant Market Share
Time Series (1990-2006)
Multiple Regression vs. US
GA Aircraft and County Population
(Selected Forecast)
C
T
M
G
are
006)
v
n
vs. US
nty Population
2-29
TABLE 2Q
Registered Aircraft Projections
Hawaii County
Actual Forecast
2006 2012 2017 2030
Constant Market Share 167 185 197 221
Time Series (1990-2006) 167 178 200 255
Multiple Regression vs. U.S. GA
Aircraft & County Population
167
196
226
308
Selected Forecast 167 196 226 308
Several regression analyses comparing
registered aircraft to Hawaii County’s
socioeconomic variables were con-
ducted. These included population,
employment, the daily visitor census,
inflation-adjusted per capita personal
income, and de facto population. U.S.
active aircraft were also considered in
combination with these variables. The
best correlation involved a multiple
regression of registered aircraft versus
U.S. active aircraft and county popula-
tion which produced an r2 of 0.944. De
facto population was specifically subs-
tituted for resident population to ex-
amine the effect of the nonresident
population on registered aircraft. This
resulted in a lower r2 of 0.915.
Applying the updated population pro-
jections from Table 2B provided the
regression projection that is presented
for comparison on the exhibit and ta-
ble. With 308 registered aircraft in
2030, this results in the highest pro-
jection. The regression utilizing de
facto population resulted in a very
similar projection of 307 by 2030.
The good correlation with U.S. active
GA aircraft and population suggests
that the county’s aircraft ownership is
likely to grow faster than the national
rate. Substituting the de facto popula-
tion for resident population in the re-
gression results in essentially the
same projection. As a result, the re-
gression forecast was selected as the
preferred forecast and is shown in bold
on the exhibit and the table.
Based Aircraft Forecast
Having forecast the aircraft ownership
demand in Hawaii County, the histor-
ic basing at Kona International Air-
port at Keahole was reviewed to ex-
amine the change in market share
over the years. Table 2R examines
the based aircraft at KOA as a percen-
tage of the aircraft registered to own-
ers’ addresses on the island.
Based aircraft for 2006 were derived
from survey information provided by
the Hawaii County General Aviation
Council (HCGAC). The historic based
aircraft figures at the KOA were taken
from airport records when available,
2-30
and for other years, from FAA records
of counts conducted as part of an an-
nual airport inspection by the FAA or
state aviation officials.
TABLE 2R
Based Aircraft Forecasts
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Year KOA Based Aircraft County Registered KOA Percent
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2006 Demand
36
36
32
46
46
46
46
40
42
42
42
35
34
36
55
55
61
79
97
87
96
102
104
106
104
107
114
116
117
118
121
144
155
156
167
167
37.1%
41.4%
33.3%
45.1%
44.2%
43.4%
44.2%
37.4%
36.8%
36.2%
35.9%
29.7%
28.1%
25.0%
35.5%
35.3%
36.5%
47.3%
Master Plan Forecast
2012
2017
2030
102
118
160
196
226
308
52.0%
52.0%
52.0%
Between 1990 and 2003, KOA based
aircraft fluctuated between 32 and 36.
More recent FAA records indicate 55
based aircraft in 2004 and 2005. Ac-
cording to information derived from
the HCGAC survey, there were 61
based aircraft in 2006. Several opera-
tors on the airport have added aircraft
in 2007, so based aircraft are antici-
pated to total at least 67 by the end of
the year.
Exhibit 2M graphically depicts the
previous forecasts for based aircraft.
The current based aircraft already ex-
ceeds the 2025 projection of the 2004
DOT-A Forecast as well as those of the
1998 Master Plan which projected 55
based aircraft by 2020. The FAA TAF
forecasts are the highest of the three,
and project 78 based aircraft by 2025.
In the 1990s, the based aircraft were
equivalent to 35 to 45 percent of the
aircraft registered aircraft in the coun-
ty. Between 2000 and 2003, this per-
centage declined to 25 percent. The
decline in percentage may have been,
at least in part, due to the limited
hangar space available on the airport.
There are local aircraft owners who
have indicated they would base an air-
craft at the airport if hangars were
available. The limited general avia-
tion services available are also a fac-
tor.
1010
2020
3030
4040
5050
6060
7070
8080
9090
203020302025202520202020201520152010201020062006200020001995199519901990
BA
S
E
D
A
I
R
C
R
A
F
T
HISTORICAL FORECAST
100100
110110
120120
130130
140140
150150
160160
170170
BA
S
E
D
A
I
R
C
R
A
F
T
HISTORICAL FORECAST
LEGEND
1998 Master Plan
2004 DOT-A Forecast
2006 FAA-TAF
Master Plan Forecast
06
M
P
0
6
-
2
M
-
6
/
1
1
/
0
7
BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS Exhibit 2M
2-31
Although the current based aircraft
level is growing, the lack of hangars
and other services is still constraining
the based aircraft at KOA. The
HCGAC estimates there would be at
least 20 additional aircraft based at
the airport if sufficient hangars were
available.
In addition, there are several general
aviation businesses that are expected
to expand their fleets at KOA within
the next few years. Flight schools at
the airport are growing as are the
charter and tour flights. One local op-
erator is examining the potential for
establishing an airline-oriented flight
school at the airport, taking advantage
of the superb climate and weather
conditions. This alone could eventual-
ly result in up to 48 additional based
aircraft.
For planning purposes, it is assumed
that the airport’s general aviation fa-
cilities can be developed in a manner
that will allow it to serve its demand
and maintain a larger portion of the
market share based primarily upon
convenience and airfield capabilities.
Table 2R depicts the forecast based
upon this premise. Considering the
underserved demand, KOA’s based
aircraft as a percentage of county reg-
istrations should currently be at least
47 percent. With the west coast of the
Big Island growing at a faster rate
than the rest of the County, and the
planned additions of aircraft expected
at KOA, this share was projected to
continue to increase to 52 percent.
This would result in a based aircraft
forecast of 160 in 2030.
As is evident from Exhibit 2M, the
updated forecast is significantly high-
er than previous forecasts, all of which
did not fully take into account the af-
fect that the lack of hangar space and
general aviation services has had on
aircraft basing in the past.
Based Aircraft Fleet Mix
The based aircraft fleet mix at Kona
International Airport at Keahole, as
shown on Table 2S, was compared to
the existing and forecast U.S. general
aviation fleet mix trends as presented
in FAA Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal
Years 2007-2020. The FAA expects
business jets will continue to be the
fastest growing general aviation air-
craft type in the future. The number
of business jets in the industry fleet is
expected to double in the next twelve
years.
Single-engine piston aircraft (includ-
ing sport aviation and experimental
aircraft), helicopter, and turboprop
aircraft are expected to grow at slower
rates. The number of multi-engine
piston aircraft in the U.S. will actually
decline slightly as older aircraft are
retired, according to the FAA fore-
casts.
GENERAL AVIATION
OPERATIONS
General aviation operations are classi-
fied by the airport traffic control tower
(ATCT) as either local or itinerant. A
local operation is a take-off or landing
performed by an aircraft that operates
2-32
within sight of the airport, or which
executes simulated approaches or
touch-and-go operations at the airport.
Itinerant operations are those per-
formed by aircraft with a specific ori-
gin or destination away from the air-
port. Generally, local operations are
characterized by training operations.
Typically, itinerant operations in-
crease with business and commercial
use, since business aircraft are oper-
ated on a higher frequency.
TABLE 2S
Based Aircraft Mix Forecast
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Current 2012 2017 2030
Number % Number % Number % Number %
KOA Based Aircraft
Single Engine Piston
Multi-Engine Piston
Turboprop
Jet
Rotorcraft Other
39
6
4
1
9 2
63.9%
9.8%
6.6%
1.6%
14.8% 3.3%
65
7
9
4
16 1
63.7%
6.9%
8.8%
3.9%
15.7% 1.0%
74
7
11
7
19
62.7%
5.9%
9.3%
5.9%
16.1% 0.0%
99
7
14
14
26 0
61.9%
4.4%
8.8%
8.8%
16.3%
0.0%
Totals 61 100.0% 102 100.0% 118 100.0% 160 100.0%
U.S. Active Aircraft (from FAA Aerospace Fiscal Years [2007-2020])
Single Engine Piston
Multi-Engine Piston
Turboprop
Jet
Rotorcraft
Other
173,177
19,364
8,026
10,032
9,232
6,592
76.5%
8.6%
3.5%
4.4%
4.1%
2.9%
188,737
19,101
8,352
15,304
12,308
6,785
75.3%
7.6%
3.3%
6.1%
4.9%
2.7%
199,099
18,916
8,605
19,881
14,272
6,698
74.4%
7.1%
3.2%
7.4%
5.3%
2.5%
214,562
18,444
9,301
32,393
18,551
6,515
71.6%
6.2%
3.1%
10.8%
6.2%
2.2%
Totals 226,423 100.0% 250,587 100.0% 267,471 100.0% 299,766 100.0%
Note: Experimental and sport aircraft are included under single engine piston.
Itinerant Operations
Table 2T depicts general aviation
itinerant operations, as counted by the
ATCT at Kona International Airport
at Keahole since 1990. Between 1990
and 2002, itinerant GA operations
more than doubled from 9,563 to
21,170. Since that time, traffic has
declined to 18,340 operations in 2006.
KOA’s market share as a percentage
of GA itinerant operations at towered
airports across the country steadily
rose from 1990 (0.041 percent)
through 2005 (0.102 percent). The
market share declined in 2006 to 0.098
percent.
In FAA Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal
Years 2007-2020, the FAA projects
itinerant general aviation operations
at towered airports. Table 2T
presents this forecast as well as a pro-
jection for KOA based upon maintain-
ing its recent share of the itinerant
operations market.
The table also examines the relation-
ship of annual operations to based air-
craft. Operations per based aircraft
grew from a low of 203 in 1993 to a
high of 623 in 2002. By 2006, the ratio
had declined to 301. The sharp in-
creases in the price of fuel affected the
decline in 2006. In the first half of
2007, itinerant operations were com-
parable to for the same period in 2006.
2-33
TABLE 2T
General Aviation Itinerant Operations Forecast
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Year
KOA
Itinerant
Operations
U.S. ATCT
GA Itinerant
(millions)
KOA Market
Share %
KOA Based
Aircraft
Itinerant
Ops Per
Aircraft
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
9,563
9,972
8,857
9,336
9,757
9,556
9,485
13,250
13,987
14,853
18,011
19,570
21,170
19,894
20,122
19,737
18,340
23.10
22.20
22.10
21.14
21.06
20.86
20.82
21.70
22.09
23.02
22.84
21.43
21.45
20.23
20.00
19.32
18.75
0.041%
0.045%
0.040%
0.044%
0.046%
0.046%
0.046%
0.061%
0.063%
0.064%
0.079%
0.091%
0.099%
0.098%
0.101%
0.102%
0.098%
36
36
32
46
46
46
46
40
42
42
42
35
34
36
55
55
61
266
277
277
203
212
208
206
331
333
354
429
558
623
553
366
359
301
Constant Market Share Projection
2012
2017
2030
21,840
24,150
29,600
21.84
24.15
29.60
0.100%
0.100%
0.100%
102
118
160
214
205
185
Operations Per Based Aircraft Projection
2012
2017
2030
30,600
35,400
48,000
21.84
24.15
29.60
0.140%
0.147%
0.162%
102
118
160
300
300
300
FAA-TAF Projection
2012
2017
2030
21,586
23,662
28,476
21.84
24.15
29.60
0.099%
0.098%
0.096%
62
67
86
348
353
331
Master Plan Forecast
2012
2017
2030
31,000
36,000
48,000
21.84
24.15
29.60
0.142%
0.149%
0.162%
102
118
160
304
305
300
Thus, the ratio can be expected to
maintain at least its current level.
With the forecast increase in based
aircraft, however, the operations ratio
is not likely to increase back to its
2002 levels. The second projection in
Table 2T reflects the itinerant opera-
tional levels that could be expected if
the operations per based aircraft ratio
were to average 300 in the future.
Based upon the historic growth, it is
likely that the KOA market share will
continue to grow. Thus, the constant
market share would be a low range
forecast. For planning purposes, a
projection maintaining the current
level of itinerant operations per based
aircraft ratio was selected as most
representative of the potential growth.
2-34
The resulting forecast is included at
the bottom of Table 2T.
As can be seen from the table, the
Master Plan forecast is significantly
higher than the FAA TAF. This re-
flects the higher forecast for based air-
craft.
Local Operations
A similar methodology was utilized to
forecast local operations. Table 2U
depicts the history of local operations
at Kona International Airport at Kea-
hole and examines its historic market
share of GA local operations at tow-
ered airports in the United States.
Local operations grew nearly ten-fold
between 1990 (7,941) and 2005
(73,055). In 2006, traffic dropped off
to 54,650, but is up nine percent in the
first half of 2007.
TABLE 2U
General Aviation Local Operations Forecast
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Year
KOA Local
Operations
U.S. ATCT GA
Local (millions)
KOA Market
Share %
KOA Based
Aircraft
Local Ops
Per Aircraft
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
7,941
5,336
12,306
8,990
11,412
11,888
12,106
24,299
23,150
22,666
29,010
35,544
45,310
46,904
60,105
73,055
54,650
17.10
16.60
16.31
15.46
15.19
15.07
14.48
15.16
15.96
16.98
17.03
16.19
16.17
15.29
14.96
15.85
14.38
0.046%
0.032%
0.075%
0.058%
0.075%
0.079%
0.084%
0.160%
0.145%
0.133%
0.170%
0.220%
0.280%
0.307%
0.402%
0.461%
0.380%
36
36
32
46
46
46
46
40
42
42
42
35
34
36
55
55
61
221
148
385
195
248
258
263
607
551
540
691
1,016
1,333
1,303
1,093
1,328
896
Constant Market Share Projection
2012
2017
2030
74,475
79,740
89,550
16.55
17.72
19.90
0.450%
0.450%
0.450%
102
118
160
730
676
560
Operations Per Based Aircraft Projection
2012
2017
2030
91,800
106,200
144,000
16.55
17.72
19.90
0.555%
0.599%
0.720%
102
118
160
900
900
900
FAA-TAF Projection
2012
2017 2030
71,849
83,292 122,316
16.55
17.72 19.90
0.434%
0.470% 0.615%
62
67 86
1,159
1,243 1,422
Master Plan Forecast
2012
2017
2030
89,000
101,000
134,000
16.55
17.72
19.90
0.538%
0.570%
0.673%
102
118
160
873
856
838
2-35
The market share has grown signifi-
cantly as well, from around 0.046 per-
cent to 0.461 percent, although the
share in 2006 declined to 0.380. Ta-
ble 2U presents a market share pro-
jection based upon carrying forward a
constant share of 0.450 percent.
Local operations per based aircraft
have also increased over the same pe-
riod from 221 in 1990 to 1,333 in 2002.
The ratio in 2006 was 896. The
second projection in Table 2U main-
tains a similar ratio of 900 local opera-
tions per based aircraft into the fu-
ture.
As with the itinerant forecast, the lo-
cal operations market share is likely
to continue to increase in the future.
At the same time, however, local oper-
ations per based aircraft are more
likely to decline slowly as based air-
craft increase. Thus, a declining ratio
forecast is recommended for the pur-
poses of this master plan and is de-
picted at the bottom of Table 2U.
The FAA TAF forecasts are also pre-
sented on Table 2U. As with itinerant
operations, the master plan forecast is
significantly higher reflecting the
higher based aircraft forecast based
upon the assumption of meeting cur-
rently underserved demand for han-
gars and other general aviation ser-
vices.
OTHER AIR TAXI
Air taxi operations as reported by the
ATCT include commuter passenger,
commuter cargo, as well as for-hire
general aviation operations. Some op-
erations by aircraft operated under
fractional ownership programs are al-
so counted as air taxi operations.
Since the airline and cargo operations
have been forecast, this section re-
views the growth potential for the
“other air taxi” operations. At KOA
this includes interisland charters and
tour operators as well.
Table 2V presents the other air taxi
operations for the past three years.
These operations have averaged ap-
proximately 50 percent of the itinerant
general aviation operations. Because
of the relationship to general aviation
activity, other air taxi operations were
projected to increase in line with that
of general aviation itinerant opera-
tions. The resulting forecast is also
presented on Table 2V.
TABLE 2V
Other Air Taxi Operations
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Year Other Air Taxi
Actual
2004
2005
2006
11,798
8,419
9,116
Forecast
2012
2017
2030
15,500
18,000
24,000
MILITARY
In spite of the fact that there are no
military units based there, Kona In-
ternational Airport at Keahole has a
significant amount of military activity.
Table 2W provides the history of mili-
tary operations at KOA since 1990.
The military operations at KOA pri-
marily consist of training operations
2-36
by aircraft from other military bases
in Hawaii and the Pacific Ocean.
Unless there is an anticipated mission
change in the area, military opera-
tions are typically forecast to remain
at current levels. That was the case
with the previous forecasts for KOA.
The 1998 Master Plan forecast mili-
tary activity at KOA to maintain a
level of 12,700 annual operations
through 2020. The 2004 DOT-A Fore-
cast projected military activity at
17,600 annual operations through
2025. In 2006, there were 19,304 mili-
tary operations at the airport. This is
comparable to the current FAA TAF
projection of 19,256 through 2025.
TABLE 2W
Military Operations
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Year Itinerant Local Total
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1,636
1,350
1,564
1,944
1,685
2,104
2,368
1,999
2,084
2,359
2,856
3,176
4,203
4,227
3,070
3,686
3,453
2,500
1,978
2,642
3,584
4,373
6,997
7,315
5,394
5,570
6,648
9,069
11,414
13,411
11,344
11,571
13,456
15,851
4,136
3,328
4,206
5,528
6,058
9,101
9,683
7,393
7,654
9,007
11,925
14,590
17,614
15,571
14,641
17,142
19,304
FORECAST
2012
2017
2030
4,000
4,000
4,000
26,000
26,000
26,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
A mission change that was fully im-
plemented in the first half of 2006 was
the arrival of eight C-17 Globemasters
to be stationed at Hickam Air Force
Base in Honolulu. The C-17s use KOA
regularly as part of their training ac-
tivities. This contributed to the in-
crease in military traffic over the last
three years at KOA.
There are two changes expected in the
near future that will affect military
activity at KOA. The airport is the
preferred location for an auxiliary
training runway at KOA to be used by
the C-17 aircraft to practice short field
landings.
Based upon information provided by
the 15th Airlift Wing at Hickam Air
Force Base, annual military opera-
tions can be expected to increase by
approximately 10,000 after the Kona
auxiliary training runway (KATR) is
constructed.
In another expected change, the Ha-
waii Air National Guard is expected to
undergo an aircraft conversion from
the F-15 to the F-22. This change is
not expected to significantly change
operations at KOA. The forecasts pre-
sented in Table 2W reflect the
planned mission changes.
ANNUAL INSTRUMENT
APPROACHES (AIAs)
Forecasts of annual instrument ap-
proaches provide guidance in deter-
mining an airport’s requirements for
navigational aid facilities. An instru-
ment approach as defined by FAA is
“an approach to an airport with intent
to land by an aircraft in accordance
with an Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
flight plan, when visibility is less than
2-37
three miles and/or when the ceiling is
at or below the minimum initial ap-
proach altitude.”
Data on instrument approaches to
Kona International Airport at Keahole
since 1995 were examined. True in-
strument weather conditions are not a
common occurrence at KOA, with an
average of just 64 AIAs over the 12
years examined. In fact, there have
been several years when no AIAs were
reported. The highest AIAs reported
occurred in 1996 with 302. This in-
cluded 265 by commercial aircraft, 19
by general aviation, and 18 by mili-
tary. For commercial operations, the
AIAs in that year were just 1.2 per-
cent of the commercial landings. The
AIA percentage for military activity
was 1.5 percent of itinerant military
landings. The AIAs for general avia-
tion were just 0.4 percent of itinerant
landings. These percentages were ap-
plied to the forecast operations to es-
timate the future AIA potential at
KOA. Exhibit 2N includes the AIA
forecast for KOA.
SUMMARY
This chapter has outlined the various
activity levels that might reasonably
be anticipated over the planning pe-
riod. Exhibit 2N is a summary of the
aviation forecasts prepared in this
chapter. Actual activity is included for
2006, which was the base year for
these forecasts.
Airline passenger activity has good po-
tential for growth, especially for over-
seas traffic. The increase in direct
overseas traffic will have a dampening
effect on interisland passenger figures.
Regional jets have recently been in-
troduced on interisland routes and can
be expected to affect the future mix of
aircraft on these routes.
Based aircraft at KOA are expected to
see strong growth over the planning
period, but the extent of that growth
will be dependent upon the availabili-
ty of services and facilities (especially
hangars) in the future. Business and
corporate jet traffic will be a contribu-
tor to that growth.
Air cargo activity can be expected to
grow in volume. Other air taxi opera-
tions can be expected to continue to
grow with increased interisland char-
ter and tour flights. Military activity
is expected to continue to be a factor in
the mix of traffic at Kona Internation-
al Airport at Keahole as well.
The next step in the planning process
is to assess the capabilities of the ex-
isting facilities to determine what up-
grades may be necessary to meet fu-
ture demands. The forecasts devel-
oped here will be taken forward in the
next chapter as planning horizon ac-
tivity levels that will serve as mile-
stones or activity benchmarks in eval-
uating facility requirements. Peak ac-
tivity characteristics will also be de-
termined for the various activity levels
for use in determining facility needs.
ACTIVITY FORECAST SUMMARY Exhibit 2N
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030200019951990
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
250,000
300,000
Operations ForecastOperations Forecast
Legend
1998 Master Plan
2004 DOT-A Forecast
2006 FAA-TAF
Master Plan
111
2222
2222
MMMMMMMM
06
M
P
0
6
-
2
N
-
6
/
1
1
/
0
7
General Aviation
Local 54,650 89,000 101,000 134,000
Itinerant 18,340 31,000 36,000 48,000
Total General Aviation 72,990 120,000 137,000 182,000
Airline 37,436 39,800 41,400 45,800
Air Cargo 4,372 4,700 5,100 6,100
Other Air Taxi 9,116 15,500 18,000 24,000
Military 19,304 30,000 30,000 30,000
Total Annual Operations 143,218 210,000 231,500 287,900
Overseas
U.S. Mainland 941,260 1,160,000 1,348,000 1,853,000
International 76,769 121,000 173,000 302,000
Transits 30,864 38,000 45,000 64,000
Total Overseas Passengers 1,048,893 1,319,000 1,566,000 2,219,000
Interisland 1,984,319 2,153,000 2,253,000 2,502,000
Total Airline Passengers 3,033,212 3,472,000 3,819,000 4,721,000
Air Freight 23,878 28,000 32,400 44,500
Air Mail 8,512 11,000 12,600 17,500
Total Air Cargo 32,390 39,000 45,000 62,000
Single-Engine Piston 39 65 74 99
Multi-Engine Piston 6 7 7 7
Turboprop 4 9 11 14
Jet 1 4 7 14
Helicopter 9 16 19 26
Other 2 1 0 0
Total Based Aircraft 61 102 118 160
General Aviation
Local
Forecast SummaryForecast Summary
AIRLINE PASSENGERS
AIR CARGO (total tons)
BASED AIRCRAFT
INSTRUMENT APPROACHES (AIA’s) 35 490 477 567
ANNUAL OPERATIONS
2012 2017
FORECAST
2030
ACTUAL
2006
Chapter Three
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
3-1
To properly plan for the future at Kona
International Airport at Keahole (KOA), it
is necessary to translate forecast aviation
demand into the specific types and
quantities of facilities that can adequately
serve projected demand levels. This chapter
uses the results of the forecasts prepared in
Chapter Two, as well as established
planning criteria, to determine the airfield
(i.e., runways, taxiways, navigational aids,
marking and lighting, and support
facilities), and landside (i.e., terminal
building, cargo buildings, hangars, aircraft
parking apron, fueling, vehicle parking and
access) facility requirements.
The objective of this effort is to identify, in
general terms, the adequacy of the existing
airport facilities, outline what new facilities
may be needed, and when they may be
needed to accommodate forecast demands.
Having established these facility
requirements, alternatives for providing the
facilities will be evaluated in Chapter Four
to determine the most reasonable and
feasible means for implementation.
PLANNING HORIZONS
Cost-effective, safe, efficient, and
orderly development of an airport
should rely more upon actual demand
than a time-based forecast figure. In
order to develop a master plan that is
demand-based rather than time-based,
a series of planning horizon milestones
have been established that take into con-
Chapter Three
FACILITY REQUIREMENTSFACILITY REQUIREMENTS
3-2
sideration the reasonable range of
aviation demand projections.
It is important to consider that over
time, the actual activity at the airport
may be higher or lower than what the
annualized forecast portrays. By
planning according to activity mile-
stones, the resultant plan can accom-
modate unexpected shifts or changes
in the area’s aviation demand. It is
important to plan for these milestones
so that airport officials can respond to
unexpected changes in a timely fash-
ion. As a result, these milestones pro-
vide flexibility, while potentially ex-
tending this plan’s useful life if avi-
ation trends slow over the period.
The most important reason for utiliz-
ing milestones is to allow the airport
to develop facilities according to need
generated by actual demand levels.
The demand-based schedule provides
flexibility in development, as the
schedule can be slowed or expedited
according to actual demand at any
given time over the planning period.
The resultant plan provides airport
officials with a financially responsible
and need-based program. Table 3A
presents the planning horizon mile-
stones for each activity demand cate-
gory.
TABLE 3A
Aviation Demand Planning Horizons
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Intermediate
Term
Long
Term
Annual Passengers 3,033,212 3,472,000 3,819,000 4,721,000
Annual Air Cargo (Tons) 32,390 39,000 45,000 62,000
Based GA Aircraft 61 102 118 160
Annual Operations
Airline
Air Cargo
Other Air Taxi
GA Itinerant
GA Local
Military
37,436
4,372
9,116
18,340
54,650
19,304
39,800
4,700
15,500
31,000
89,000
30,000
41,400
5,100
18,000
36,000
101,000
30,000
45,800
6,100
24,000
48,000
134,000
30,000
Total Operations 143,218 210,000 231,500 287,900
ATCT COUNT ADJUSTMENT
The planning horizon operational ac-
tivity levels in Table 3A represent the
airport’s aircraft operations as counted
by the airport traffic control tower
(ATCT). They will remain the mile-
stones for monitoring growth and ac-
tivity because the tower count is readi-
ly available.
The ATCT at KOA is not a 24-hour
tower, so the count is not all-inclusive
of operations at the airport. Certain
elements of the planning analyses,
however, require that all the airport
activity be considered. For these
evaluations, it is necessary to estimate
and adjust for operations that occur
when the tower is closed.
3-3
The ATCT hours are from 6:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. daily. The passenger air-
line and air cargo operations were de-
rived from the landing reports of the
airlines and do not need to be ad-
justed. The other operations were ad-
justed by three percent to account for
operations that occur overnight while
the tower is closed. This is based upon
estimates from ATCT personnel. Ta-
ble 3B outlines the adjusted opera-
tions.
TABLE 3B
Adjusted Aircraft Operations
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Intermediate
Term
Long
Term
Airline
Air Cargo
Other Air Taxi
General Aviation
Itinerant
Local
Military
37,436
4,372
9,424
18,890
56,290
19,883
39,800
4,700
16,000
31,900
91,700
30,000
41,400
5,100
18,500
37,100
104,000
30,000
45,800
6,100
24,700
49,400
138,000
30,000
Total Adjusted Operations 146,295 214,100 236,100 294,000
Aircraft operations adjusted to account for those that occur overnight when ATCT is not in opera-
tion.
PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS
Airport capacity and facility needs
analyses typically relate to the level of
activity during a peak or design pe-
riod. The periods used in developing
the capacity analyses and facility re-
quirements in this study are as fol-
lows:
Peak Month - The calendar
month in which traffic activity is
highest.
Average Day Peak Month
(ADPM) - The average day in the
peak month. This indicator is easi-
ly derived by dividing the peak
month activity by the number of
days in the month.
Design Day - The busy day of a
typical week in the peak month.
This descriptor is used by the Ha-
waii Department of Transportation
Airports Division (DOT-A) for ter-
minal facilities planning. It is also
used to determine general aviation
transient ramp parking require-
ments.
Design Hour - The busiest hour
within the design day or busy day.
It is important to note that only the
peak month is an absolute peak within
a given year. All other peak periods
will be exceeded at various times dur-
ing the year. However, they do
represent reasonable planning stan-
dards that can be applied without
overbuilding or being too restrictive.
3-4
Airline Peak Periods
The summer months are typically the
busiest time for airline activity at Ha-
waii airports, and Kona International
Airport at Keahole is no exception.
Each year, DOT-A prepares a snap-
shot of peaking activity for each of the
five major commercial service airports
in the state. Titled Gate Utilization
Survey, the report provides a look at
overseas and interisland aircraft and
passenger activity on a typical busy
day during the peak season. The day
used in this analysis was August 18,
2006. The following discussion of
peaking factors for passengers and air-
line operations is primarily based
upon this survey.
Peak Passenger Activity
The peak month overseas passenger
demand at KOA is typically 11.0 per-
cent of the annual passengers. The
peak month for interisland traffic av-
erages 9.6 percent of the annual inte-
risland passengers. The DOT-A has
established the design day as 1.12
times the ADPM as its statistical ref-
erence for facilities planning.
Hourly passenger activity is examined
as a percentage of the daily activity.
This can be greatly affected by the
number of flights and the aircraft
seats available during the design
hour. According to the Gate Utiliza-
tion Survey, the design hour for arriv-
ing (deplaning) passengers began at
10:34 a.m. and accounted for 19.6 per-
cent of the daily arrivals. The design
hour for departing (enplaning) pas-
sengers began at 12:28 p.m. and ac-
counted for 16.7 percent of the daily
departures. Table 3C outlines the
peak activity passengers forecast for
each of the planning horizons.
Peak Airline Operations
As with passengers, airline operations
also are highest during the summer
months. The peak month is typically
9.7 percent of the annual airline oper-
ations.
On August 18, 2006, KOA had 58 daily
flights, spread throughout the day.
These included 48 interisland flights
and 12 overseas flights (one of which
was an international arrival). The
peak for departures was eight begin-
ning at 12:28 p.m. The peak for arriv-
als was seven, beginning at 10:34 a.m.
The peak hour for total operations (ar-
rivals and departures) was 12 and oc-
curred twice in the day; the first be-
ginning at 11:48 a.m., and the second
at 4:40 p.m. Table 3D outlines the
peak airline operations forecast for
each of the planning horizons.
3-5
TABLE 3C
Peak Passenger Activity Characteristics
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Intermediate
Term
Long
Term
ANNUAL
Total Passengers (includes transits) 3,033,212 3,472,000 3,819,000 4,721,000
Enplaned Passengers (Departures)
Overseas
Interisland
Total Enplaned
497,060
1,025,378
1,522,438
628,000
1,098,000
1,726,000
753,000
1,138,000
1,891,000
1,077,000
1,251,000
2,328,000
Deplaned Passengers (Arrivals)
Overseas (includes international)
Interisland
Total Deplaned
International Arrivals
520,969
958,941
1,479,910
69,650
653,000
1,055,000
1,708,000
91,000
768,000
1,115,000
1,883,000
108,000
1,078,000
1,251,000
2,329,000
151,000
PEAK MONTH
Enplaned Passengers (Departures)
Overseas
Interisland
Total Enplaned
59,828
98,094
157,922
69,100
105,400
174,500
82,800
109,200
192,000
118,600
120,100
238,700
Deplaned Passengers (Arrivals)
Overseas
Interisland
Total Deplaned
International Arrivals
61,750
92,739
154,489
7,303
71,800
101,300
173,100
9,100
84,500
107,000
191,500
10,800
118,500
120,100
238,600
15,100
DESIGN DAY
Enplaned Passengers (Departures)
Overseas
Interisland
Total Enplaned
2,162
3,544
5,706
2,497
3,808
6,305
2,991
3,945
6,937
4,285
4,339
8,314
Deplaned Passengers (Arrivals)
Overseas
Interisland
Total Deplaned
International Arrivals
2,231
3,351
5,582
264
2,594
3,660
6,254
329
3,053
3,866
6,919
390
4,281
4,339
8,620
546
DESIGN HOUR
Enplaned Passengers (Departures)
Overseas
Interisland
Total Enplaned
614
439
953
709
472
1,053
850
489
1,158
1,217
538
1,440
Deplaned Passengers (Arrivals)
Overseas
Interisland
Total Deplaned
International Arrivals
738
486
1,094
240
859
531
1,226
329
1,011
561
1,356
350
1,417
629
1,690
450
3-6
TABLE 3D
Airline Operations Peak Activity Forecasts
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Intermediate
Term
Long
Term
ANNUAL
Operations
Overseas
Interisland
Total Operations
6,770
30,666
37,436
8,000
31,800
39,800
9,000
32,400
41,400
11,900
33,900
45,800
Departures
Overseas
Interisland
Total Departures
3,385
15,333
18,718
4,000
15,900
19,900
4,500
16,200
20,700
5,950
16,950
22,900
PEAK MONTH
Operations
Overseas
Interisland
Total Operations
704
2,924
3,628
832
3,022
3,854
936
3,078
4,014
1,238
3,222
4,460
Departures
Overseas
Interisland
Total Departures
352
1,462
1,814
416
1,511
1,888
468
1,540
2,008
619
1,612
2,231
DESIGN DAY
Operations
Overseas
Interisland
Total Operations
24
98
122
30
102
132
32
104
136
44
110
154
Departures
Overseas
Interisland
Total Departures
12
49
61
15
51
66
16
52
68
22
55
77
DESIGN HOUR
Departures
Overseas
Interisland
Total Departures
3
5
8
4
5
9
4
5
9
6
6
10
Arrivals
Overseas
Interisland
Total Arrivals
4
5
7
5
5
8
5
5
8
7
6
9
Combined Operations
Arrivals/Departures
12
14
14
16
Itinerant General Aviation/
Other Air Taxi Peaks
The peak month for general aviation
and other air taxi itinerant operations
at KOA is typically March or August.
In the five years from 2002 through
2006, the peak month averaged 9.9
percent of the annual general avia-
tion/air taxi itinerant operations.
3-7
Daily operational counts from the
ATCT were utilized to determine a de-
sign day factor for itinerant general
aviation/other air taxi activity. Dur-
ing the peak month in 2006, the peak
day of each week averaged 18.7 per-
cent of the operations for the week.
This equates to a design day factor of
1.31 times higher than the average
day of the peak month.
The design hour for itinerant opera-
tions was determined from ATCT
hourly counts during a week in the
middle of August 2006. The design
hour averages 15 percent of the daily
itinerant operations. This percentage
is expected to slowly decrease as oper-
ations increase and peaks spread.
Table 3E summarizes the peak activi-
ty projections for each planning hori-
zon.
TABLE 3E
Air Taxi and Itinerant General Aviation Operational Peaks
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Base
Year
(2006)
Short Term Intermediate
Term Long Term
AIR TAXI
Annual
Peak Month
Design Day
Design Hour
9,116
1,003
42
8
15,500
1,705
72
14
18,000
1,980
84
17
24,000
2,640
112
22
ITINERANT GENERAL AVIATION
Annual
Peak Month
Design Day
Design Hour
18,340
1,816
77
12
31,000
3,069
130
19
36,000
3,564
151
22
48,000
4,752
201
29
Total Operations Peak Periods
The peaking characteristics of total
aircraft operations are utilized in ex-
amining the operational capacity of
the airfield. The peak month for total
operations averaged 9.7 percent over
the five years between 2002 and 2006.
The peak month is typically during
the summer months.
Design hour operations were deter-
mined from the ATCT hourly data to
average 13.3 percent of the daily oper-
ations. This can be expected to decline
slightly as activity increases. Table
3F also summarizes the peak activity
projections for total operations over
the planning horizons.
3-8
TABLE 3F
Total Operations Peak
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Intermediate
Term
Long
Term
Annual 143,218 210,000 231,500 287,900
Peak Month 14,379 20,400 22,500 27,900
ADPM* 464 658 726 900
Design Hour 62 86 94 115
*Average Day of the Peak Month
AIRFIELD CAPACITY
Airfield capacity is measured in a va-
riety of different ways. The hourly
capacity measures the maximum
number of aircraft operations that can
take place in an hour. The annual
service volume (ASV) is an annual
level of service that may be used to de-
fine airfield capacity needs. Aircraft
delay is the total delay incurred by
aircraft using the airfield during a
given timeframe. FAA Advisory Circu-
lar 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and
Delay, provides a methodology for ex-
amining the operational capacity of an
airfield for planning purposes. This
analysis takes into account specific
factors about the airfield. These vari-
ous factors are depicted in Exhibit
3A. The following describes the input
factors as they relate to Kona Interna-
tional Airport at Keahole:
Runway Configuration – KOA
operates in a single runway confi-
guration (Runway 17-35) with a
full-length parallel taxiway. The
instrument landing system (ILS)
on Runway 17 provides instrument
approach capabilities down to a
half-mile visibility. Runway 35 has
minimums down to one-mile visi-
bility.
Runway Use – Runway 17 is used
for 70 percent of the airport’s oper-
ations.
Exit Taxiways - Based upon mix,
taxiways located between 3,500
and 6,500 feet from the landing
threshold count in the exit rating
for each runway. There are cur-
rently two exits available within
this range for each runway. There-
fore, the exit rating is two in each
direction.
Weather Conditions – Visual
meteorological conditions (VMC)
are defined as conditions when
cloud ceilings are 1,000 feet or
above and/or visibility is at least
three statute miles. Instrument
meteorological conditions (IMC) oc-
cur when cloud ceilings are be-
tween 500 and 1,000 feet and visi-
bility is between one and three sta-
tute miles. Poor visibility condi-
tions (PVC) apply for minimums
below 500 feet and one mile.
Weather data indicates that KOA
is in VMC over 99 percent of the
AIRFIELD LAYOUT
WEATHER CONDITIONS
OPERATIONS
AIRCRAFT MIX
A&BA&B
Single Piston
Twin PistonSmall Turboprop
Commuter
Commerical JetRegional Jet
Business Jet
Wide Body JetDD
JFMAMJJASOND
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
VMC PVCIMC
Touch-and-Go
Operations
Arrivals and
Departures
Total Annual
Operations
Number of ExitsRunway Configuration Runway Use
CC
06
M
P
0
6
-
3
A
-
6
/
2
2
/
0
7
AIRFIELD CAPACITY FACTORS Exhibit 3A
3-9
time. The minimal amount of in-
strument weather makes it almost
inconsequential to the capacity
analysis.
Aircraft Mix - Descriptions of the
classifications and the percentage
mix for each planning horizon are
presented in Table 3G.
Percent Arrivals - Generally fol-
lows the typical 50-50 percent split.
Touch-and-Go Activity - Percen-
tages of touch-and-go activity are
presented in Table 3G.
Operational Levels - Operational
planning horizons were outlined in
the previous section of this chapter.
The peak month averages 9.7 per-
cent of the year. The peak hour
averages 13.0 percent of the opera-
tions in a day.
TABLE 3G
Aircraft Operational Mix – Capacity Analysis
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Aircraft
Classification
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Intermediate
Term
Long
Term
VMC
Classes A & B
Class C
Class D
57.3%
36.1%
6.5%
60.5%
28.4%
11.2%
62.3%
27.3%
10.4%
61.9%
27.6%
10.5%
IMC
Classes A & B
Class C
Class D
24.6%
67.5%
7.8%
31.0%
60.3%
8.7%
25.3%
63.3%
11.3%
35.4%
54.4%
10.1%
Touch-and-Go’s 39.4% 44.0% 44.0% 44.6%
Definitions:
Class A: Small single-engine aircraft with gross weight of 12,500 pounds or less.
Class B: Small twin-engine aircraft with gross weight of 12,500 pounds or less.
Class C: Large aircraft with gross weights over 12,500 pounds up to 300,000 pounds.
Class D: Large aircraft with gross weights over 300,000 pounds.
HOURLY RUNWAY CAPACITY
Based upon the input factors, current
and future hourly capacities for the
various operational scenarios at KOA
were determined. The base year and
future hourly capacities are depicted
in Table 3H. The base year hourly
capacity was 71 operations. This ca-
pacity is expected to grow slightly as
the mix and touch-and-go factors do
not change dramatically. This will be
reached before the short term plan-
ning horizon milestone. The long term
design hour operations of 115 will ex-
ceed the hourly capacity by 58 percent.
3-10
TABLE 3H
Airfield Demand/Capacity Summary
Kona International Airport at Keahole
PLANNING HORIZON
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Intermediate
Term
Long
Term
Operational Demand
Annual (Adjusted)
Design Hour
143,218
62
214,100
86
236,100
94
294,000
115
Capacity
Annual Service Volume
Weighted Hourly Capacity
168,000
71
179,000
72
180,000
72
186,000
73
Delay
Per Operation (Minutes)
Total Annual (Hours)
1.8
4,300
9.5
33,300
12.8
49,200
19.5
93,600
ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME
The weighted hourly capacity is util-
ized to determine the annual service
volume in the following equation:
ASV = C x D x H
C = weighted hourly capacity;
D = ratio of annual demand to the
average daily demand during
the peak month; and
H = ratio of average daily demand to
the design hour demand during
the peak month.
The ratio of annual demand to average
daily demand (D) at KOA was deter-
mined to remain relatively constant in
the future at 320. The ratio of average
daily demand to average peak hour
demand (H) was determined to be 7.67
in 2006. This ratio will grow to 7.99
over the long term as peaks spread
slightly with increased operations.
The 2006 ASV was determined to be
168,000 operations. The changes in
the daily and hourly demand ratios
result in an increase in the ASV as ac-
tivity increases. The ASV for the long
term was calculated to be 186,000.
Annual operations for the long term
planning horizon are 294,000, which
would be 158 percent of the airport’s
ASV. Table 3H and Exhibit 3B
summarize and compare the airport’s
ASV and projected annual operations
over the planning horizons.
AIRCRAFT DELAY
As the number of annual aircraft op-
erations approaches the airfield's ca-
pacity, increasing amounts of delay to
aircraft operations begin to occur. De-
lays occur to arriving and departing
aircraft in all weather conditions. Ar-
riving aircraft delays result in aircraft
holding outside of the airport traffic
area. Departing aircraft delays result
in aircraft holding at the runway end
until released by air traffic control.
06
M
P
0
6
-
3
B
-
9
/
2
0
/
0
7
AIRFIELD DEMAND VS. CAPACITY Exhibit 3B
100
EXCEEDS ASV
AN
N
U
A
L
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
(
i
n
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
150
200
300
250
50
Long
Term
Intermediate
Term
Short
Term
Current
ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME
146,295
168,000168,000
179,000179,000
1111111161111611111116
236,100236,100
000000
222
11
214,100214,100
146,295
214,100
294,000294,000294,000
PLANNING HORIZON DEMAND LEVELS
3-11
Table 3H summarizes the aircraft de-
lay analysis conducted for Kona Inter-
national Airport at Keahole. The de-
lay per operation represents an aver-
age delay per aircraft. It should be
noted that delays of five to ten times
the average could be experienced by
individual aircraft during peak pe-
riods. In the base year of 2006, total
annual aircraft delay was 4,300 hours.
As an airport's operations increase to-
ward the annual service volume, delay
increases exponentially. Analysis of
delay factors for the long term plan-
ning horizon indicates that annual de-
lay can be expected to exceed 20,000
hours in the short term if capacity im-
provements are not implemented.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
CONCLUSIONS
Exhibit 3B compares annual service
volume to existing and forecast opera-
tional levels at KOA. The 2006 opera-
tions level equated to 87 percent of the
airfield’s annual service volume. The
ASV will essentially be reached by the
short term planning horizon. By the
long term planning horizon, total an-
nual operations are expected to
represent 158 percent of annual ser-
vice volume.
FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formula-
tion of the National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems (NPIAS), indicates
that improvements for airfield capaci-
ty purposes should begin to be consid-
ered once operations reach 60 to 75
percent of the annual service volume.
KOA has already surpassed this
range. Therefore, planning efforts
should be considering airfield capacity
improvements beginning in the short
term.
CRITICAL AIRCRAFT
The selection of appropriate FAA de-
sign standards for the development
and location of airport facilities is
based primarily upon the characteris-
tics of the aircraft which use, or are
expected to use, the airport. The criti-
cal design aircraft is defined as the
most demanding category of aircraft,
or family of aircraft, which conducts at
least 500 operations per year at the
airport. Planning for future aircraft
use is of particular importance since
design standards are used to plan sep-
aration distances between facilities.
These future standards must be con-
sidered now to ensure that short term
development does not preclude the
long range potential needs of the air-
port.
The FAA has established a coding sys-
tem to relate airport design criteria to
the operational and physical charac-
teristics of aircraft expected to use the
airport. This airport reference code
(ARC) has two components. The first
component, depicted by a letter, is the
aircraft approach category and relates
to aircraft approach speed (operational
characteristic); the second component,
depicted by a Roman numeral, is the
airplane design group and relates to
aircraft wingspan (physical character-
istic). Generally, aircraft approach
speed applies to runways and runway-
related facilities, while airplane
wingspan primarily relates to separa-
tion criteria involving taxiways, taxi-
lanes, and landside facilities.
3-12
According to FAA Advisory Circular
(AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design, an
aircraft's approach category is based
upon 1.3 times its stall speed in land-
ing configuration at that aircraft's
maximum certificated weight. The
five approach categories used in air-
port planning are as follows:
Category A: Speed less than 91 knots.
Category B: Speed 91 knots or more,
but less than 121 knots.
Category C: Speed 121 knots or more,
but less than 141 knots.
Category D: Speed 141 knots or more,
but less than 166 knots.
Category E: Speed greater than 166
knots.
The airplane design group (ADG) is
based upon the aircraft’s wingspan.
The six ADGs used in airport planning
are as follows:
Group I: Up to but not including 49
feet.
Group II: 49 feet up to but not in-
cluding 79 feet.
Group III: 79 feet up to but not in-
cluding 118 feet.
Group IV: 118 feet up to but not in-
cluding 171 feet.
Group V: 171 feet up to but not in-
cluding 214 feet.
Group VI: 214 feet or greater.
Exhibit 3C summarizes representa-
tive aircraft by ARC.
At commercial service airports such as
KOA, the critical aircraft typically
come from the passenger or cargo air-
line fleets. While the large majority of
airline operations are by narrow-body
commercial jets flying interisland
routes within ARC C-III, wide-body
aircraft conduct well over 500 annual
operations at the airport. In 2006, op-
erations by commercial aircraft in
ARC D-V conducted 1,256 operations
at KOA to qualify as the current criti-
cal ARC. These included passenger
operations by Boeing 747 and 777 air-
craft as well as cargo operations by
Boeing 747 aircraft. Thus, the base
year airport reference code for
Kona International Airport at
Keahole is ARC D-V.
Larger aircraft are now entering the
global commercial service fleet. The
largest is the Airbus A380-800 super
jumbo freighters. This aircraft has a
payload capacity of 330,000 pounds
and wingspan of 261.8 feet. The A380-
800 and the Boeing 747-8 are both in
ARC D-VI. The initial deliveries of
these aircraft are now in service.
These aircraft are expected to be used
primarily on international routes.
Honolulu International Airport is be-
ing planned to ARC D-VI. KOA has
been approved as an alternate landing
site for the A380. For planning
purposes, it is recommended that
the airfield continue to be
planned to accommodate at least
ARC D-V, but consider the design
ramifications necessary to ac-
commodate ARC D-VI aircraft in
the future.
• Beech Baron 55
• Beech Bonanza
• Cessna 150
• Cessna 172
• Cessna Citation
Mustang
• Eclipse 500
• Piper Archer
• Piper Seneca
• ERJ-170, 190
• Boeing Business Jet
• B727-200
• B737-300 Series
• MD-80, DC-9
• Fokker 70, 100
• A319, A320
• Gulfstream V
• Global Express
• B757
• B767
• B787
• C-130
• DC-8-70
• DC-10
• MD-11
• B747 Series
• B777
• A380-800
Note: Aircraft pictured is identified in bold type.
• Beech 400
• Lear 25, 31, 35, 45,
55, 60
• Israeli Westwind
• HS 125-400, 700
• Cessna Citation III,
VI, VIII, X
• Gulfstream II, III, IV
• Canadair 600
• ERJ-135, 140, 145
• CRJ-200, 700, 900
• Embraer Regional Jet
• Lockheed JetStar
• Super King Air 350
A-I
B-I less than 12,500 lbs.
less than 12,500 lbs.B-II
• Super King Air 300
• Beech 1900
• Jetstream 31
• Falcon 10, 20, 50
• Falcon 200, 900
• Citation II, III, IV, V
• Saab 340
• Embraer 120
C-IV, D-IV
C-III, D-III
C-I, D-I
C-II, D-II
D-V, D-VI
B-I, B-II over 12,500 lbs.
• Beech Baron 58
• Beech King Air 100
• Cessna 402
• Cessna 421
• Piper Navajo
• Piper Cheyenne
• Swearingen Metroliner
• Cessna Citation I
B-I
A-III, B-III • DHC Dash 7
• DHC Dash 8
• DC-3
• Convair 580
• Fairchild F-27
• ATR 72
• ATP
less than 12,500 lbs.
• Super King Air 200
• Cessna 441
• DHC Twin Otter
06
M
P
0
6
-
3
C
-
6
/
2
2
/
0
7
AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES Exhibit 3C
3-13
AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS
The analyses of the operational capac-
ity and the critical design aircraft are
used to determine airfield needs. This
includes runway configuration, dimen-
sional standards, pavement strength,
as well as navigational aids, lighting,
and marking.
RUNWAY CONFIGURATION
Key considerations in the runway con-
figuration of an airport involve the
orientation for wind coverage and the
operational capacity of the runway
system. FAA Advisory Circular
150/5300-13, Change 1, Airport De-
sign, recommends that a crosswind
runway should be made available
when the primary runway orientation
provides less than 95 percent wind
coverage for any aircraft forecast to
use the airport on a regular basis.
The 95 percent wind coverage is com-
puted on the basis of the crosswind
component not exceeding 10.5 knots
(12 mph) for ARC A-I and B-I; 13
knots (15 mph) for ARC A-II and B-II;
and 16 knots (18 mph) for ARC A-III,
B-III, and C-I through D-II; and 20
knots (23 mph) for ARC C-III through
D-IV.
A wind rose is a tool used to calculate
the wind coverage of an airport. The
all-weather wind rose for Kona Inter-
national Airport at Keahole is pre-
sented on Exhibit 3D. The orienta-
tion of Runway 17-35 provides 97.3
percent coverage for 10.5 knot cross-
winds, and 98.8 percent coverage for
13 knot crosswinds. Coverage for the
higher design crosswinds is over 99.9
percent. Thus, the single runway
orientation available at KOA provides
adequate wind coverage for all aircraft
types.
According to FAA Order 5090.3C,
Field Formulation of the National
Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
(NPIAS), capacity development should
be recommended when activity ap-
proaches the 60 percent level. This is
an approximate level to begin the de-
tailed planning of capacity improve-
ments. Actual implementation may be
deferred until such time that the im-
provement is considered timely and
cost-beneficial. The earlier airfield
capacity analysis indicated that, in
2006, the airfield was already operat-
ing at 88 percent of its annual service
volume and will reach its ASV by the
short term planning horizon. Consid-
eration for capacity improvements
should be considered in the near term.
Examples of potential capacity im-
provements that may be considered in
the alternatives analysis include addi-
tional taxiway exits and/or a parallel
runway. The high number of helicop-
ter operations suggests that an inde-
pendently operational helicopter
touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) area
should also be considered.
While a parallel runway is a means to
increase capacity, a second runway to
provide back-up capability is an im-
portant factor to the DOT-A and com-
mercial service on the islands. KOA
is the only one of Hawaii’s five small
hub or larger airports that does not
have a second runway available.
Kona International Airport at Keahole
is being considered as a site for a new
3-14
C-17 Globemaster II pilot proficiency
training runway. Such a runway
would allow the current fleet of C-17s
based at Hickam Air Force Base (AFB)
to certify pilots locally rather than in-
cur high expenses of flying to and
training at facilities on the U.S. main-
land.
A new Kona Auxiliary Training Run-
way (KATR) would be utilized to certi-
fy air crews of C-17s (and potentially
other USAF aircraft) operating mili-
tary cargo aircraft into short or aus-
tere landing strips.
RUNWAY DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
Runway dimensional standards in-
clude the length and width of the
runway, as well as the dimensions as-
sociated with runway safety areas and
other clearances. These requirements
are based upon the design aircraft, or
group of aircraft. The runway length
must consider the performance char-
acteristics of individual aircraft types,
while the other dimensional standards
are generally based upon the most
critical airport reference code expected
to use the runway. The dimensional
standards are outlined for the plan-
ning period for the primary runway,
as well as for a potential parallel run-
way, to meet future capacity demand.
Runway Length
The aircraft performance capability is
a key factor in determining the run-
way length needed for takeoff and
landing. The performance capability
and, subsequently, the runway length
requirement of a given aircraft type
can be affected by the elevation of the
airport, the air temperature, the gra-
dient of the runway, and the operating
weight of the aircraft. Aircraft per-
formance declines as each of these fac-
tors increase.
The airport elevation at Kona Interna-
tional Airport at Keahole is 47.1 feet
above mean sea level (MSL). The
temperature commonly used for de-
sign is the mean maximum daily tem-
perature during the hottest month.
According to the National Climatic
Data Center, that is 86.9 degrees
Fahrenheit (F) at KOA during the
month of August. The change in ele-
vation (gradient) varies by 10 feet
along the runway (0.09 percent gra-
dient). This information is utilized in
the following runway length analyses.
The airport should have the capability
to handle the most demanding aircraft
with regards to runway length. Thus,
the following discussion considers the
most demanding runway length re-
quirements now and in the future.
The aircraft load is dependent upon
the payload of passengers and/or car-
go, plus the amount of fuel it has on
board. For departures, the amount of
fuel varies depending upon the length
of non-stop flight or trip length. As of
June 2007, the longest daily non-stop
commercial flights were to Chicago
(4,208 miles) and Narita, Japan (3,976
miles). The Chicago flight is by a Boe-
ing 777-200 aircraft. The Narita flight
is listed as a Boeing 767, but landing
reports over the past year indicate
3-15
that a Boeing 747 is sometimes substi-
tuted on this flight.
Table 3J outlines the runway length
requirements at maximum takeoff
weight (MTOW) for key passenger and
cargo commercial jets at KOA’s design
temperature and airport elevation.
The still air (zero wind) range in naut-
ical miles is also given for each air-
craft listed. The available runway
length of 11,000 feet meets the exist-
ing needs of the commercial passenger
and cargo aircraft. The present length
of 11,000 feet would be adequate for
the newer A380-800 and B747-8 jumbo
jets.
TABLE 3J
Ultimate Takeoff Length Requirements
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Aircraft MTOW Length (ft.) Still Air Range (nm)
B767-300 8,800 4,675
B767-300ER 10,300 6,105
B767-400ER 12,500 5,645
B777-200 9,800 5,210
B777-200ER 11,500 7,730
B777-300ER 12,400 8,258
B747-400 11,500 4,260
B747-400ER 12,600 7,670
B747-400F 11,700 4,445
B747-8 11,200 8,000
B747-8F 11,200 4,475
A380-800 10,800 8,000
A380-800F 10,800 6,500
MTOW –Maximum Takeoff Weight
Design Criteria: Elevation – 47.1 ft. MSL; Temperature – 86.9F; Gradient – 0.09%
As is evident from the table, however,
additional runway length would be
necessary to accommodate the maxi-
mum range of several of the long
range wide body aircraft. The maxi-
mum length required would be 12,600
feet for the B747-400ER to fly its max-
imum range of 7,670 miles. A future
need for this range by this particular
aircraft is not foreseen. To ensure
viability for the future, however, an
ultimate runway length of 12,000 feet
could be planned. Such an extension
would not be developed until such
time it could be justified as expressly
seeded on a regular basis by one or
more operators.
Table 3K outlines the runway length
requirements for various groupings of
general aviation aircraft. It is evident
that the current runway length is
more than adequate to accommodate
100 percent of the business jet fleet at
90 percent useful load. Business jet
aircraft weighing over 60,000 pounds
have a range of more than 5,000 naut-
ical miles from the current runway.
3-16
The capacity analysis earlier in this
chapter suggests planning for a future
parallel runway. To serve a sufficient
back-up to the existing runway, the
parallel runway should ultimately be
planned to at least the 11,000-foot
length. This would maintain uninter-
rupted service whenever the primary
runway is temporarily shut down for
any reason. An interim length suffi-
cient for at least a portion of the gen-
eral aviation aircraft would provide
capacity relief. While the parallel
runway has been and should continue
to be planned for an ultimate length of
11,000 feet, an initial length of 4,200
feet would accommodate small general
aviation and air taxi aircraft weighing
12,500 pounds or less. A minimum
length of 5,000 feet is required for in-
terisland cargo aviation. An interim
length of 7,000 feet would accommo-
date most interisland commercial and
general aviation flights.
TABLE 3K
General Aviation Runway Length Analysis
Kona International Airport at Keahole
AIRPORT AND RUNWAY DATA
Airport elevation .................................................................................................................................. 47.1 feet
Mean daily maximum temperature ........................................................................................................ 86.9 F
Maximum different in runway centerline elevation ............................................................................. 10 feet
Length of haul for airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds ............................................................ 5,000 miles
Wet and slippery runways
RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN
Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats
75 percent of these small airplanes .......................................................................................... 2,500 feet
95 percent of these small airplanes .......................................................................................... 3,100 feet
100 percent of these small airplanes .......................................................................................... 3,600 feet
Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats ............................................................................ 4,200 feet
Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less 75 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load................................................. 5,400 feet
75 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load................................................. 7,000 feet
100 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load................................................. 5,500 feet
100 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load................................................. 8,100 feet
Airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds ................................................................. Approximately 10,800 feet
Reference: Chapter 2 of AC 150/5325-4A, Runway Length Requirements for Airport
Design, no Changes included.
According to the Environmental As-
sessment prepared for the Department
of Defense in 2004, the KATR for the
C-17 is be planned to be 4,250 feet in
length with 300-foot paved overruns at
each end.
Runway Design Standards
Runway design standards define the
widths and clearances required to op-
timize safe operations in the landing
and takeoff area. These dimensional
standards can vary depending upon
the ARC for each runway. Table 3L
outlines key design standards for the
airport reference codes most applica-
ble to Kona International Airport at
Keahole presently and in the future.
As indicated earlier, the ARC for the
airport is currently D-V. An initial
parallel general aviation runway
should consider ARC B-II standards.
As evidenced from the table, KOA
meets or exceeds all D-V design stan-
3-17
dards with the exception of the paral-
lel taxiway to taxilane separation.
These are currently adequate because
of the limited operations by D-V air-
craft. Adequate D-V separation, how-
ever, should be considered in future
terminal and apron planning.
While D-V is expected to remain as
the ARC for KOA in the future, ARC
D-VI standards are also listed in the
table for comparison. These design
standards would need to be addressed
if the airport were to ever accommo-
date the A380-800 and the B747-8.
Critical standards that would need to
be addressed for the A380 are widen-
ing the runway to 200 feet and the
taxiways to 100 feet. If use is occa-
sional as an alternate service location,
the runway would not need to be wid-
ened. A taxiway route for the large
aircraft, however, would still need to
be addressed. In addition, taxiway fil-
lets would have to be addressed to ac-
commodate the wheel track of a turn-
ing aircraft. The taxiway/taxilane sep-
aration and the taxilane separation
from fixed or movable objects would
also have to be addressed.
TABLE 3L
Airfield Design Standards
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Airport Reference Code
Design Standard Existing Current D-V (ft.) Ultimate D-VI (ft.) Initial Parallel B-II (ft.)
RUNWAYS
Runway Length
Runway Width
11,000
150
11,000
150
12,000
200
4,200
75
Runway Shoulder Width 35 35 40 10
Runway Safety Area Width
Length Beyond End
500
1,000
500
1,000
500
1,000
150
300
Runway Object Free Area
Width
Length Beyond End
800
1,000
800
1,000
800
1,000
500
300
Runway Blast Pad
Width Length
200 200
220 400
280 400
95 150
Runway Centerline to: Holding Position
Parallel Taxiway Parallel Runway
280
881 NA
280
400 1,200
280
500 1,200
200
240 700
TAXIWAYS
Taxiway Width 75 75 100 35
Taxiway Centerline to: Fixed or Movable Object
Parallel Taxilane
193
215
160
267
193
324
66
105
Taxilane Centerline to:
Fixed or Movable Object
Parallel Taxilane
112
220
138
245
167
298
57.5
97
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES
Category I Inner Width
Length Outer Width
1,000
2,500 1,750
1,000
2,500 1,750
1,000
2,500 1,750
NA
NA NA
One mile visibility Inner Width
Length
Outer Width
500
1,700
1,010
500
1,700
1,010
500
1,700
1,010
500
1,000
700
3-18
PAVEMENT STRENGTH
The most important feature of airfield
pavement is its ability to withstand
repeated use by aircraft of significant
weight. At Kona International Airport
at Keahole, pavement must be able to
support multiple operations of large
commercial and military jet aircraft on
a daily basis.
The current strength rating of the
runway is 750,000 pounds single
wheel loading (SWL), 200,000 dual
wheel loading (DWL), 400,000 pounds
dual tandem wheel loading (DTL), and
850,000 pounds double dual tandem
wheel loading (DDTL). The existing
pavement strengths of the runway are
adequate to accommodate these air-
craft.
A pavement design analysis will be
necessary to determine if additional
pavement strengthening will be re-
quired for regular operations by this
aircraft. The A380-800 has a maxi-
mum weight of up to 1.3 million
pounds on DDT gear. A pavement de-
sign analysis will be necessary to de-
termine if additional pavement
strengthening would be required for
regular operations by this aircraft.
An initial parallel general aviation
runway would need to be designed to
at least 12,500 pounds single wheel
gear. Pavement strength would in-
crease depending upon the design air-
craft for further development of the
parallel runway.
TAXIWAYS
Taxiways are primarily constructed to
facilitate aircraft movements to and
from the runway system. Parallel
taxiways greatly enhance airfield ca-
pacity and are essential to aircraft
movement on the ground. Some tax-
iways are necessary simply to provide
access to apron and terminal areas,
while others are designed to facilitate
the movement of aircraft to and from
the runways. As activity increases,
additional taxiways become necessary
to provide for safe and efficient use of
the airfield. The taxiway system at
KOA consists of a full-length parallel
taxiway long the east side of the run-
way, exit taxiways, and access taxi-
ways connecting the airfield to the
various terminal and general aviation
ramps. A partial parallel taxilane also
aids with circulation near the ramps.
Parallel Taxiway A maintains an 881-
foot centerline separation from Run-
way 17-35 along the entire length of
the runway. Besides the exits at each
end, there are two right-angle exits
(Taxiways G and H) and one angled
exit (Taxiway C) along the length of
the runway. The angled exit is most
suitable for use by aircraft arriving on
Runway 17.
Ideally, each runway should be
planned with full-length parallel taxi-
ways on the same side as the landside
interface facilities. Since the landside
facilities are all located on the east
side of the airfield, the current loca-
3-19
tion is adequate. If a parallel runway
is developed, a second parallel taxiway
should be considered to provide circu-
lation and access along it.
As the landside facilities develop and
traffic increases, a dual parallel taxi-
way system may need to be considered
along the east side of Runway 17-35 to
enhance circulation.
Exit taxiways provide a means to en-
ter and exit the runways at various
points on the airfield. The type and
number of exit taxiways can have a
direct impact on the capacity and effi-
ciency of the airport as a whole. As
indicated earlier in the capacity anal-
ysis, the runway’s exit rating is two in
both directions of traffic flow, with
four being the optimum. For example,
the first exit taxiway is approximately
4,700 feet from the runway threshold
in both directions. An additional exit
approximately 1,000 feet closer to the
threshold would permit many landing
propeller aircraft to exit the runway
sooner.
High speed exits provide a means for
aircraft to clear the runway at higher
speeds, thus reducing runway occu-
pancy time. This is especially advan-
tageous for higher performance air-
craft that approach at greater speeds,
and then must slow to 10 to 15 miles
per hour to exit at a right angle exit.
Depending upon its design, a high
speed exit can allow the aircraft to exit
the runway at speeds as high as 60
miles per hour.
Locations for high speed exits to ac-
commodate Categories C and D air-
craft were calculated for KOA’s aver-
age temperature and elevation. Based
upon the ICAO standard deceleration
rate of 4.1 feet per second per second,
the optimum exit locations were de-
termined to be at 5,700 feet for Ap-
proach Category C aircraft and 7,600
feet for Approach Category D. Cur-
rently, the only high speed exit avail-
able is Taxiway C, which is located
approximately 9,000 feet from the
Runway 17 threshold. The potential
locations and efficiency of additional
exits will be considered in Chapter
Four - Alternatives.
Holding aprons and bypass taxiways
can also improve the efficiency of the
taxiway system. Each runway end
has a holding apron available. They
are only large enough to store no more
than two aircraft larger than Group IV
due to insufficient wingtip clearances.
The same should be considered with
the development of a parallel runway.
HELICOPTER TOUCHDOWN
AND LIFTOFF AREA (HELIPORT)
The airport does not have a designated
heliport. There are designated heli-
copter parking areas on the south
general aviation ramp. Itinerant heli-
copters utilize the same runway pro-
cedures as fixed-wing aircraft. Heli-
copter training operations use areas at
the north and south ends of the paral-
lel taxiway, but these are not specifi-
cally marked or truly independent
from other airfield operations. Heli-
copter and fixed-wing aircraft should
be segregated to the greatest extent
possible.
Facility planning should include es-
tablishing a designated helicopter
3-20
landing and takeoff area or heliport on
the airport. The heliport facilities
should be planned with up to three in-
dependent touchdown and lift-off
areas (TLOFs), each with access to
helicopter parking, hangars, and a
passenger terminal facility. These
landside needs are discussed later in
the chapter.
At a minimum, an area for segregation
of training touch-and-go’s and auto-
rotations is needed. A training strip
1,500 feet long and between 50 and
300 feet wide should be planned.
NAVIGATIONAL AIDS
AND INSTRUMENT
APPROACH PROCEDURES
Navigational Aids
Navigational aids are electronic de-
vices that transmit radio frequencies
which properly equipped aircraft and pilots translate into point-to-point
guidance and position information. The types of electronic navigational
aids available for aircraft flying to or from Kona International Airport at
Keahole include the very high fre-quency omnidirectional range/distance
measuring equipment (VOR/DME) fa-cility, global positioning system (GPS),
area navigation (RNAV), and for the
military, tactical air navigation (TACAN). These systems are suffi-
cient for navigation to and from the airport; therefore, no other naviga-
tional aids are needed at the airport.
The VOR and TACAN are FAA and DOD facilities that are currently co-
located off-site south of the airport.
For security reasons, the FAA is con-
sidering relocating the facility to air-
port property. This is being coordi-
nated with this Master Plan.
GPS was developed and deployed by the United States Department of De-
fense as a dual-use (civil and military) radio navigation system. GPS initially
provided two levels of service: the GPS
standard positioning system (SPS), which supported civil GPS uses; and
the GPS precise positioning system (PPS), which was restricted to U.S.
Armed Forces, U.S. federal agencies and selected allied armed forces, and
government use.
The differences in GPS signals have
been eliminated and civil users now
access the same signal integrity as
federal agencies. A GPS moderniza-
tion effort is underway by the FAA
and focuses on augmenting the GPS
signal to satisfy requirements for ac-
curacy, coverage, availability, and in-
tegrity.
For civil aviation use, this includes the
continued development of the Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS),
which was initially launched in 2003.
The WAAS uses a system of reference
stations to correct signals from the
GPS satellites for improved navigation
and approach capabilities. Where the
present GPS provides for enroute nav-
igation and limited instrument ap-
proach (nonprecision) capabilities,
WAAS provides for approaches with
both course and vertical navigation.
This capability was historically only
provided by an instrument landing
system (ILS), which requires extensive
on-airport facilities.
The WAAS upgrades are expected to
allow for the development of ap-
3-21
proaches to most airports with cloud
ceilings as low as 200 feet above the
ground and visibilities restricted to ½
mile, after 2015. KOA should plan for
this potential at least in the long term.
Instrument Approach Procedures
Instrument approach procedures have
been established for the airport using
GPS, RNAV, VOR/DME, TACAN, as
well as the instrument landing system
(ILS). The ability to access the airport
using different navigational aids al-
lows the most flexibility for aircraft
operators, by not requiring that they
have a specific navigational aid on
board to access the airport. This also
provides significant levels of redun-
dancy should a primary navigational
aid fail.
A Category I ILS approach is available
to Runway 17. The Category I ap-
proach provides for landing when the
cloud ceilings are as low as 200 feet
above the ground and visibility is re-
stricted to ½-mile.
An RNAV approach with a GPS over-
lay is available to each runway end.
GPS approaches are currently catego-
rized as to whether they provide only
lateral (course) guidance or a combi-
nation of lateral and vertical (descent)
guidance. An approach procedure
with vertical navigation guidance
(VNAV) GPS approach provides both
course and descent guidance. A later-
al navigation approach (LNAV) ap-
proach only provides course guidance.
Both runways have VNAV and LNAV
available.
In the future as WAAS is upgraded,
precision approaches similar in capa-
bility to the existing ILS will become
available. These approaches are cur-
rently categorized as the Global Navi-
gation Satellite System (GNSS) Land-
ing System (GLS). A GLS approach
may be able to provide for approaches
with ½ mile visibility and 200-foot
cloud ceilings. A GLS would supple-
ment the existing ILS approach to the
Runway 17. A GLS should be planned
for Runway 35 as well. A GLS ap-
proach requires an approach lighting
system that is already available for
the Runway 17 end, and would be
needed for Runway 35.
The initial parallel runway can be de-
veloped as a visual runway. The par-
allel runway should ultimately have at
least non-precision GPS instrument
capability to serve as a back-up to the
primary runway.
LIGHTING AND MARKING
Currently, there are a number of light-
ing and pavement marking aids serv-
ing pilots using KOA. These lighting
systems and marking aids assist pilots
in locating the airport at night or in
poor weather conditions, and assist in
the ground movement of aircraft.
Identification Lighting
The airport is equipped with a rotat-
ing beacon to assist pilots in locating
the airport at night. The existing ro-
tating beacon is located on top of the
airport traffic control tower. The
3-22
rotating beacon is sufficient and
should be maintained through the
planning. It is required for the airport
to maintain its certification for sche-
duled airline activity. The FAA is relo-
cating the control tower in 2012, and
the rotating beacon will be relocated to
the top of the new tower.
Runway and Taxiway Lighting
Runway 17-35 is equipped with high
intensity runway lights (HIRL). The
runway is also equipped with thresh-
old lights, which indicate the location
of the runway threshold at night.
These lighting aids are required to
maintain the ILS approach to Runway
17.
Any future parallel runway should be
equipped with medium intensity run-
way lights (MIRL) to allow nighttime
and instrument operations.
Effective ground movement of aircraft
at night and during instrument condi-
tions can be enhanced by taxiway
lighting. Currently, all airfield taxi-
ways are equipped with medium in-
tensity taxiway lights (MITL). An up-
grade to an LED system could be con-
sidered to reduce maintenance and
energy costs.
KOA is equipped with pilot-controlled
lighting (PCL). PCL allows pilots to
activate the HIRL and MITL from
dusk to dawn using the radio trans-
mitter in the aircraft. This system
should be maintained through the
planning period.
Airfield Signs
Lighted airfield signage currently con-
forms with FAR Part 139 standards.
Lighted directional and hold signs are
installed at the airport. This signage
identifies runways, taxiways, and
apron areas. These aid pilots in de-
termining their position on the airport
and provide directions to their desired
location on the airport.
The runway is also equipped with dis-
tance remaining signs. These lighted
signs are placed in 1,000-foot incre-
ments along the runway to notify pi-
lots of the length of runway remaining
and should be maintained in the fu-
ture.
This airfield signage is sufficient and
should be maintained through the
planning period, and included with
any future parallel runway develop-
ment.
Visual Approach Lighting
The landing phase of most flights to
the airport must be conducted visual-
ly. Visual glide slope indicators pro-
vide visual descent guidance informa-
tion during approach. There are two
forms of these aids that have been
regularly installed by the FAA at air-
ports. They include precision approach
path indicators (PAPI) and visual ap-
proach path indicators (VASI). PAPI-
4’s are in use at KOA, and should be
planned for the parallel runway as
well.
3-23
Approach Lighting
Approach lighting systems consist of a
configuration of signal lights extend-
ing into the approach area from the
runway threshold to aid pilots transi-
tioning from instrument flight to visu-
al flight and landing. A medium in-
tensity approach lighting system with
runway alignment indicator lights
(MALSR) is installed on the Runway
17 end to assist pilots in landing dur-
ing inclement weather conditions. A
similar lighting system would be
needed on Runway 35 to support a fu-
ture GLS approach.
Runway End
Identification Lighting
Runway end identification lighting
provides the pilot with rapid and posi-
tive identification of the runway end.
The most basic system involves run-
way end identifier lights (REILs). As
REILs provide pilots with the ability
to identify the runway ends and dis-
tinguish the runway end lighting from
other lighting on the airport and in
the approach areas. There are cur-
rently no REILs in service at KOA.
REILs are typically not needed when
another approach lighting system is in
operation. REILs may be considered
for any future parallel runway.
Pavement Markings
Pavement markings are designed ac-
cording to the type of instrument ap-
proach available on the runway. FAA
AC 150/5340-1H, Markings of Paved
Areas on Airports, provides the guid-
ance necessary to design an airport’s
markings. The Runway 17 and 35
ends are equipped with precision run-
way markings. A future parallel run-
way should be equipped with nonpre-
cision runway markings.
Taxiway and apron areas also require
marking to assure that aircraft re-
main on the pavement. Yellow center-
line stripes and taxiway edge mark-
ings are currently painted on all taxi-
way and apron surfaces at the airport
to provide this guidance to pilots. Be-
sides routine maintenance, these
markings will be sufficient through
the planning period.
WEATHER REPORTING
Kona International Airport at Keahole
is equipped with an Automated Sur-
face Observation System (ASOS). The
ASOS provides automated aviation
weather observations 24 hours-a-day.
The system updates weather observa-
tions every minute, continuously re-
porting significant weather changes as
they occur. The ASOS reports cloud
ceiling, visibility, temperature, dew
point, wind direction, wind speed, al-
timeter setting (barometric pressure),
and density altitude (airfield elevation
corrected for temperature). This sys-
tem is essential for aircraft operations
and should be maintained through the
planning period.
The airport is equipped with three
lighted wind cones providing visual
wind direction and speed information
to pilots. The wind cones are near
each runway end as well as with the
segmented circle near midfield. These
3-24
wind cones are required for the air-
port’s certification and should be
maintained through the planning pe-
riod.
A segmented circle identifies the prop-
er landing pattern for each runway.
This segmented circle is required for
the airport’s certification and should
be maintained through the planning
period.
AIRPORT TRAFFIC
CONTROL TOWER
The existing airport traffic control
tower (ATCT) is located on the east
side of the airfield, south of the ter-
minal building and north of the air-
craft rescue and firefighting facility.
The current wood structure is old and
out of date. The cab height is not suf-
ficient to provide line-of-sight for all
airfield operating areas. A northern
section of Taxiway A, a small portion
of Taxiway G, and much of the ter-
minal apron are not visible from the
tower. The FAA began construction of
a new ATCT at KOA in 2010. Comple-
tion and commissioning is scheduled
for 2012. This has been coordinated
with this Master Plan.
An airport traffic control beacon inter-
rogator (ATCBI-5) is located on the
airport. The FAA owned and operated
ATCBI-5 is a long-range radar used in
enroute air traffic control. The radar
will be maintained by the FAA
through the planning period. Up-
grades to this system will be the re-
sponsibility of the FAA.
The ATCBI-5 has a critical area en-
compassing a 1,500-foot radius around
the facility. Objects within this radius
should be at or below the elevation of
the radar, or 159 feet above mean sea
level (MSL).
PASSENGER TERMINAL
COMPLEX REQUIREMENTS
Requirements for the passenger ter-
minal complex include aircraft gate
positions, terminal building facilities,
access and parking. This section iden-
tifies the facilities required to meet
the airport’s terminal complex needs
through the planning horizons. The
review of the capacity and require-
ments for various terminal complex
functional areas was performed with
the guidance of FAA Advisory Circular
150/5360-13, Planning and Design
Guidelines for Airport Terminal Facil-
ities, the TSA Recommended Security
Guidelines for Airport Planning, De-
sign and Construction, and IATA Level
of Service Standards.
TERMINAL GATE ANALYSIS
Gate Capacity and Utilization
Currently, the airport is divided into
two separate air terminals: North and
South. Both have five gates for a total
of 10 gates at the airport. In the base
year of 2006, the North Terminal was
served by United Airlines, Aloha Air-
lines, US Airways, Delta Airlines, Go!,
and Japan Airlines (JAL). There is an
aircraft mix of wide-body, narrow-
3-25
body, and regional jets serving this
concourse. The South Terminal was
served by American Airlines, Ha-
waiian Airlines, Northwest Airlines,
Delta, and Island Air.
In comparison, the South Terminal
served fewer wide-body flights. This
accounts for the higher passenger traf-
fic levels at the North Terminal. Ac-
cording to the August 18, 2006, flight
schedule, there were a total of seven
wide-body flights at the North Ter-
minal and four at the South Terminal.
Exhibit 3E presents the gate occu-
pancy based upon the August 18, 2006
flight schedule.
In order to calculate the average gate
utilization at the airport, dwell times
were averaged for the four major air-
craft types from the design day flight
schedule: large wide-body, wide-body,
narrow-body, and regional jets. Ap-
plying these dwell times to the num-
ber of aircraft types per gate and di-
viding by the airport operating hours
provides the average utilization per
gate.
The average gate utilization for both
North and South Terminals was 30
percent. It is important to note that
the total gate usage was 32 hours for
the North Terminal and 21 hours for
the South Terminal. This further in-
dicates that one terminal has been
used more heavily than the other, re-
sulting in the disproportionate de-
mands. When a new carrier enters
the airport or an existing airline in-
creases flights, a rebalancing of gate
utilization should be considered.
Aircraft Gate
Position Requirements
According to the airline operations
forecast in the previous chapter, the
airport can expect a gradual decline in
service from narrow-body aircraft and
growth in regional jets and wide-body
aircraft. The aircraft gates require-
ments are calculated based on the cur-
rent and forecast design day peak
hour operations. The average dwell
times as determined from the 2006 de-
sign day flight schedule were 30 mi-
nutes for regional jets, 30 minutes for
narrow-body, 150 minutes for wide-
body, and 90 minutes for large wide-
body. Gate requirements are based on
peak hour operations, so dwell times
greater than 60 minutes were as-
sumed to require one gate for the full
hour.
Industry standard dwell times were
used for future gate requirements in
order to optimize the use of existing
facilities. The requirements are also
based on peak hour operations and
fleet mix forecasts. Finally, the base
year gate utilization factor of 30 per-
cent was applied to determine the
number of gates required to accommo-
date the projected operations at the
same activity level as in the current
base schedule. There are 10 aircraft
gates available, with five at each ter-
minal.
Based on this utilization factor, the
resulting base year requirements were
12 gates, short term is 12 gates, in-
termediate is 12 gates, and long range
is 14 gates. There has been joint
usage on some, but not all, gates. If
3-26
joint usage continues, utilization can
be increased, thereby requiring fewer
gates. Table 3M presents the aircraft
gate position requirements.
TABLE 3M
Aircraft Gate Position Requirements
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Demand Level
Dwell
Minutes
2006
Optimized
Dwell Time
Short
Term
Inter.
Term
Long
Term
Annual Aircraft Operations 37,436 38,986 40,554 44,824
Peak Month Operations 3,628 3,776 3,932 4,364
Design Day Operations 122 128 134 148
Aircraft Gates
Peak Hour Operations 12 13 14 16
Average Gate Utilization 30% 30% 30% 30%
Large Wide-body (B747,B777) 60 0 60 1 1 1
Wide-body (B757,B767) 60 3 45 3 3 4
Narrow-body (B717,B737) 30 5 30 5 5 6
Regional Jets (CRJ) 30 3 25 3 3 4
Total Gates 12 12 12 14
TERMINAL BUILDING
CAPACITY
The facility requirements determina-
tion for the passenger terminal begins
with a demand-capacity analysis of
existing facilities. This analyzes the
current capacity of key processing
areas and compares that to the pas-
senger demand at the airport. The
purpose of the analysis is to quantify
and qualify the level that the existing
terminal facilities satisfy the current
demand of the traveling public at Ko-
na International Airport at Keahole.
The objectives of this analysis are as
follows:
Quantify the levels of activity re-
lated to the combined capacity of
the individual passenger
processing elements of the termi-
nal.
Determine what additional facili-
ties would be required to optimize
passenger processing by balancing
the flow of the processing with the
efficiency of space utilization.
Analyze the terminal building to
identify physical conditions that
may currently exist, or are likely to
develop with increased demand,
that will compromise functional ef-
ficiency. In addition, existing va-
cant space and area for expansion
are identified.
Provide the planning team with a
comprehensive understanding of
the existing terminal facilities as
the basis to optimize the facilities
and to develop alternatives for
meeting future needs at KOA.
With the demand capacity analysis
serving as a basis, the terminal facili-
ties requirements quantify and qualify
the facilities that would be required to
accommodate the forecast demand.
The terminal facilities requirements
also serve as a base for the develop-
ment of alternatives.
717
737
747
- Boeing 717
- Boeing 737
- Boeing 747
757
767
777
- Boeing 757
- Boeing 767
- Boeing 777
CRJ
DH8/Q400
- Canadair Regional Jet
- De Havilland Dash-8
LEGEND
Source: Gate Utilization Survey, August 18, 2006; Hawaii DOT-Airports Division
Note: Aloha Airlines ceased all operations March 31, 2008
AirlineGate
NORTH TERMINAL
1
2
3
4
5
5C
TIME (hours)
TIME (hours)
UNITED
UNITED
747747767
767 777
737
757
737 737 737737737737737737 737737737 737737737 737737737 737737737 737737737 737737737 737737737
737737737 737737737
CRJCRJCRJCRJCRJCRJ CRJCRJCRJ CRJCRJCRJ CRJCRJCRJ CRJCRJCRJ CRJCRJCRJ CRJCRJCRJCRJCRJCRJCRJCRJCRJ
757
737
757757757 757757757
767 (moves to gate 8)767 (moves to gate 8)767 (moves to gate 8)
757
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223
AIRCRAFT KEY
Aircraft Departure Aircraft Arrival Aircraft at Gate
AirlineGate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223
06
M
P
0
6
-
3
E
-
1
/
2
9
/
0
9
TERMINAL GATE OCCUPANCY Exhibit 3E
SOUTH TERMINAL
6
7
8
9
DH8DH8DH8
DH8DH8DH8
DH8DH8DH8 DH8DH8DH8 DH8DH8DH8Q400Q400Q400Q400Q400Q400 Q400Q400Q400Q400Q400Q400
757 757
717
717717717 717717717 717717717 717717717 717717717 717717717 717717717 717717717 717717717 717717717717717717 717717717 717717717
757
767 (moves from gate 1)767 (moves from gate 1)767 (moves from gate 1)
American
Airlines
NORTHWEST
AIRLINES
DELTA
DELTA
3-27
Methodology
A spreadsheet model is the tool used
for accomplishing the terminal de-
mand-capacity analysis. The model is
based on industry standards and is
calibrated specifically to represent this
terminal and its operations. The
physical aspects of the terminal, in-
cluding numbers of processing units
and function areas for all processing
and support spaces, were derived from
Chapter One - Inventory.
The demand input used for the model
is based on the peak hour of the Au-
gust 18, 2006 flight schedule. The op-
erational input for processing of pas-
sengers is derived from observations,
airport staff, and other tenants. Cal-
culations are based on the standard
queuing theory, which simply stated
is: passengers arriving minus passen-
gers processed equals passengers in
queue.
The evaluation of individual
processing elements is based on indus-
try standards and formulas. Computer
simulations are not employed in these
evaluations. Building information
modeling (BIM), however, has been
integrated as a planning tool into this
master plan methodology.
The existing airport terminal and its
individual facilities have been mod-
eled in a 3D virtual model. Each facili-
ty (such as ticket lobbies, security
checkpoints, etc.) has been modeled as
a separate object with attributes at-
tached that contain information rele-
vant to this study, such as area, vol-
ume, cost estimates, passenger de-
mand, and applicable facility
processing information. In this chap-
ter, the model is linked to the spread-
sheets to provide the necessary infor-
mation for the demand capacity eval-
uation. In the next chapter, alterna-
tives that fulfill the facility require-
ments will be evaluated utilizing the
BIM.
The spreadsheet model used to deter-
mine the terminal facilities require-
ments is an extension of the demand-
capacity analysis model. The former
utilizes the same industry standards
that include service goals, functional
space standards, and operational pa-
rameters.
The terminal facilities requirements
are based on the forecasts that have
been developed for three future plan-
ning horizon activity levels. Calibra-
tions for operational processing utilize
on-site observed and measured rates
for the base year demand-capacity
analysis. However, industry standards
and anticipated calibrations due to in-
dustry changes have been included in
the facility requirements calculations
in order to arrive at an optimized facil-
ity condition.
Passenger Demand
and Peak Hour
The current passenger demand was
derived from the August 2006 consoli-
dated flight schedule for the average
day of the peak month. August is con-
sidered part of the peak period of the
year and the flight schedule provides a
reasonable basis for design demand.
When this demand is coupled with a
level of service that is supportive, effi-
3-28
cient, and economical to functions of
the airport, appropriate requirements
for future facilities can be forecast.
The flight schedule is used to estimate
the total daily departing and arriving
passengers and to determine the daily
traffic pattern and peaking conditions
that produce the largest demands on
the facilities.
As indicated earlier, Kona Interna-
tional Airport at Keahole is essentially
comprised of two independently func-
tioning terminals. The North and
South Terminal each have their own
processing facilities, including a ticket
lobby, security checkpoint, concourse,
and baggage claim. Since the aircraft
and airlines serving each terminal are
different, the passenger demand on
each side will also be different. Thus,
to effectively evaluate the capacity of
the facilities, it was necessary to de-
termine the passenger demand on
each terminal separately.
Based on the flight schedule for de-
parting flights, the North Terminal
has experienced more aircraft opera-
tions and more passenger demand
than the South Terminal. From the
2006 flight schedule, it was deter-
mined that the North Terminal ser-
viced the majority of the larger wide-
body aircraft for overseas flights oper-
ated by United, US Airways, Delta
and JAL. The total passenger de-
mand, including departures and ar-
rivals on the design day, was 6,366 at
the North Terminal.
In contrast, the South Terminal han-
dled 4,517 on the design day. Since
Japan Airlines arriving passengers
are processed in the separate Customs
Border Protection (CBP) facility (for-
merly U.S. Immigrations and Cus-
toms), that arrivals demand has been
separated from the above figures. The
passenger arrival demand for this dai-
ly flight was 237 passengers. Table
3N outlines the passenger demand by
terminal.
TABLE 3N
Passenger Demand Analysis
Kona International Airport at Keahole
North
Terminal
%
South
Terminal
%
CBP
Facility
%
Totals
Departing Passengers
Design Day 3,283 58% 2,419 42% N/A N/A 5,702
Arriving Passengers
Design Day 3,083 57% 2,098 39% 237 4% 5,418
Total Passengers 6,366 57% 4,517 41% 237 2% 11,120
*Based on August 2006 flight schedule
As shown in the table, there was a
significant difference in the passenger
demand handled by the two terminals.
The North Terminal handled 58 per-
cent of the departing passenger de-
mand compared to 42 percent in the
South Terminal. While four percent of
the arriving passengers were
processed through the Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) facility, 57
3-29
percent were handled in the North
Terminal, and 39 percent in the South
Terminal. Overall, the North Termi-
nal processed 57 percent and the
South Terminal 41 percent of the total
passenger demand.
These proportions were applied to the
passenger peak hour demand forecasts
in order to establish a baseline for e-
valuating the requirements of individ-
ual facilities within the North and
South Terminals. As explained later
in this chapter, the facility require-
ments were determined based on the
scenario that the airport will continue
to operate as two separate terminals
throughout the future planning hori-
zons as established by the forecasts.
This assumption serves as a baseline
to allow for further analysis and eval-
uation of the need to merge whole or
specific facility components of the air-
port.
The peaking conditions that are im-
portant to the evaluation of the ter-
minal are: arrivals peak hour, depar-
tures peak hour, and the combined
peak hour. The peak hour demand is
derived from the flight schedule and is
basically defined as the number of
passengers utilizing the airport within
a one-hour period. Each peak places
demands on the various functions and
different areas within the terminal.
The peaks are also expressed as num-
bers of passengers as well as aircraft
operations.
Departures Peak Hour - The depar-
tures peak hour occurred from 12:30
p.m. to 1:30 p.m. and consisted of
eight total flights. The flights were
split evenly between the two termi-
nals. The flights that occurred in the
North Terminal were serviced by
United, Aloha, and Go! Airlines. The
two United flights during this peak
hour were wide-body aircraft with
overseas destinations. The flights
that occurred in the South Terminal
were serviced by American, Hawaiian,
and Island Air. The one American
flight was a wide-body aircraft with an
overseas destination. By applying the
terminal demand proportions as ex-
plained above, the departures peak
hour for the North Terminal was 553
passengers, and 400 passengers for
the South Terminal.
Arrivals Peak Hour - The arrivals
peak hour occurred from 10:30 a.m. to
11:30 a.m. and consisted of seven
flights. Four of those flights occurred
in the North Terminal and were oper-
ated by United and Aloha. Two of the
United flights were by wide-body air-
craft. The other three flights occurred
in the South Terminal and were oper-
ated by American and Hawaiian. The
American flight was a wide-body air-
craft. By applying the terminal de-
mand proportions as explained above,
the arrivals peak hour for the North
Terminal was 656 passengers, and 438
passengers for the South Terminal.
Combined Peak Hour - The com-
bined peak hour occurred from 2:30
p.m. to 3:30 p.m. and consisted of 13
departing flights. These flights were
operated by United, Delta, Island Air,
Go!, Aloha, and Hawaiian. The com-
bined departures and arrivals peak
hour demand was 1,247 passengers.
Table 3P presents the base year pas-
senger demand as well as the demand
3-30
for the three planning horizons. The
demand and forecast have been de-
termined for both the North and South
Terminals individually according to
the proportions shown above.
Demand-Capacity Factors
Passenger Profiles - The passenger
demand is accommodated in various
ways. For example, the departing pas-
sengers may or may not have baggage
and may check in for a flight in the
ticketing lobby or remotely with e-
tickets. As such, the number of options
for processing passengers and the per-
centage of passengers exercising each
option are determined by the passen-
ger profiles. A basic profile that con-
siders all possible inputs was devel-
oped to represent departing and arriv-
ing passengers at the airport. The pro-
files also include the ratio of well-
wishers and greeters who accompany
the passengers. Table 3Q presents
the passenger profiles for KOA.
TABLE 3P
Passenger Demand
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Intermediate
Term
Long
Term
NORTH TERMINAL
Departing
Annual
Design Hour (Ticket Lobby)
Design Hour (Hold room)
Design Hour (Mainland)
Design Hour (Interisland)
883,014
553
553
356
255
1,001,080
611
611
411
274
1,096,780
672
672
493
284
1,350,820
835
835
706
312
Arriving
Annual
Design Hour
887,946
656
1,024,800
736
1,129,800
814
1,396,800
1,013
Total Passengers
Annual
Design Hour (Ticket Lobby)
Design Hour (Hold room)
Peak 20 Min.
1,770,960
1,209
1,209
617
2,025,880
1,347
1,347
660
2,226,580
1,486
1,486
730
2,747,620
1,848
1,848
900
SOUTH TERMINAL
Departing
Annual
Design Hour (South Ticket Lobby)
Design Hour (Central Ticket Lobby)
Design Hour (Hold room)
Design Hour (Mainland)
Design Hour (Interisland)
639,424
338
62
400
258
184
724,920
373
69
442
298
198
794,220
411
76
487
357
205
978,180
511
94
605
511
226
Arriving
Annual
Design Hour
591,964
438
683,200
490
753,200
542
931,200
676
Total Passengers
Annual
Design Day
Design Hour
1,231,388
4,441
838
1,408,120
4,830
932
1,547,420
5,300
1,029
1,909,380
6,540
1,281
CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION
Arriving
Design Hour (International)
237
329
350
450
3-31
TABLE 3Q
Peak Hour Passenger Demand Profile
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Factor
%
2006
Factor
%
Short
Term
Factor
%
Inter.
Term
Factor
%
Long
Term
NORTH TERMINAL
Departing Passengers
Curbside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Counter/Kiosk
Check-in
90
498
80
489
75
504
70
585
Remote Check-in 10 55 20 122 25 168 30 251
Subtotal 100 553 100 611 100 672 100 835
Arriving Passengers
Claiming 90 590 90 662 90 733 90 912
Bypass Claim 10 66 10 74 10 81 10 101
Subtotal 100 656 100 736 100 814 100 1,013
Well-wishers 20 111 20 122 20 134 20 167
Greeters 20 131 20 147 20 163 20 203
SOUTH TERMINAL
Departing Passengers
Curbside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Counter/Kiosk
Check-in
90
360
80
298
75
308
70
358
Remote Check-in 10 40 20 75 25 103 30 153
Subtotal 100 400 100 373 100 411 100 511
Arriving Passengers
Claiming 90 394 90 441 90 488 90 608
Bypass Claim 10 44 10 49 10 54 10 68
Subtotal 100 438 100 490 100 542 100 676
Well-wishers 20 80 20 75 20 82 20 102
Greeters 20 88 20 98 20 108 20 135
Processing Parameters - The
processing parameters consist mostly
of transaction times for the processing
of passengers for departing or arriving
flights. Some of these functions, like
baggage claim, are dependent on the
time it takes to process an entire air-
craft load of passengers. Table 3R
provides a list of the parameters that
determine the number of processing
facilities required for the peak condi-
tions of the design day.
Space Standards - The space stan-
dards are a dimensional requirement
that represent the elements of the
terminal or are determined to be de-
sirable alternatives to existing dimen-
sions. For example, the depth of the
baggage claim lobby may be inade-
quate and a larger depth may be speci-
fied as optimal to be added in the fu-
ture. Table 3R outlines the facilities
input variables used in the analysis.
3-32
TABLE 3R
Terminal Facilities Input Variables
(Service Levels, Space Standards, and Processing Rates)
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Function/Facility
Standard
Units
Space Project
Factor
Optimized
Future
Factor
Description/Comments North South
Terminal Design
Activity Level
85% 85% The processing level established
for balanced operations for the
peak hour average day peak month
(% of total capacity)
Departures Processing
Agricultural Check
Inspection Rate Pax/Hour Pax/ Hr 200 200 Pax checked through Agricultural check per hour per x-ray unit.
% of Mainland People
checking bags
% 0.80 0.80
Ticket Counters
Ticketing Utilization
Level (TUF)
% 0.85 0.66 1.00 Percentage of Counter positions
used during the peak hour peak
period.
% of Peak Hour
Demand
% Pk.Hr. 50 50 % of total Peak Hour Passengers
demand in Peak Period
Domestic/Mainland
Ticketing rate
Min/ Pax 1.3 1.3 Average agent ck-in or ticketing
rate for transaction
International
Ticketing rate
Min/ Pax n/a 1.3 Average agent ck-in or ticketing
rate for transaction
Frontage / Agent
Position
Ft. 5.3 5.3 3'-6" Desk Positions with half of 3'-
6" bag well
Depth Ticket Counter Ft. 11 11 Includes counter depth, standing
work area and circulation behind
North/South Ticket Lobby (Queueing)
Domestic/Mainland
Service Goal Min.
Min 15.0 15.0 Maximum average waiting time for
passenger in queue.
International Service
Goal Min.
Min n/a 15.0 Maximum average waiting time for
passenger in queue.
Outbound Baggage Depth Ft. 68 107 Average Depth of baggage han-dling space
Queuing Area /
Person
Ft2 16.1 16.1 Level Of Service C+
Queuing Area Depth Ft. 24.3 24.3
Airline Ticket Office
Depth
Ft. 43 29 Average Depth of ATO space
Ticket Lobby
circulation
Ft. 22.0 20.5
Central Ticket Lobby (Queueing)
Domestic/Mainland
Service Goal Min.
Min n/a 15.0 Maximum average waiting time for
passenger in queue.
Outbound Baggage
Depth
Ft. n/a 0 Average Depth of baggage han-
dling space
Queuing Area /
Person
Ft2 n/a 16.1 Level Of Service C+
Queuing Area Depth Ft. n/a 18.1
Airline Ticket Office
Depth
Ft. n/a 15 Average Depth of ATO space
Ticket Lobby
circulation
Ft. n/a 4.5
3-33
TABLE 3R (Continued)
Terminal Facilities Input Variables
(Service Levels, Space Standards, and Processing Rates)
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Function/Facility
Standard
Units
Space Project
Factor
Optimized
Future
Factor
Description/Comments North South
Public Area
Circulation area per
person
Ft2 116 349 Calculated from drawings
Security
Inspection Rate
Pax/Hour
Pax/ Hr 104 104 200 Pax checked through security per
hour per x-ray unit.
Security Service Goal
Minutes
Min 7 7 10 Maximum wait in queue
Security Station
Width
Ft. 11.5 11.5 12.5 Width of x-ray plus passing lane
with magnetometer
Security Station
Length
Ft. 24 24 Length of x-ray station input to
reclaim
Area/Station Ft2 277 277
Queuing Area / Pax Ft2 16.1 16.1 Level Of Service C+
ARRIVAL FACILITIES
Baggage Claim
Device Utilization
Factor (DUF)
% 50% 100% Percentage of the peak hour that
all devices are in use.
Checked Bags per
passenger
# 1.8 1.8 Average number of Checked bags
per Passenger.
Frontage/Bag Ft. 2.5 2.5 1.5 Average frontage for bags on claim
device.
% Total Bags
Displayed
% Pk.Hr. 30% 30% % of total Hourly bags displayed.
Flat Bed Device
Length
Ft. 52 53 Average for existing space from
drawings
Claim device Area Ft2 1,701 797 Calculated
Device frontage per
Flat Bed Device
Ft. 133 133 185 Existing = flat plate; Optimized =
sloped plate 185 lf
Claim Lobby
Claim Area Ft2/ Pax 18.3 18.3 IATA service level C+
Service Goal Minutes Minutes 20 20 Delivery cycle of single flight bags
to device
Public Area
Ticket Lobby
Circulation Length
Ft. 204.9 194.0 Calculated from drawings
Concourses
Passenger Holdrooms
Area S.F./ Occupant Ft2 14 14 Based on 60% seating @15sf, 40% standing @10sf + 10% for circ.
Airline Operations Ft2 500 500 Per peak hour departure (AC150-
5360-13)
Area allowance for
podiums & AC exit
Ft2 350 350 Per gate
Airline Clubrooms
Clubroom % of total
holdroom area
% 6 10 Percentage of total passengers us-
ing clubs
Holdrooms /
Clubroom
# 5 5 Ratio of gate to Club rooms
Average Clubroom
area
Ft2 525 825 Clubroom size
3-34
TABLE 3R (Continued)
Terminal Facilities Input Variables
(Service Levels, Space Standards, and Processing Rates)
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Function/Facility
Standard
Units
Space Project
Factor
Optimized
Future
Factor
Description/Comments North South
Concourse Circulation
Circulation length Ft2 132.2 132.0 Calculated from drawings
Public Spaces
Rest Rooms
Area per peak hour
passenger
Ft2 2,400 2,400 Area/ 500 peak hour pax (AC150-
5360-13 =1800, add for current
standard)
Distance between
restrooms
Ft. 312 312 To farthest restroom
Concessions 8.40 8.40 Area per 1,000 annual enplaned
passenger (inc, 15% support area)
Food and Beverage Ft2/K ann. 5.46 5.46 Area per 1,000 annual enplaned
passenger (inc, 15% support area)
Retail Ft2/K ann. 2.94 2.94 Area per 1,000 annual enplaned
passenger (inc, 15% support area)
Level of Service - Table 3S presents
the level of service standards used in
the capacity analysis. Levels of ser-
vice designations are of relevance to
the comfort and quality of the passen-
ger experience. One measurement of
level of service is the desired personal
space to be provided at peak passenger
occupancy during a queuing situation,
such as ticketing, baggage claim, or a
gathering place such as the hold room
and circulation areas.
Because of the large proportion of
tourist passengers with a high number
of checked and carry-on baggage, a
level of service C+ was selected as ap-
propriate for projections of the facili-
ties at Kona International Airport at
Keahole. This is slightly higher crite-
ria for determining demand than
standard planning practice, but is con-
sidered appropriate due to the nature
of the tourism and visitor industry
served by KOA.
Capacity Evaluation
Each of the processing functions was
evaluated using the inputs and de-
mand described above. Related
processing functions were evaluated in
the sequential experience by passen-
gers. Only those functions for which
user demand can be determined were
evaluated. Secondary facilities that
support processing were sized either
in proportion to the existing ratio, or
the ratio was altered to correct imbal-
ances. The demand-capacity evalua-
tions of related sequential functions
were averaged to indicate the overall
performance of the facilities. All facili-
ties were adjusted to process a bal-
anced capacity for the entire terminal.
A level of 85 percent of capacity was
set up as the design utilization factor
(DUF). This design level of activity is
chosen as a “trigger” to initiate design
3-35
and construction of new facilities. The
excess of 15 percent capacity allows
for continuing growth during the de-
sign and construction period until new
expanded facilities come on line.
TABLE 3S
Level of Service Standards (in square feet)
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Area per Occupant
Level of Service Standards A B C+ C C- D E F
Check-in Queue Area 19.4 17.2 16.1 15.1 14.0 12.9 10.8
System
Failure
Wait/Circulate 29.1 24.8 22.6 20.4 18.3 16.1 12.8
Hold Room 15.1 13.5 12.8 12.0 11.3 10.5 8.0
Bag Claim Area
(excludes claim device)
21.5
19.4
18.3
17.2
16.1
15.1
12.9
Federal Inspection Services 15.1 12.9 11.8 10.8 9.7 8.6 6.5
Legend
A. Excellent level of service; conditions of free flow; excellent level of comfort.
B. High level of service; condition of stable flow; very few delays; high level of comfort.
C. Good level of service; condition of stable flow; acceptable delays; good level of comfort.
D. Adequate level of service; condition of unstable flow; acceptable delays for short periods of time; adequate
level of comfort
E. Inadequate level of service; condition of unstable flow; unacceptable delays; inadequate levels of comfort
F. Unacceptable levels service; conditions of cross flows, system breakdown and unacceptable delays; unaccept-
able levels of comfort
Departure Processing Evaluation
Table 3T summarizes the demand ca-
pacity analysis for departure
processing at the North and South
Terminals. The following paragraphs
discuss each of the components of de-
parture processing.
USDA Agricultural Check – All
passengers departing to the mainland
are required to have bags inspected by
the United States Department of Agri-
culture (USDA) prior to checking them
to their destination. The ratio of de-
parting mainland passengers during
peak hour demand that would check
their bags is 80 percent. Floor area
calculations and agent positions are
based on existing facilities. The capac-
ity of the current facility was based on
the existing number of stations and
the passenger processing rate for a one
hour period.
The USDA agricultural check stations
at the North Terminal were found to
be operating at 142 percent capacity in
2006. The South Terminal stations
were operating at 52 percent capacity.
The extreme difference is due to the
fact that there are two USDA agricul-
tural check stations at the South Ter-
minal, but only one at the North Ter-
minal even though passenger demand
is higher.
Ticket Counters – The percentage of
the departing passenger peak hour
demand that would check in at the
ticket lobby is 90 percent. The re-
maining 10 percent account for pas-
sengers that would have checked in on
the web prior to arriving at the air-
port. Active ticket agent positions,
frontage, workspace floor area, and
vacant counters are based on existing
facilities.
3-36
TABLE 3T Existing Demand Capacity Analysis – Processing Facilities
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Facility Title
Units
Existing
2006
Existing
Processing
Capacity
Existing
% of
Capacity
Cap.
Inc.
(Dec.)
2006
Required
Facilities
Required
Facilities at
85% DUF
NORTH TERMINAL
Planning Activity Level 1,770,960
Departures Processing (peak hour demand)
Agricultural Check
(pre-security)
Pax
285
200
142%
85
285
170
Number of Stations # 1 1 1 1
Area of Queuing Ft2 317 216 535 319
Ticket Counters Pax 498 667 75% 498 567
Agent Positions (Active) # 17 (2) 13 14
Frontage Ft. 110 (9) 67 76
Area Ft2 1,269 (99) 713 812
Vacant Counter # 3
Ticket Lobby Pax 553 551 100% 553 469
Queuing Area Ft2 2,219 340 2,226 1,886
Outbound Baggage Ft2 12,389 947 6,206 5,259
Airline Ticket Office Ft2 4,419 601 3,939 3,338
Ticket Lobby Circulation Ft2 2,111 307 2,015 1,708
Public Area Pax. 664 821 81% 664 698
Ticket Lobby Public Circ. Ft2 3,058 (128) 2,472 2,600
Security Station Pax 553 208 266% 553 177
Number of Stations # 2 4 5 2
Area of Queuing Ft2 1,256 707 1,039 332
Average Utilization
(% of Capacity)
%
133%
Area Total Ft2 27,040 19,143 16,254
SOUTH TERMINAL
Planning Activity Level 1,231,388
Departures Processing (peak hour demand)
Agricultural Check
(pre-security)
Pax
206
400
52%
85%
206
340
Number of Stations # 2 (1) 1 2
Area of Queuing Ft2 415 (251) 388 639
Ticket Counters Pax 360 777 46% 360 660
Agent Positions (Active) # 26 (10) 12 22
Frontage Ft. 189 (52) 62 114
Area Ft2 2,939 (554) 664 1,218
Vacant Counter # 4
South Ticket Lobby Pax 338 544 62% 333 463
Queuing Area Ft2 2,191 (502) 1,360 1,863
Outbound Baggage Ft2 15,212 (2211) 5,990 8,202
Airline Ticket Office Ft2 3,597 (599) 1,624 2,223
Ticket Lobby Circulation Ft2 1,750 (424) 1,148 1,571
Central Ticket Lobby Pax 62 355 17% 62 302
Queuing Area Ft2 1,429 (965) 250 1,214
Outbound Baggage Ft2 0 0 0 0
Airline Ticket Office Ft2 375 (800) 207 1,006
Ticket Lobby Circulation Ft2 361 (240) 62 302
Public Area Pax. 418 654 64% 418 556
Ticket Lobby Public Circ. Ft2 9,634 (2033) 6,155 8,189
Security Station Pax 394 208 189% 394 177
Number of Stations # 2 2 4 2
Area of Queuing Ft2 1,119 419 751 332
Average Utilization
(% of Capacity)
%
72%
Area Total Ft2 39,023 18,599 26,758
3-37
The capacity of the ticket counters was
calculated using the passenger
processing rate derived from observa-
tion averages. The capacity was also
based on the ticketing utilization fac-
tor which represents the percentage of
counter positions used during the peak
period. The ticket counters were oper-
ating at 75 percent of capacity at the
North Terminal and 46 percent of ca-
pacity at the South Terminal.
Ticket Lobby – The adequacy of the
ticket lobby floor area was evaluated
to determine whether base year de-
mands result in an acceptable level of
service. The ticket lobby demand in-
cluded a percentage of well-wishers in
addition to the passengers. Industry
standards assume that some passen-
gers enter the queuing area with their
family or friends for assistance. The
evaluation was based on a service goal
of a 15-minute maximum wait in
queue, and a Level of Service C+ of 16
square feet per person in queue with
baggage.
There are three separate locations of
ticket lobbies at KOA: one at the
North Terminal, one at the South
Terminal, and another central location
behind the Onizuka Space Center.
The peak hour demand on each of the
ticket lobbies was determined and the
ticket lobby space was evaluated. The
North Terminal ticket lobby was oper-
ating at 100 percent capacity, the
South Terminal ticket lobby at 62 per-
cent, and the central ticket lobby was
operating at 17 percent.
Baggage Security Screening – The
current state of the outbound baggage
screening system includes explosive
detection systems that are located
within the ticket lobby at the North
and South Terminals and adjacent to
the ticket lobby at the North Termi-
nal. Baggage screening at the Ameri-
can Airlines counters is accomplished
by electronic trace detection (ETD)
screening. Locating baggage screen-
ing within the ticket lobbies poses
problems of passenger congestion
since there are already queues asso-
ciated with agricultural check for
overseas baggage and ticketing.
Public Areas – The public areas are
the spaces in front of ticketing, the se-
curity checkpoint, and the baggage
claim area that are utilized by depart-
ing and arriving passengers for circu-
lation space, as well as by meet-
ers/greeters and well-wishers. This
area also includes seating space
around the planters. Therefore, the
demand is based on the combined
peak hour passenger numbers, and
the capacity is based on the level of
service standard for circulation space
and the rate of passengers leaving the
space.
It was determined that the public area
at the North Terminal was operating
at 81 percent of capacity and the
South Terminal at 64 percent. This is
consistent with observations of the
space, confirming that during com-
bined peak times there is sufficient
space relative to the level of service.
Passenger Security Screening –
Based upon on-site observations, the
average processing rate at the security
checkpoint is 104 passengers per hour.
With two stations at each terminal,
the capacity is 208 passengers per
hour at both the North and South
Terminals. It was calculated that the
3-38
security checkpoints at both the North
and South Terminals were operating
at 266 percent and 192 percent capaci-
ty respectively. The required queuing
area for the checkpoint was deter-
mined based on 10 minutes as the
TSA standard waiting time service
goal and an area of 16 square feet per
person at a level of service C+. This is
in keeping with observations of the
space, validating that the areas for
queuing at both terminals are insuffi-
cient for the current demand level dur-
ing peak times.
Arrival Processing Evaluation
Table 3U summarizes the demand-
capacity analysis for arrivals
processing at the North and South
Terminals.
Baggage Claim – Because the major-
ity of passengers are tourists at this
airport, it is estimated that 90 percent
of the arriving peak hour passengers
claim their checked baggage. The re-
maining 10 percent of the passengers
bypass the baggage claim areas and go
directly to the curb or other ground
transportation facilities. In order to
determine the peak hour number of
bags, it was estimated that each pas-
senger checks an average of 1.8 bags.
The bag claim capacity was based on
the device frontage, frontage per bag,
percentage of total bag displayed, and
the design utilization factor (DUF).
The capacity based on the current
available devices at the North Ter-
minal is 355 peak hour bags and was
operating at 300 percent of capacity in
2006. At the South Terminal, the ca-
pacity is 177 peak hour bags and was
operating at 400 percent of capacity.
The current number of bag claim de-
vices as well as the claim frontage
were both deficient for the base year
demand at both terminals.
This claim device evaluation was
based on characteristics of the existing
flat plate baggage claim devices.
Sloped plate devices would provide
greater capacity due to their ability to
display baggage vertically and to stack
baggage. In calculating the claim de-
vice and claim frontage requirements,
sloped plate device characteristics
were used to present an optimized
condition for evaluation.
Claim Lobby – The lobby area sur-
rounding the flat bed claim devices is
9,604 square feet for the North Ter-
minal and 5,334 square feet for the
South Terminal. This area excludes
the area of the device, but includes the
active claim area and circulation space
from the edge of the device to the low
partition walls defining the baggage
claim area. With the level of service
C+ area of 18 square feet per person,
the capacity for the claim device lobby
space is 525 persons at the North
Terminal and 291 persons at the
South Terminal. As a result, the
North Terminal claim lobby was oper-
ating at 137 percent capacity and at
the South Terminal at 165 percent ca-
pacity in 2006.
3-39
TABLE 3U
Existing Demand Capacity Analysis Bag Claim and Lobby
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Facility Title
Units
2006
Existing
Processing
Capacity
Existing
% of
Capacity
Cap.
Incr.
(Decr.)
2006
Re-
quired
Facilities
Required
Facilities
at 85% DUF
NORTH TERMINAL
Planning Activity Level 1,770,960
Baggage Claim Bags 1,063 355 300% 1,063 301
Devices # 2 2 4 2
Device Frontage Ft. 266 571 797 226
Inbound Baggage Ft2 17,738 35,475 52,213 17,738
Baggage Services Office Ft2 549 1,098 1,646 549
Claim Lobby Pax+Gr. 722 525 137% 722 446
Area Excluding Devices Ft2 9,604 5,042 13,205 8,164
(inc. active claim & circ.)
Public Area Pax. 722 570 127% 722 485
Claim Lobby Public Circulation Ft.2 6,509 8,240 5,533
Average utilization
(% of Capacity)
% 188%
Area Total Ft2 34,400 76,304 31,893
SOUTH TERMINAL
Planning Activity Level 1,231,388
Baggage Claim Bags 710 177 400% 710 151
Devices # 1 3 4 1
Device Frontage Ft. 133 419 532 113
Inbound Baggage Ft2 16,956 33,912 50,868 16,956
Baggage Services Office Ft2 157 313 470 157
Claim Lobby Pax+Gr. 482 291 165% 482 248
Area Excluding Devices Ft2 5,334 4,283 8,817 4,534
(inc. active claim & circ.)
Public Area Pax. 482 955 50% 482 812
Claim Lobby Public Circulation Ft.2 9,782 4,935 8,314
Average utilization
(% of Capacity)
% 170%
Area Total Ft2 32,229 65,090 29,961
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
CBP Facility Pax. 237 418 57% 85% 237 355
Area Ft.2 18,130 (5,124) 10,287 15,411
Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) – The current CBP facility is
located at the north end of the termi-
nal area in a white fabric strung
structure. This facility processes in-
ternational arriving passengers in-
cluding the primary functions of pass-
port control, baggage claim, and cus-
toms/agricultural check. The facility
currently encompasses 18,130 square
feet.
In assessing the capacity of the CBP
facility, the “Airport Technical Design
Standards” published by the CBP was
consulted. The design standards indi-
cated that an area of 8,362 square feet
is necessary to handle 400 peak hour
3-40
passenger arrivals. This does not in-
clude baggage claim, so an additional
9,000 square feet was assumed for this
function. This resulted in a CBP
space requirement of 17,362 square
feet. It was determined that the exist-
ing facility was operating at 57 per-
cent of capacity in 2006. It should be
recognized, however, that the facility
was constructed as a temporary solu-
tion and a permanent state-of-the-art
CBP facility should be planned.
Post-Security Facilities
Table 3V summarizes the demand
capacity analysis for post-security fa-
cilities at the North and South Ter-
minals.
Holdrooms – The holdroom capacity
is based on the area required for seat-
ing 60 percent of the passengers, plus
an additional 10 percent of the area
for general circulation. Using the ag-
gregate area of all holdroom space in
each terminal, the base year capacity
was 711 peak hour passengers in each
terminal. This results in the total
holdroom area operating at 78 percent
and 56 percent capacity at the North
and South Terminals, respectively.
The holdroom evaluation excludes the
space necessary for podium functions
and aircraft exit space. This space is
required per the functionality of each
gate and is not related to passenger
demand. The capacity of the holdroom
space was based on the assumption
that the entire holdroom area is
shared by all gates and can be occu-
pied by any outbound passenger.
However, the current operation of the
space segregates holdroom areas to
confine mainland-bound passengers
after their carry-on baggage has been
processed through the agricultural
check. This makes the holdroom space
inadequate during peak hours. Con-
sideration should be given to relocat-
ing the agricultural check function to
better optimize the space available.
Circulation – The departures hold-
room areas at KOA are not configured
like those typically found in rectilinear
corridor concourses. The five gates at
each terminal surround a central hold
room area that is partitioned into
smaller areas defined by the edge of
the roof lines and sometimes by low or
full height partitioning. Because of
the centralized holdroom space, the
circulation area is defined as the space
that allows passengers to travel from
the end of the security checkpoint to
the holdroom area and vice versa.
In evaluating the capacity of the cur-
rent public circulation space, the guide
“Pedestrian Planning and Design” by
John J. Fruin was referenced for levels
of service areas. This data was used in
calculating the number of passengers
that could circulate through the space
within a one-hour period. As a result,
the capacity of the North Terminal
holdroom circulation area is 3,638
passengers and 3,577 for the South
Terminal. The circulation area was
operating at 15 percent of capacity at
the North Terminal and 11 percent of
capacity at the South Terminal in
2006.
3-41
TABLE 3V
Existing Demand Capacity Analysis – Post-Security Facilities
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Facility Title
Units
Existing
2006
Existing
Processing
Capacity
Existing %
of Capacity
Inc.
(Dec.)
2006
Required
Facilities
Required
Facilities at
85% DUF
NORTH TERMINAL
Planning
Activity Level
1,770,960
Passenger Holdrooms
Pax.
553
711
78%
553
604
Passenger
Holdroom Area
Ft2
10,163
(731)
7,908
8,639
Airline Operations Ft2 682 1,697 2,500 803
Clubrooms Ft2 525
Public Area (post-
security)
Pax.
553
3,638
15%
553
3,093
Circulation Area Ft2 17,462 (12,188) 2,654 14,842
Average Utilization
(% of Capacity)
%
40%
Area Total Ft2 28,832 13,062 24,284
SOUTH TERMINAL
Planning
Activity Level
1,231,388
Passenger Holdrooms
Pax. 400 711 56% 400 604
Passenger
Holdroom Area
Ft2
10,163
(2,919)
5,720
8,639
Airline Operations Ft2 222 1,239 1,500 261
Clubrooms Ft2 825
Public Area (post-
security)
Pax.
400
3,577
11%
400
3,041
Circulation Area Ft2 17,125 1,915 14,556
Average Utilization
(% of Capacity)
%
34%
Area Total Ft2 28,335 9,135 23,456
Public Space
Table 3W outlines the demand capac-
ity analysis for public spaces at the
North and South Terminals.
Restrooms - Restrooms are located
near the baggage claim in the non-
secure area of both terminals. On the
secure side, there are restrooms adja-
cent to the restaurants in both ter-
minals. Because of the configuration
of the terminal, the distance between
the two sets of restrooms is not signifi-
cant and was measured at 312 feet.
Restroom capacity was calculated
based on a square-foot per peak hour
passenger. The number has been ad-
justed to current standards that in-
clude wider and deeper stalls to ac-
commodate baggage and stall doors
that swing out. The restroom capacity
was determined to be sufficient to ac-
commodate a peak hour passenger
level of just 393 in each terminal. The
restrooms were operating at 307 per-
cent of capacity at the North Terminal
and 213 percent of capacity at the
South Terminal. The evaluation con-
firms the spatial deficiency for current
demand at both terminal areas.
3-42
TABLE 3W
Existing Demand Capacity Analysis - Public Spaces Kona International Airport at Keahole
Facility Title
Units
Existing
2006
Existing
Processing
Capacity
Existing
% of Ca-
pacity
Inc.
(Dec.)
2006
Required
Facilities
Required
Facilities
at 85% DUF
NORTH TERMINAL
Planning
Activity Level
1,770,960
Restrooms Pax. 1,209 393 307% 1,209 334
Restrooms area Ft2 1,889 4,198 5,803 1,605
Concessions Pax. 883,014 378,679 233% 883,014 321,878
Food & Beverage Ft2 2,068 3,064 4,821 1,757
Concessions Pax. 883,014 529,762 167% 883,014 450,298
Retail Ft2 1,558 1,272 2,596 1,324
Average Utilization (% of Capacity)
236%
Area Total Ft2 23,923 13,221 4,687
SOUTH TERMINAL
Planning
Activity Level
1,231,388
Restrooms Pax. 838 393 213% 838 334
Restrooms area Ft2 1,888 2,418 4,022 1,604
Concessions Pax. 639,424 543,271 118% 639,424 461,780
Food & Beverage Ft2 2,966 970 3,491 2,521
Concessions Pax. 639,424 551,340 116% 639,424 468,639
Retail Ft2 1,621 (502) 1,880 1,378
Average Utilization
(% of Capacity)
149%
Area Total Ft2 6,475 9,394 5,504
Concessions and Retail - There are
concessions and retail on both the se-
cure and non-secure sides of the ter-
minals. The total aggregate area of
concessions at the North Terminal is
2,068 and 1,558 square feet respective-
ly for retail areas. The South Terminal
has concessions and retail areas of
2,966 and 1,621 square feet, respec-
tively. Based on industry standards,
the North Terminal was at 233 per-
cent capacity for concessions and 167
percent capacity for retail in 2006.
The South Terminal was at 118 per-
cent capacity for concessions and 116
percent capacity for retail.
TERMINAL FACILITIES
REQUIREMENTS
Departure Processing Facilities
The facility requirements projected
here are based on the assumption that
the passenger profiles will change over
time. It takes into consideration the
industry changes in passenger
processing in the ticketing lobbies. As
a result of technology, the percentage
of passengers that are checking-in and
printing boarding passes at home or at
the hotel is increasing. Consequently,
the future will see a lower proportion
of passengers checking in for their
flight in the airport ticket lobby.
3-43
The requirements are also based upon
the premise that the airport will con-
tinue to operate two separate termi-
nals. This assumption serves only to
establish a baseline from which to e-
valuate the alternatives against the
facility requirements. Therefore, the
proportion of passengers between the
two terminals derived from the August
2006 flight schedule was applied to
the facility requirements throughout
the planning horizon activity levels.
The assumption was also based upon
the airlines or similar replacement
airlines continuing to serve the same
terminals and the aircraft mix at each
terminal remaining the same.
During the peak hour there has been
an imbalance of originating passen-
gers between the North and South
Terminals ticket lobbies. The North
Terminal has served a greater passen-
ger demand, and on-site observations
confirmed its ticket lobby was more
crowded.
The facility requirements show the
spaces associated with queuing for
both agricultural check and ticket
counter check-in, and airline ticket off-
ices at the North Terminal would re-
quire additions to accommodate the
future demand. The calculation
shows, however, the space for ticket
lobby at the South Terminal will be
underutilized. Future requirements
can be achieved by either physical
space additions at the North Termi-
nal, or by re-balancing airline opera-
tions between the two terminals.
Due to the configuration of the facili-
ties within the departures processing
facility, passenger disorientation and
crowding easily occur. The location of
the agricultural check station within
the ticket lobby entrance and its prox-
imity to the security checkpoint create
a queuing convergence. It has been
observed during peak hours that pas-
sengers often find themselves in the
wrong queue.
There are many ways to relieve this
issue in the near term without expan-
sion of facilities. The agricultural
check can be relocated or the planter
immediately in front of ticketing could
be relocated to provide more space for
organized queuing. These solutions
will be investigated in more detail in
the Alternatives chapter.
Table 3X summarizes the facility re-
quirements for departing processing at
the North and South Terminals.
Passenger Security Screening -
The on-site measured security check-
point processing rate was 104 passen-
gers per hour and was used in the ex-
isting demand capacity analysis. By
comparison, the checkpoint processing
rate was 160-180 passengers per hour
at Honolulu International Airport and
220 at the Kahului International Air-
port.
The TSA standard rate of 200 passen-
gers per hour was used for the facility
requirements calculations to arrive at
an optimized facility condition. The
current passenger security screening
positions and queuing areas do not
have adequate processing capacity at
either terminal. The projection as-
sumes that the two main security
screening positions will remain with
additional stations and queuing spaces
to satisfy the future demand.
3-44
TABLE 3X
Departure Processing Facility Requirements
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Facility Title
Standard
Units
Existing
2006
2006
Required
Facilities
Required Fa-
cilities at 85%
DUF
Short
Term
Inter.
Term
Long
Term
NORTH TERMINAL
Planning
Activity Level
1,770,960
2,025,880
2,226,580
2,747,620
Agricultural Check
(pre-security)
Pax
285
285
170
329
394
565
Number of Stations # 1 1 1 2 2 3
Area of Queuing Ft2 317 535 319 618 741 1,061
Ticket Counters Pax 498 498 567 489 504 585
Agent Positions (Active) # 17 13 14 11 11 13
Frontage Ft. 110 67 76 56 57 66
Area Ft2 1,269 713 812 595 613 711
Vacant Counter # 3
Ticket Lobby Pax 553 553 469 550 571 668
Queuing Area Ft2 2,219 2,226 1,886 2,213 2,299 2,689
Outbound Baggage Ft2 12,389 6,206 5,259 6,171 6,410 7,496
Airline Ticket Office Ft2 4,419 3,939 3,338 3,917 4,068 4,758
Ticket Lobby Circulation Ft2 2,111 2,015 1,708 2,004 2,081 2,434
Public Area Pax. 664 664 698 733 806 1,002
Circulation Area Ft2 3,058 2,472 2,600 2,731 3,004 3,732
Security Station Pax 553 553 177 611 672 835
Number of Stations # 2 5 2 3 3 4
Area of Queuing Ft2 1,256 1,039 332 1,640 1,803 2,241
Area Total Ft2 27,040 19,143 16254 19,888 21,020 25,122
SOUTH TERMINAL
Planning
Activity Level
1,231,388 1,408,120 1,547,420 1,909,380
Agricultural Check
(pre-security)
Pax 206 206 340 238 286 409
Number of Stations # 2 1 2 1 1 2
Area of Queuing Ft2 415 388 639 448 536 768
Ticket Counters Pax 360 360 660 298 308 358
Agent Positions (Active) # 26 12 22 6 7 8
Frontage Ft. 189 62 114 34 35 41
Area Ft2 2,939 664 1,218 363 375 435
Vacant Counter # 4
South Ticket Lobby Pax 338 338 463 373 411 511
Queuing Area Ft2 2,191 1,360 1,863 1,501 1,654 2,057
Outbound Baggage Ft2 15,212 5,990 8,202 6,611 7,284 9,057
Airline Ticket Office Ft2 3,597 1,624 2,223 1,792 1,974 2,455
Ticket Lobby Circulation Ft2 1,750 1,148 1,571 1,267 1,396 1,735
Central Ticket Lobby Pax 62 62 302 69 76 94
Queuing Area Ft2 1,429 250 1,214 278 306 378
Outbound Baggage Ft2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Airline Ticket Office Ft2 375 207 1,006 230 254 314
Ticket Lobby Circulation Ft2 361 62 302 69 76 94
Public Area Pax. 418 418 556 448 493 613
Circulation Area Ft2 9,634 6,155 8,189 6,591 7,263 9,030
Security Station Pax 400 400 177 373 411 511
Number of Stations # 2 4 2 2 2 3
Area of Queuing Ft2 1,119 751 332 1,001 1,103 1,371
Area Total Ft2 39,023 18,599 26,758 20,150 22,221 27,693
3-45
Baggage Security Screening - The
amount of space required for outbound
baggage operations is largely depen-
dent on the processing characteristic
of the system. Since this information
is not available, the facility require-
ment for this area has been related to
the capacity of the ticket lobby.
Arrival Processing Facilities
The passenger arrivals process con-
sists primarily of those facilities and
functions that provide means to re-
unite the arriving passenger with the
items that were checked in at the ori-
gin of the flight. The current terminal
was originally designed to accommo-
date 130-seat interisland aircraft. The
existing claim devices and claiming
area around the devices at both ter-
minals are insufficient to serve the
current wide-body aircraft. There will
be an increase in this type of aircraft
in the future due to forecasted main-
land passenger demand.
The low walls surrounding the claim
lobby and their proximity to the device
create crowding at the end of the de-
vices. This can be relieved by some
modifications such as removing or re-
locating the walls surrounding the
claim lobby. Additional new claim de-
vices should be designed to accommo-
date the future demand at both the
North and South Terminals.
According to the passenger demand
forecast, the peak hour international
arriving passengers will increase to
329 in the short term, 350 in the in-
termediate term, and 450 in the long
range. CBP design standards indicate
17,362 square feet are needed to
process a peak hour demand of 400
passengers. The current facility will
satisfy the short and intermediate
term demand, but 19,532 square feet
will be necessary to meet the long
term planning horizon.
All passengers and baggage that ar-
rive from Overseas (non-inter island
passengers) aircraft are subject to in-
spection by the Hawaii Department of
Agriculture (HDOA). Other inspec-
tions that are conducted are done by
the United States Department of Agri-
culture (USDA) and their Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant
Protection and Quarantine Division
(APHIS-PPQ). Much of their inspec-
tion deals with outgoing overseas pas-
sengers. In certain conditions, HDOA
and USDA share or overlap their in-
spection duties.
Currently, HDOA has one inspection
counter in the north terminal baggage
claim area and an office located in the
administrative building. HDOA also
does agriculture cargo inspection and
uses a temporary cooling facility (note:
this has been displaced and HDOA is
currently using the triturator) that is
undersized for their requirements.
HDOA operational needs include in-
spection counters and each baggage
claim area. Several small inspec-
tion/holding/quarantine facilities that
allow for plant and animal inspection
should be located in the terminal, gen-
eral aviation and commuter areas. A
dog holding area should be centrally
located to the main terminal baggage
claim areas as well as the general avi-
ation and commuter terminals.
3-46
There will also be a need to have offic-
es for both HDOA and USDA staff and
inspectors with quick access to staff vehicles. The detailed program re-
quirements for these facilities will be
developed with both the HDOA and
USDA during the design phase.
Table 3Y summarizes the facility re-
quirements for arrivals processing at
the North and South Terminals.
Holdroom and Concourse
Circulation
The holdroom capacity requirements
are based on the mix of aircraft during
the peak hour and the number of gates
required serving the combined peak
hour operations. The size for hold-
rooms at both terminals is adequate
for base year and future demand, ex-
cept that the holdroom area will need
to increase at the North Terminal in
the long-term.
TABLE 3Y
Arrival Processing Facility Requirements
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Facility Title
Standard
Units
Existing
2006
2006
Required
Facilities
Required
Facilities
at 85% DUF
Short
Term
Inter.
Term
Long
Term
NORTH TERMINAL
Planning
Activity Level
1,770,960
2,025,880
2,226,580
2,747,620
Baggage Claim Bags 1,063 1,063 301 1,192 1,319 1,641
Devices # 2 6 2 3 3 4
Device Frontage Ft. 266 797 226 537 593 738
Inbound Baggage Ft2 17,738 53,213 17,738 26,606 26,606 35,475
Baggage Services
Office
Ft2
549
1,646
549
823
823
1,098
Claim Lobby Pax+Gr. 722 722 446 810 895 1,114
Area Excluding
Devices
Ft2
9,604
13,205
8,164
14,816
16,386
20,392
Public Area Pax. 722 722 485 810 895 1,114
Claim Lobby Public
Circulation
Ft.2 6,509 8,240 5,533 9,245 10,224 12,724
Area Total Ft2 34,400 76,304 31,983 51,490 54,040 69,688
SOUTH TERMINAL
Planning Activity Level 1,231,388 1,408,120 1,547,420 1,909,380
Baggage Claim Bags 710 710 151 794 878 1,095
Devices # 1 4 1 2 2 3
Device Frontage Ft. 133 532 113 357 395 493
Inbound Baggage Ft2 16,956 50,868 16,956 33,912 50,868 50,868
Baggage Services
Office
Ft2
157
470
157
313
470
470
Claim Lobby Pax+Gr. 482 482 248 539 596 744
Area Excluding
Devices
Ft2
5,334
8,817
4,534
9,864
10,910
13,608
Public Area Pax. 482 482 812 539 596 744
Claim Lobby Public Circulation Ft.2 9,782 4,935 8,314 5,521 6,107 7,617
Area Total Ft2 32,229 65,090 29,961 49,610 68,356 72,563
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
CBP Facility Pax. 237 237 355 329 350 450
Area Ft.2 18,130 10,287 15,411 14,280 15,192 19,532
3-47
Within the holding areas at both ter-
minals, there are spaces where main-
land and international passengers are
required to be contained by security
barriers after agricultural inspection.
These barriers prevent passengers
from having the advantage of flexible
use of holdrooms jointly as common
holding area. The passengers who
need access to concessions and rest-
rooms are required to either use them
before agricultural inspection or leave
the holdroom area and then reprocess
through inspection. Table 3Z
presents the facilities requirements for
the holdrooms.
TABLE 3Z
Holdroom and Concourse Facility Requirements
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Facility Title
Standard
Units
Existing
2006
2006
Required
Facilities
Required
Facilities
at 85% DUF
Short
Term
Inter.
Term
Long
Term
NORTH TERMINAL
Planning
Activity Level
1,770,960
2,025,880
2,226,580
2,226,580
Passenger Holdrooms Pax. 553 553 604 611 672 835
Passenger Holdroom
Area
Ft2
10,163
7,908
8,639
8,737
9,610
11,941
Airline Operations Ft2 682 2,500 803 794 722 581
Clubrooms Ft2 525
Public Area (post-
security)
Pax. 553 553 3,093 611 672 835
Circulation Area Ft2 17,462 2,654 14,842 17,462 17,462 17,462
Area Total Ft2 28,832 13,062 24,284 26,993 27,793 29,983
SOUTH TERMINAL
Planning
Activity Level
1,231,388
1,408,120
1,547,420
1,909,380
Passenger Holdrooms Pax. 400 400 604 442 487 605
Passenger Holdroom
Area
Ft2 10,163 5,720 8,639 6,321 6,964
8,652
Airline Operations Ft2 222 1,500 261 357 324 261
Clubrooms Ft2 825
Public Area (post-
security)
Pax. 400 400 3,041 442 487 605
Circulation Area Ft2 17,125 1,915 14,556 17,125 17,125 17,125
Area Total Ft2 28,335 9,135 23,456 23,803 24,413 26,038
Public Spaces
Table 3AA summarizes the facilities
requirements for public spaces.
Restrooms – The restroom area is not
adequate at either terminal and will
require substantial space increases to
serve the existing and future demand.
In addition to increasing capacity, the
current restrooms need to be moder-
nized and new restrooms will need to
be designed to meet current airport
restroom standards. To accommodate
passenger roller bags, new standards
include wider circulation spaces, larg-
er stalls, and doors that swing out.
3-48
Concessions – The projections indi-
cate that the space for concessions at
the South Terminal is adequate for
base year and future demand, while
the concessions at the North Terminal
will require additional space to ac-
commodate future demand. Observa-
tions indicate that larger floor area
and variety would improve passenger
experience at post-security conces-
sions. There is also a lack of conces-
sions to serve passengers departing or
arriving on evening flights as most
concessions are closed during the
evening hours.
TABLE 3AA
Public and Support Facility Requirements
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Facility Title
Standard Units
Existing 2006
2006
Required Facilities
Required
Facilities at 85% DUF
Short Term
Inter. Term
Long Term
NORTH TERMINAL
Planning
Activity Level
1,770,960
2,025,880
2,226,580
2,747,620
Restrooms Pax. 1,209 1,209 334 1,347 1,486 1,848
Restrooms area Ft2 1,889 5,803 1,605 6,466 7,133 8,870
Concessions Pax. 883,014 883,014 321,878 1,001,080 1,096,780 1,350,820
Food & Beverage Ft2 2,068 4,821 1,757 5,466 5,988 7,375
Concessions Pax. 883,014 883,014 848,638 1,001,080 1,096,780 1,350,820
Retail Ft2 1,558 2,596 1,324 2,943 3,225 3,971
Public Area (pre-security)
Pax. 1,451 1,616 1,783 2,218
Ancillary Circulation
Area
Ft.2 18,409 21,059 23,913 28,539
Area Total Ft2 23,923 13,221 4,687 35,934 40,259 48,756
Aviation Department
Administrative/
Operations Space (16%)
Ft2
23,128
24,654
15,637
27,201
28,985
35,149
Building Systems/Support Space
Building Systems/ Support Space (5%) Ft2 723 770 489 850 906 1,098
SOUTH TERMINAL
Planning
Activity Level
1,231,388
1,408,120
1,547,420
1,909,380
Restrooms Pax. 838 838 334 932 1,029 1,281
Restrooms area Ft2 1,888 4,022 1,604 4,474 4,939 6,149
Concessions Pax. 639,424 639,424 461,780 724,920 794,220 978,180
Food & Beverage Ft2 2,966 3,491 2,521 3,958 4,336 5,341
Concessions Pax. 639,424 639,424 468,639 724,920 794,220 978,180
Retail Ft2 1,621 1,880 1,378 2,131 2,335 2,876
Public Area (pre-
security)
Pax. 1,006 1,105 1,220 1,518
Ancillary Circulation
Area
Ft.2 15,004 15,306 15,994 20,536
Area Total Ft2 6,475 9,394 5,504 10,563 11,611 14,366
Aviation Department
Administrative/ Operations Space
(16%)
Ft2
21,481
20,702
17,353
21,089
25,641
28,488
Building Systems/Support Space
Building Systems/
Support Space (5%)
Ft2
671
647
542
659
801
890
3-49
TERMINAL REQUIREMENTS
SUMMARY
Table 3BB presents a summary of the
terminal requirements. The total
combined occupiable space of the ex-
isting terminal is 296,935 square feet.
The demand-capacity analysis indi-
cated that the terminal would require
221,597 square feet at 85 percent uti-
lization. This represents when the lev-
el of service during peak periods is be-ginning to drop below the desired C+
level. It is also an indicator to initiate
a design and construction of new facil-
ities.
TABLE 3BB Terminal Facility Requirements Summary Kona International Airport at Keahole
Available
Planning Horizons by Terminal (million passengers)
Short Term Inter. Term Long Term
Category North South North 2.0 South 1.4 North 2.1 South 1.6 North 2.5 South 2.0
Agricultural Check Processing
Number of Stations 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 2
Area of Queuing (Ft.2) 317 415 618 448 741 536 1,061 768
Airline Counter/Office
Ticket Counter Fron-tage (Ft.) 110 189 56 34 57 35 66 41
Counter Area (Ft.2) 1,269 2,939 595 351 613 356 711 417
Queuing Area (Ft.2) 2,219 3,620 2,213 1,779 2,299 1,960 2,689 2,435
Outbound Baggage (Ft.2) 12,389 15,212 6,171 6,611 6,410 7,284 7,496 9,057
Airline Ticket Office (Ft.2) 4,419 3,972 3, 917 2,022 4,068 2,228 4,758 2,769
Ticket Lobby Circula-tion (Ft.2) 2,111 2,111 2,004 1,336 2,081 1,472 2,434 1,829
Public Circulation 3,058 9,634 2,731 6,591 3,004 7,263 3,732 9,030
Security Processing
Number of Stations 2 2 3 2 3 2 4 3
Area of Queuing (Ft.2) 1,256 1,119 1,640 1,001 1,803 1,103 2,241 1,371
Baggage Claim
Devices 2 1 3 2 3 2 4 3
Device Frontage (Ft.) 266 133 537 357 593 395 738 493
Inbound Baggage (Ft.2) 17,738 16,956 26,606 33,912 26,606 50,868 35,475 50,868
Baggage Services Of-
fice (Ft.2)
549
157
823
313
823
470
1,098
470
Area Excluding Device (including active claim) (Ft.2)
9,604
5,334
14,816
9,864
16,386
10,910
20,392
13,608
Public Circulation (Ft.2) 6,509 9,782 9,245 5,521 10,224 6,107 12,724 7,617
Concourses
Passenger Holdroom Area (Ft.2) 10,163 10,163 8,737 6,321 9,610 6,964 11,941 8,652
Airline Operations (Ft.2) 682 222 794 357 722 324 581 261
Public Spaces
Restrooms Area (Ft.2) 1,889 1,888 6,466 4,474 7,133 4,939 8,870 6,149
Food & Beverage (Ft.2) 2,068 2,966 5,466 3,958 5,988 4,336 7,375 5,341
Retail (Ft.2) 1,558 1,621 2,943 2,131 3,225 2,335 3,971 2,876
International Arrivals Processing
Customs and Border Protection (Ft.2) 18,130 14,280 15,192 19,532
3-50
Although the total terminal area re-
quired at 85 percent utilization is less
than the currently available facilities,
several areas of the terminal were
found deficient for the 2006 base year
levels of demand. They included tick-
et lobby queuing, airline ticket offices,
queuing space for pre-security agricul-
tural check, baggage claim area, hold-
room areas, restrooms, and conces-
sions spaces.
At 3.4 million total annual passengers
in the short-term, a total of 317,003
square feet will be required. This is
six percent more than the currently
available facilities. At 3.7 million to-
tal annual passengers in the inter-
mediate term, a total of 340,580
square feet will be required. This re-
quirement is 15 percent more than
currently available facilities. At 4.5
million total annual passengers in the
long-term, a total of 423,342 square
feet will be required, or an increase of
126,407 square feet to the existing
terminal.
TERMINAL ACCESS
AND PARKING
Since the terminal building serves
primarily as the interface between air
and ground transportation, terminal
access and vehicle parking are impor-
tant components of the terminal com-
plex. The components to be examined
here are:
Terminal Curb Frontage
Vehicle Parking
Terminal Access Road
Terminal Curb Frontage
The terminal curb element is the di-
rect interface between the terminal
building and the ground transporta-
tion system. The length of the curb
available for loading and unloading
passengers and baggage is determined
by the type and volume of ground ve-
hicles anticipated during the peak pe-
riod on the design day. The airport
presently has approximately 690 feet of curb frontage directly in front of
each terminal (1,380 feet total) avail-
able for enplaning (departing) and
deplaning (arriving) passengers from
private vehicles. Three sections of
median curb provide an additional 850
feet of frontage available for passenger
loading and unloading from commer-
cial vehicles.
A common problem for terminal curb
capacity in the past has been the
length of dwell time for vehicles utiliz-
ing the curb. At airports where the
curb front has not been strictly pa-
trolled, vehicles have been known to
be parked at the curb while the driver
and/or riders are at the terminal
checking in, greeting arriving passen-
gers, or awaiting baggage pick-up.
Since most curbs are not designed for
vehicles to remain curbside for more
than two to three minutes, capacity
problems can ensue. Since the events
of September 11, 2001, most airports
police the curb front much more strict-
ly for security reasons. This alone has
eliminated, or at least significantly
reduced, the curb front capacity prob-
lems at most airports.
KOA has a staff of traffic personnel
that strictly polices the curb during
3-51
busy periods of the day. The curbside
staff assists with traffic flow and pe-
destrian crossing, as well as maintain-ing vigilance for unattended vehicles
and extended parking at the curb.
A terminal curb survey was conducted
during peak traffic periods at the
North and South Terminals on No-
vember 14 and 15, 2006. This in-
cluded a survey of the vehicle dwell
times at the arrival and departure
curbs at both terminals. The average
dwell times varied between terminals
and between the arrival and departure
curbs. The dwell times at the North
Terminal were higher, averaging 2.3
minutes per vehicle at the arrival curb
and 2.2 minutes per vehicle at the de-
parture curb. At the South Terminal, the average dwell times were 1.4 mi-
nutes at the arrival curb and 2.0 mi-
nutes at the departure curb. Thus, it
is apparent that the curb enforcement
is maintaining reasonable curb dwell
times at both terminals.
Table 3CC outlines the terminal curb
requirements based upon the curb surveys. The existing curb front as
well as the commercial median curb
should be adequate through the long
term planning horizon.
TABLE 3CC
Terminal Curb Requirements
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Planning Horizons
Available
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Inter.
Term
Long
Term
Annual Passengers
Public Curb
Departure Curb (ft.)
Arrival Curb (ft.)
Total Public Curb (ft.)
Commercial Median (ft.)
Total Terminal Curb (ft.)
690
690
1,380
850
2,230
3,033,212
440
400
840
490
1,330
3,472,000
490
440
930
550
1,480
3,819,000
540
490
1,030
610
1,640
4,721,000
670
610
1,280
760
2,040
Terminal Vehicle Parking
Vehicle parking in the airline passen-
ger terminal area of the airport in-
cludes those spaces utilized by pas-
sengers, visitors, and employees of the
airline terminal facilities. Parking
spaces are classified as public and em-
ployee.
Public parking is located in the area
enclosed by the terminal loop road and
is directly east of the North and South
Terminals. There are a total of 706
spaces in the public lot. The employee
lot is currently being expanded. When
all phases are complete there will be
758 spaces in this area for employee
and long term (monthly pass) parking.
In addition, there will be 432 spaces
available in the Pao`o Street (Road N)
lot.
As an airport serving primarily visi-
tors and tourists, the ratio of public
parking spaces per enplaned passen-
ger is lower than that experienced at
mainland airports. Peak parking lot
usage tends to be highest on holiday
weekends.
3-52
The ratio of parking to enplaned pas-
sengers utilized in the previous mas-
ter plan was 521 spaces per 1.0 million
enplanements. Since 9/11, however,
stricter enforcement at the curb for
security purposes has helped to alle-
viate extended curb parking and in-
creased the use of the parking lot.
In 2006, the airport was providing just
471 public spaces per million en-
planements. Based upon observations
and interviews of parking lot usage in
2006-07, the available public parking
is undersized during peak periods
nearly every month. It was estimated
that public parking was approximately
30 percent undersized for peak month
demand levels. Thus, a more reason-
able parking ratio for KOA would be
620 spaces per million enplanements.
Monthly parking passes are issued to
long term or frequent parking. These
passes allow for parking in the em-
ployee lot or the Pao`o Street lot. The
passes average approximately 80
spaces per million enplanements, for a
combined public parking requirement
of 700 spaces per million annual en-
planements.
Table 3DD presents the parking re-
quirements for the planning horizons.
As indicated above, the main public lot
is undersized. Assuming the Pao`o
Street lot is used for overflow, parking
will be marginally sufficient through
the short term. By the long term,
nearly over 1,650 public parking spac-
es will be needed.
TABLE 3DD
Terminal Vehicle Parking
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Planning Horizons
Available
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Inter.
Term
Long
Term
Annual Enplanement Level (millions) 1.52 1.74 1.91 2.36
Public Parking Requirements
Public Lot
Monthly Parking*
Total Public Parking
706
432
1,138
944
122
1,066
1,076
139
1,215
1,184
153
1,337
1,464
189
1,652
Employee Parking 758 457 521 573 708
Rental Car Facilities (ac.) 14.0 12.2 13.9 15.3 18.9
* Assumes Pao`o Street Lot as Monthly Parking and Overflow Lot
The recently expanded employee park-
ing lot provides 758 spaces. Future
needs were based upon a ratio of 300
spaces per million annual enplaned
passengers. Based upon this ratio, the
expanded employee parking lot should
be adequate through the planning ho-
rizons.
Rental Cars
The rental car operations are located
at the remote rental car facilities
along the airport access road. Each
rental car maintains its own
ready/return, service and storage on
its individual lease hold. Each com-
3-53
pany shuttles customers to and from
the terminal. Based upon observa-
tions and interviews with the rental
car operators, rental car facility needs
at KOA were estimated at 8.0 acres
per million annual enplanements.
Maintaining this ratio, and assuming
no additional on-site rental car agen-
cies, additional space will be needed
after the short term planning horizon.
The DOT-A is currently undertaking
planning studies for consolidated ren-
tal car facilities at each of its major
airports.
Airport Access
In terminal facility planning, both on-
and off-airport vehicle access is impor-
tant. For the convenience of the trav-
eler (and to provide maximum capaci-
ty), access to the terminal should in-
clude (to the extent practical) connec-
tions to the major arterial roadways
near the airport. The primary access
to Kona International Airport at Kea-
hole is Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway.
This road extends north and south
along the airport’s eastern property
line. The intersection of the highway
and the airport access road is signa-
lized with a left turn lane into the air-
port.
The highway is integral to the com-
muting pattern in North and South
Kona. Traffic on the highway backs
up most in the morning and late af-
ternoon rush hours.
As tourism and population in West
Hawaii grow, so does traffic on Queen
Ka`ahumanu Highway. The road is
presently being widened to four lanes
from Henry Street to Kealakehe
Parkway. Phase II of the project is
planned to extend the four-lane widen-
ing project to Kona International Air-
port at Keahole.
While the widening project will im-
prove highway capacity in the short
term, traffic is expected to continue to
grow. While the airport’s vehicle traf-
fic will be part of this growth, it is cer-
tainly not the only contributing factor.
Development all along the highway is
a contributor, as are the other em-
ployment centers that rely on em-
ployees to traverse the highway to and
from work.
Keahole Street is currently the only
public entrance to the airport. The
two-lane rural design roadway carries
over 900 vehicles per hour during
peak periods. The rental car facilities
are located along this road. As a re-
sult, there are several left turns both
out of the facilities to the west and in-
to the facility east from the terminal.
According to FAA AC 150/5360-13, De-
sign Guidelines for Airport Terminal
Facilities, a rural two-lane access road
would have a capacity of approximate-
ly 1,500 vehicles per hour both ways
for at-grade interrupted flow condi-
tions. While capacity is marginally
adequate for base year traffic levels,
additional capacity will need to be
considered by the intermediate plan-
ning horizon.
As traffic increases along the entrance
road, left turn lanes should be consid-
ered for the major traffic movements
into the rental car facility and other
side roads that may have significant
traffic levels in the future. A second-
ary access road to separate general
3-54
aviation traffic from commercial ser-
vice traffic entering the airport would
assist in relieving capacity and en-
hancing safety in the earlier planning
horizons. Ultimately, however, the
commercial service entrance roadway
should be planned as a four-lane facili-
ty with turning lanes.
The terminal frontage road is often a
section of the terminal road system
that creates bottlenecks. With ve-
hicles stopping for enplaning and de-
planing passengers at the terminal
curb, this portion of the terminal
roadway has a high potential for con-
gestion and reduced levels of capacity.
Therefore, the capacity of the terminal
loop is most commonly measured in
this area.
Using guidance provided in FAA AC
150/5360-13, Design Guidelines for
Airport Terminal Facilities, the capac-
ity of the terminal loop road at the
terminal curb was estimated.
Directly in front of the terminal, the
roadway includes two through lanes, a
maneuvering lane, plus a curb lane.
On the opposite side of the median
curb, there is a second curb lane and
another through lane. The lanes clos-
est to the curb lanes are affected by
the maneuvering at the curb front,
and provide a limited service volume
of 300 vehicles per hour. The outside
lanes can accommodate up to 600 ve-
hicles per hour. By combining the ca-
pacity of these three available through
lanes, there is an effective capacity of
1,800 vehicles per hour along the front
of the terminal. During peak periods,
however, the outside lane between the
terminal and the median curb is typi-
cally cordoned off for the safety of pas-
sengers on the median curb awaiting
the rental car shuttles. This reduces
the effective capacity to 1,200 vehicles
per hour.
The terminal curb study also included
an updated count of the traffic passing
in front of the terminal. During the
peak periods counted on November 14
and 15, 2006, traffic averaged 366 ve-
hicles per hour. Since November traf-
fic was 40 percent lower than during
the peak month in 2006, the design
hour traffic for the average day of the
peak month was estimated at 502 ve-
hicles per hour. By the long term
planning horizon, this can be expected
to reach 741 vehicles per hour. There-
fore, the current terminal frontage
configuration should be adequate for
the planning horizons.
The highest traffic levels are currently
experienced at the south end of the
loop. At this point, all of the traffic
that has passed by the terminal plus
traffic exiting the public parking and
traffic leaving U`u Road are merging
into an area where the number of
available lanes is reduced to two. Be-
cause of the weaving and merging in
this area, the capacity is estimated at
900 vehicles per hour. Design hour
traffic in this area is currently 580 ve-
hicles per hour. By the long term
planning horizon, the southern end of
the loop will be carrying 850 vehicles
per hour and nearing its capacity.
AIR CARGO REQUIREMENTS
The primary cargo-related facilities
requiring analysis include the cargo
apron, building space, and
truck/automobile parking area. Air
cargo facilities at KOA currently con-
3-55
sist of two cargo buildings and asso-
ciated parking located south of the
passenger terminal and the existing T-
hangars. The two buildings total
40,310 square feet with 104,400
square feet on the landside for park-
ing, truck docks, and circulation.
Some of the cargo building space is
currently used for general aviation
purposes.
Ground support equipment (GSE) sto-
rage and staging is located in two
areas totaling 51,500 square feet.
This includes the area between the
cargo buildings, and an area located
immediately north of the buildings.
There is approximately 19,300 square
yards of apron area on the airside of
the cargo buildings. The depth of this
ramp is only 200 feet, which limits its
use to smaller cargo aircraft. Subse-
quently, some of the apron area is
used for GSE staging and general avi-
ation and air taxi parking. All-cargo
commercial jet aircraft currently park
on the terminal ramp.
Cargo Building Requirements
The annual tons of air freight and air
mail handled in 2006 at the airport
(32,390 tons) was compared to the
combined total square footage of dedi-
cated air cargo building space (40,300
square feet) to determine existing util-
ization rates for comparison to other
facility utilization in the U.S. Surveys
of the top 50 cargo airports in the U.S.
have determined that the current util-
ization rate is approximately 1.75
square feet per ton. The range of ade-
quacy for an airport on average is be-
tween 1.00 and 2.50 square feet per
ton. KOA’s current utilization rate of
1.25 falls in the low range of the spec-
trum. Portions of the buildings are
currently in other uses, so the true ra-
tio is actually even lower. Since the
ratio tends to be lower at the busier
airports, the available space at KOA
appears to be undersized.
The cargo operators have adapted
with some transfer occurring outside
either directly on the ramp or in the
GSE areas. This has allowed the car-
go operators to handle more air cargo
with smaller buildings. It still sug-
gests a need for additional building
space both now and in the future.
The Hawaii Department of Agricul-
ture (HDOA) has been mandated by
Hawaii State law [Act 236 (08) (Senate
Bill 2850) to provide joint-use inspec-
tion facilities at all Hawaii ports-of-
entry. KOA has become a key port-of-
entry for cargo so space needs to be
planned for this type of facility.
The joint use facility should be located
to minimize the impact on air cargo
operations as well as to reduce the
movement of cargo from one agency to
the other for various inspections and
compliance documentation. All cargo
should be inspected at the joint in-
spection facility before it is released to
the importer or before leaving the air-
line’s possession. The joint agencies
expected to participate include HDOA,
USDA, CBP, U.S. Food and Drug Ad-
ministration, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
The inspection facilities should pro-
vide an area to prevent potential pest
release as well as treatment capacity
to seize and/or destroy cargo and/or
contraband. A joint facility centralizes
plant quarantine expertise and agen-
3-56
cies for information sharing and rapid
response and mobilization in an emer-
gency. Large scale treatment facilities
such as an irradiation facility should
also be planned.
The facility should house offices of the
various inspection agencies as well as
inspection bays, inspection counters
and treatment areas. The inspection
of outbound cargo should be centra-
lized for efficient clearance and docu-
mentation for the exporters.
Contamination and spoilage has be-
come an issue at ports in Hawaii, the
mainland, and internationally. Cargo
marshalling with refrigeration and
weather protections should also be in-
cluded to alleviate food safety and
quality concerns. Based upon in-
formation provided by HDOA and
USDA representatives to the planning
advisory committee, the space re-
quirements for the joint inspection fa-
cility are estimated at 20,000 square
feet.
In providing future cargo building re-
quirements, it is important to consider
the goals of individual operators.
Some operators may want to limit
space for cargo sorting activities for
cost savings, while others may need
more square-footage to accommodate
their specific sorting methods. Taking
this need into consideration, as well as
accounting for agriculture inspection
and marshalling needs future re-
quirements have been based upon a
utilization factor of 1.90. Cargo build-
ing requirements have been summa-
rized on Table 3EE.
TABLE 3EE
Air Cargo Requirements
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Planning Horizons
Available
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Inter.
Term
Long
Term
Annual Cargo Tons 32,390 39,000 45,000 62,000
Annual Operations 4,372 4,700 5,100 6,100
Cargo Apron Area (s.y.) 19,300 21,500 29,600 37,700 51,100
GSE Storage (s.f.) 51,100 68,000 82,000 94,000 130,000
Building Space (s.f.) 40,310 62,000 74,000 86,000 118,000
Truck Docks (ea.) 12 18 22 26 35
Truck Staging/Vehicle Parking (ac.) 2.4 4.2 5.1 5.9 8.1
Truck dock requirements are based
upon a planning factor of 0.3 trucks
per 1,000 square feet of building
space. In addition to truck docks, area
must be provided adjacent to the
building for staging activities and em-
ployee parking. An area approximate-
ly three times the building area is
provided for these activities. These
requirements are also outlined in the
table.
Cargo Apron Requirements
Apron space requirements vary with
the size of the aircraft and the manner
in which aircraft are handled on the
3-57
ground. The space requirements of
aircraft commonly used for air cargo
operations at the airport were re-
viewed to examine future ramp re-
quirements. United Parcel Service
(UPS) serves KOA with Boeing 747
and Boeing 767 aircraft. Aloha Air
Cargo operates several daily Boeing
737 cargo flights. Commuter aircraft
operating on a regular basis include
the Beech 1900, Beech 99, and Shorts
330 and 360 aircraft.
The cargo forecast anticipates addi-
tional operations by the wide-body air-
craft. The cargo ramp requirements
outlined on Table 3EE take into ac-
count the operational mix changes ex-
pected over the planning horizons.
Space is also needed within the secure
area for ground service equipment
(GSE). This includes cargo pallets,
tugs, and other equipment necessary
to service and process freight from air-
craft. Space requirements equivalent
to the building space plus ten percent
were estimated and included on the
table.
GENERAL AVIATION
FACILITIES
General aviation (GA) facilities are
those necessary for handling general
aviation aircraft, passengers, and car-
go while on the ground. This section
is devoted to identifying future GA fa-
cility needs during the planning period
for the following types of facilities
normally associated with general avia-
tion terminal areas:
Hangars
Aircraft Parking Apron
Commuter Terminal Services
HANGARS
The demand for hangar facilities typi-
cally depends on the number and type
of aircraft expected to be based at the
airport. Hangar facilities are general-
ly classified as T-hangars and conven-
tional hangars. Conventional hangars
can include individual executive/box
hangars, large corporate hangars, or
multi-aircraft clear-span hangars.
These different types of hangars offer
varying levels of privacy, security, and
protection from the elements.
Demand for hangars varies with the
number of aircraft based at the air-
port. Another important factor is the
type of based aircraft. Smaller single
engine aircraft usually prefer T-
hangars, while larger business jets
will prefer conventional hangars. The
tropical climate and rental costs will
also be factors in the choice for based
aircraft owners at KOA. Input from
the Hawaii County General Aviation
Council indicated a strong unserved
demand for hangars at KOA.
In fact, based upon the information
provided, if adequate hangar facilities
were currently available, it is esti-
mated that the current based aircraft
would immediately increase from 61 to
79.
Another factor to be considered with
regards to hangar development is ex-
3-58
ecutives with second homes on the is-
land. Some own or have access to cor-
porate aircraft and visit the island for
periods of time. While these aircraft
may not be considered based aircraft,
it can be desirable to some to hangar
the aircraft out of the elements during
the frequent visits. Additional hangar
capabilities should be considered to
meet the needs of these types of corpo-
rate aviation users.
The airport currently has two T-
hangar storage facilities, providing 18
storage units. T-hangar space availa-
ble at the airport totals approximately
23,100 square feet for aircraft storage.
Analysis of future hangar require-
ments, as depicted on Table 3FF, in-
dicates that an additional 54 hangar
storage spaces could be filled imme-
diately today if available. In the long
term, the T-hangar demand could in-
crease nearly five times from the spac-
es currently available.
TABLE 3FF
General Aviation Hangar Requirements
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Planning Horizons
Available
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Inter.
Term
Long
Term
Based Aircraft
Single Engine Piston
Multi-Engine Piston
Turboprop
Jet
Helicopter
Other
50
6
6
2
13
2
65
7
9
4
16
1
74
7
11
7
19
0
99
7
14
14
26
0
Total Based Aircraft 79 102 118 160
Hangar Positions
T-Hangars
Conventional Box Hangars
18
0
47
25
59
34
66
44
86
64
Total Hangar Positions 18 72 93 110 150
Hangar Space Requirements
T-Hangars (s.f.)
Conventional Hangar Space (s.f.)
Service Hangar Space (s.f.)
23,100
--
--
59,900
53,100
17,000
75,200
82,400
23,600
84,200
115,900
30,000
109,700
189,400
44,900
Total Hangar Space 23,100 130,000 181,200 230,100 344,000
KOA does not currently have any con-
ventional hangars for general aviation
aircraft storage. These hangars are
used primarily to store corporate air-
craft and helicopters, although some
fixed-wing piston aircraft may be
stored in multi-aircraft hangars. Con-
ventional hangar space will need to be
planned to accommodate a growing
number of corporate jets forecast to
base at KOA. As was discussed above,
there is also potential demand for con-
ventional hangar storage for non-
based corporate aircraft.
KOA is also lacking hangar facilities
for aircraft maintenance and other
services. Requirements for the main-
3-59
tenance and fixed base operator (FBO)
hangar area were estimated at 15 per-
cent of the total hangar storage re-
quirements. It should be noted that
FBO hangars are often cross-utilized
for storage and aircraft maintenance.
They are also sometimes used to store
transient aircraft overnight.
Table 3FF compares the available
hangar space to the future hangar re-
quirements. It is evident from the ta-
ble that the airport is extremely defi-
cient in both storage and service han-
gars. This demand can be expected to
grow over the planning horizons.
AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON
A parking apron should be provided
for at least the number of locally based
aircraft that are not stored in hangars,
as well as transient aircraft. The air-
port currently has approximately
64,500 square yards of general avia-
tion apron parking on the south side of
the airport. The breakdown of spaces
by type is presented in Table 3GG.
TABLE 3GG
General Aviation Parking Apron Requirements
Kona International Airport and Keahole
Planning Horizons
Available
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Inter.
Term
Long
Term
Aircraft Parking Positions
Based Aircraft Tie-downs
Charter/Tour Operator Ramp
Helicopter Parking
Transient GA Parking
Corporate Jet Parking
36
15
3
7
15
8
14
8
35
28
10
18
10
45
40
11
21
12
53
50
15
28
16
70
69
Total Parking Positions 76 93 123 147 198
Total Apron Area (s.y.) 64,500 92,700 126,800 154,900 211,000
For planning purposes, the ramp re-
quirements were divided into five
types. Based aircraft tie-downs are
located immediately east of the T-
hangars. These are used for parking
non-hangared based aircraft. Apron
requirements were based upon 350
square yards per aircraft.
Air taxi (charter and commuter) or
tour operator parking positions were
considered as the drive-through posi-
tions located in front of the commuter
terminal. The parking positions re-
quired were based upon accommodat-
ing 25 percent of the design day opera-
tions. Apron requirements were esti-
mated at 600 square yards per air-
craft.
The helicopter positions are located at
the south end of the commuter ter-
minal ramp. Requirements were
based upon accommodating the equiv-
alent of 65 percent of the based heli-
copters.
Transient general aviation parking
comprises the remainder of the ramp
parking in front of the commuter ter-
3-60
minal and the air cargo buildings.
The corporate jet ramp is the newer,
large ramp located at the south end of
the general aviation area. The spaces
required were based upon accommo-
dating the equivalent of three times
the number of corporate jet flights
during the design day. The holiday
season of Christmas and New Year’s is
the busiest corporate aircraft period at
the airport. At its peak during the
2006-07 holiday season, the airport
had more than 65 corporate jets on the
ground. To accommodate this peak
period, allowances for overflow park-
ing in addition to that outlined in Ta-
ble 3GG will need to be considered.
This unique situation will be further
addressed in the alternatives analysis
of the next chapter.
Another consideration for the general
aviation apron area is an aircraft
wash rack. The constant salt spray
from the Airport’s ocean-side location
creates a demand for washing down
all types of general aviation aircraft.
A wash rack equipped to meet Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA)
would provide a designated location
for washing aircraft.
GENERAL AVIATION
TERMINAL SERVICES
General aviation terminal services at
KOA are currently provided from sev-
eral buildings in the general aviation
area. The highest profile is the com-
muter terminal located adjacent to the
ramp that is utilized by air taxi and
air tour operators. Other buildings
provide facilities related to terminal
services, including passenger waiting,
pilots’ lounge and flight planning, con-
cessions, management offices, storage,
and various other needs.
The methodology used in estimating
general aviation terminal facility
needs was based upon the number of
passengers expected to utilize general
aviation facilities during the design
hour, as well as FAA guidelines.
Space requirements for terminal facil-
ities were based on providing 120
square feet per design hour air taxi
and general aviation itinerant passen-
ger.
Table 3HH outlines the general space
requirements for air taxi and general
aviation terminal services at KOA
through the long term planning hori-
zon. In 2006, the terminal services
space is currently at least 35 percent
undersized. In addition, it is scattered
through many different buildings,
making the available space less effi-
cient than the table suggests. In the
long term, the space will need to near-
ly triple.
GENERAL AVIATION PARKING
Vehicle parking requirements for gen-
eral aviation were also examined.
Space determinations were based on
an evaluation of the existing airport
use, as well as industry standards.
General aviation auto parking spaces
were calculated at 50 percent of based
aircraft, plus an industry standard of
1.8 spaces per design hour passenger.
Automobile parking requirements are
summarized in Table 3HH. The gen-
eral aviation parking around the
3-61
commuter terminal and the other GA
facilities at the south end of the air-
port is sufficient for approximately
130 vehicles. This is inadequate dur-
ing peak periods. During these pe-
riods, vehicles park along U`u Street
and in other overflow areas. As shown
on the table, at least 254 spaces are
currently needed and over 500 spaces
will be needed for the long term plan-
ning horizon.
TABLE 3HH
General Aviation Terminal Services
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Planning Horizons
Available
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Inter.
Term
Long
Term
Air Taxi Design Hour Passengers
Design Hour Operations
Passengers per Operation
Design Hour Passengers
11
7.0
77
14
7.0
98
17
7.0
119
22
7.0
154
GA Design Hour Passengers
Design Hour Itinerant Operations
Passengers per Operation
Design Hour Passengers
15
2.8
42
19
2.9
55
22
3.0
66
29
3.1
90
Total Design Hour Passengers 119 153 185 244
Terminal Services Area (s.f.) 10,600 14,300 18,400 22,200 29,300
General Aviation Parking Spaces 130 254 327 392 519
AIRPORT SUPPORT
REQUIREMENTS
Various facilities that do not logically
fall within classifications of airfield,
terminal building, or general aviation
facilities have been identified for in-
clusion in this Master Plan. Facility
requirements have been identified for
these remaining facilities:
Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting
Equipment
Airport Maintenance-Baseyard
Aviation Fuel Facilities
AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND
FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT
Requirements for aircraft rescue and
firefighting (ARFF) services at an air-
port are established under 14 Code of
Regulations (CFR) Part 139. 14 CFR
Part 139 applies to the certification
and operation of land airports served
by any scheduled or unscheduled pas-
senger operation of an air carrier us-
ing aircraft with more than 10 seats.
Paragraph 139.315 establishes ARFF
index ratings based on the length of
the largest aircraft with an average of
five or more daily departures. The fol-
lowing defines each index:
3-62
Index A - aircraft less than 90 feet
in length.
Index B - aircraft less than 126 feet
in length.
Index C - aircraft less than 159 feet
in length.
Index D - aircraft less than 200 feet
in length.
Index E - aircraft at least 200 feet
in length.
If there are not five daily departures
by the largest aircraft, then the next
lower index will apply.
The airport currently maintains at
least an Index “D” ARFF facility. In-
dex D is adequate for aircraft such as
the Boeing 767-200, Airbus 300, and
Dec-10. The Index D requirements
include the following:
One vehicle carrying at least 500
pounds of sodium-based dry chemi-
cal of halon 1211; or 450 pounds of
potassium-based dry chemical and
water with a commensurate quan-
tity of aqueous film-forming foam
(AFFF) to total 100 gallons for si-
multaneous dry chemical and
AFFF application.
Two vehicles carrying an amount of
water and the commensurate
quantity of AFFF so that the total
quantity of water for foam produc-
tion carried by all three vehicles is
at least 4,000 gallons.
The airport’s equipment includes one
3,000 gallon vehicle and two 1,500 gal-
lon vehicles. There is also a reserve
1,500 gallon vehicle. In addition,
there is a chief’s vehicle, a captain’s
truck, and a quad agent rapid inter-
vention vehicle (RIV).
The airport is currently serving sched-
uled passenger flights by Boeing 777-
200 and Boeing 747 aircraft. Both of
these aircraft are over 200 feet in
length, qualifying the airport for Index
“E.” Index E requirements are the
same as Index D with the exception
that all three vehicles carry the water
and AFFF so that the total quantity of
foam production is 6,000 gallons. The
current equipment can meet this re-
quirement.
The current four-bay ARFF facility
houses the three trucks plus the cap-
tain’s truck. The chief’s vehicle is
parked in a lean-to shadeport with the
reserve truck directly adjacent. While
the facility meets the current need,
consideration should be given to an
updated ARFF facility with wider bays
at some point in the future.
AIRPORT MAINTENANCE
FACILITIES
The airport maintenance facilities are
located south of the terminal loop road
and east of U`u Street. The three-acre
site includes a 15,000 square-foot
maintenance building and a 7,800
square-foot shadeport for equipment
storage.
Future expansion of these facilities
will be a function of airfield develop-
ment and airport management needs.
This U`u Street location is outside of
the secure airport operations area. To
access the airfield, all vehicles must
3-63
cross a public street (U`u), and then
enter the airside through a security
gate. The alternatives analysis should consider airport maintenance facilities
in a consolidated location with direct
and secure access to the airfield.
AVIATION FUEL STORAGE
Aviation fuel at KOA is stored on the
south side of the airport. There are currently 90,000 gallons of Jet A stor-
age and 12,000 gallons of Avgas.
Fuel sales are handled through the
commercial general aviation opera-
tors. One FBO is contracted by a con-
sortium of the airlines to manage the
fuel storage and fueling of their air-
craft. While Avgas storage is current-
ly adequate, Jet A is not. According to
the FBO, Bradley Pacific Aviation, the
Jet A usage at KOA in 2006 was
110,000 gallons daily. Thus, on-
airport storage has been less than a
single day’s usage.
Besides the limited storage, fuel must
be delivered to the airport from the
harbor terminal in Hilo. This requires
as many as 15 daily round trips by
8,000-gallon over-the-road tankers be-
tween Hilo and Kona. An interruption
in delivery of more than a few hours
will interrupt flights into and out of
the airport. On-airport fuel storage
needs to be increased to at least five
days supply. Volumes are sufficient
that a fuel terminal on the west side of
the island should also be considered.
Storage requirements were based
upon maintaining a five-day supply.
Table 3JJ outlines the analysis for
both airline and general aviation fuel
storage.
TABLE 3JJ
Fuel Storage Requirements
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Planning Horizons
Available
Base Year
(2006)
Short
Term
Inter.
Term
Long
Term
Jet A Requirements
Daily Usage (gal.)
Five Day Storage (gal.)
90,000
110,000
550,000
126,000
630,000
138,000
690,000
171,000
855,000
Avgas Requirements
Daily Usage (gal.)
Five Day Storage (gal.)
10,000
1,200
6,000
1,900
10,000
2,200
11,000
2,900
15,000
SUMMARY
The intent of this chapter has been to
outline the facilities required to meet
aviation demands projected for Kona
International Airport at Keahole
through the long term planning hori-
zon. A summary of the airfield, airline
terminal, and general aviation facility
requirements are presented on Exhi-
bits 3F, 3G, and 3H.
Following the facility requirements determination, the next step is to de-
velop a direction for development to
best address these potential needs.
The remainder of the Master Plan will
be devoted to conceiving a direction,
its schedule, and its costs.
06
M
P
0
6
-
3
F
-
1
1
/
2
0
/
0
8
AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS Exhibit 3F
ARC D-V ARC D-V ARC D-V ARC D-V
Runway 17-35 Runway 17-35 Runway 17-35 Runway 17-35
11,000’ x 150’ 11,000’ x 150’ Same (Ultimate 12,000’ x 150’)
200,000# DWL 200,000# DWL 200,000# DWL
850,000# DTL 850,000# DTL 850,000# DTL
Military KATR Parallel Runway Parallel Runway
4,250‘ x 90’ 4,200‘ x 75’ 7,000’ x 150’
340,000# DTL 12,500# SWL (Ultimate 11,000’ x 150’)
Helicopter TLOF Military KATR 200,000# DWL
Heliport 4,250’ x 90’ 850,000# DTL
Training Pads 340,000# DTL Helicopter TLOF
Helicopter TLOF Same
Same
Runway 17-35
75’ wide
Full Length Parallel
Partial Dual Parallel
Five Exits
Holding Aprons
Runway 17-35
75’ wide
Full Length Parallel
Partial Dual Parallel
Seven Exits
Runway 17-35
75’ wide
Full Length Parallel
Partial Dual Parallel
Seven Exits
Runway 17-35
75’ wide
Full Length Dual Parallel
Nine Exits
Military KATR
75’ wide
Two Exits
Military KATR
75’ Wide
Two Exits
Parallel Runway
35’ wide
Three Exits
Holding Aprons
Parallel Runway
75’ wide
Full Length Parallel
Seven Exits
Holding Aprons
ATCT, ASR,
ASOS, RTR
Runway 17-35
RNAV, GPS
ILS (17)
DME (17)
LOC BC 35
ATCT, ASR, ASOS
ASOS, RTR
Runway 17-35
VOR, TACAN,
RNAV, GPS
ILS (17)
DME (17)
LOC BC 35
ATCT, ASR, ASOS
ASOS, RTR
Runway 17-35
VOR, TACAN,
RNAV, GPS
ILS, DME (17)
LOC BC 35
ATCT, ASR, ASOS,
ASOS, RTR
Runway 17-35
CAT I GPS
Parallel Runway
GPS
Helicopter TLOF
GPS
Military KATR
None
Military KATR
None
Parallel Runway
GPS
Helicopter TLOF
None
Airport Beacon, MITL
Segmented Circle,
Lighted Wind Cones
Runway 17-35
HIRL, PAPI-4
MALSR (17)
Precision Marking
Airport Beacon, MITL
Segmented Circle,
Wind Cones
Runway 17-35
HIRL, PAPI-4
MALSR (17)
Precision Marking
Military KATR
Visual Marking
Airport Beacon, MITL
Segmented Circle,
Wind Cones
Runway 17-35
HIRL, PAPI-4
MALSR (17)
Precision Marking
Parallel Runway
Nonprecision Marking
Helicopter TLOF
Heliport Markings
Military KATR
Visual Marking
Airport Beacon, MITL
Segmented Circle,
Wind Cones
Runway 17-35
HIRL, PAPI-4
MALSR (17)
Precision Marking
Parallel Runway
Nonprecision
Marking
Helicopter TLOF
Heliport Markings
RUNWAYS
TAXIWAYS
NAVIGATIONAL AIDS
LIGHTING
AND MARKING
AVAILABLE SHORT TERM
INTERMEDIATE
TERM LONG TERM
06
M
P
0
6
-
1
A
-
1
1
/
2
0
/
0
8
PASSENGER TERMINAL Exhibit 3G
Agricultural Check Stations 3 3 3 5
Ag Station Queue Area (s.f.) 732 1,066 1,277 1,829
Counter Length (l.f.) 299 90 92 107
Ticket Queue/Lobby (s.f.) 10,062 7,332 7,812 9,387
Outbound Baggage (s.f.) 27,601 12,782 13,694 16,553
Airline Ticket Office (s.f.) 8,391 5,939 6,296 7,527
Security Stations 4 5 5 7
Security Queue Area (s.f.) 2,375 2,641 2,906 3,612
Aircraft Gates 12 13 14 16
Holdroom Area (s.f.) 20,326 15,058 16,574 20,593
Airline Operations 904 842 1,046 1,151
International Arrivals
Processing (s.f.) 18,130 14,280 15,192 19,532
Inbound Baggage (s.f.) 34,694 60,518 69,387 95,212
Bag Claim Devices 3 5 5 7
Bag Claim Display (l.f.) 544 894 988 1,231
Bag Claim Lobby (s.f.) 14,938 24,680 27,296 34,000
Bag Services Office (s.f.) 706 1,136 1,293 1,568
Restrooms (s.f.) 3,777 10,940 12,072 15,019
Food & Beverage (s.f.) 5,034 9,424 10,324 12,716
Retail Concessions (s.f.) 3,179 5,074 5,560 6,847
Terminal Curb (l.f.) 1,380 930 1,030 1,280
Commercial Median (l.f.) 850 550 610 760
Parking Spaces
Public 1,138 1,215 1,337 1,652
Employee 758 521 573 708
Rental Car Facilities 14.0 13.9 15.3 18.9
GROSS TERMINAL AREA 323,740 351,500 377,300 447,200
AVAILABLE ANNUAL PASSENGER THRESHOLDS (MILLIONS)
SUPPLY 3.47 3.82 4.72
AIRLINE COUNTER / OFFICE
SECURITY PROCESSING / CONCOURSES
BAGGAGE CLAIM
PUBLIC / SUPPORT SPACE
CURB AND PARKING
06
M
P
0
6
-
3
H
-
1
/
2
7
/
0
9
GA / CARGO SUMMARY Exhibit 3H
Cargo Apron Area (s.y.) 19,300 21,500 29,600 37,700 51,100
GSE Storage (s.f.) 51,100 68,000 82,000 94,000 130,000
Building Space (s.f.) 40,310 62,000 74,000 86,000 118,000
Truck Docks (ea.) 12 18 22 26 35
Truck Staging/Vehicle Parking (ac.) 2.4 4.2 5.1 5.9 8.1
T-Hangars
Positions 18 47 59 66 86
Hangar Area (s.f.) 23,100 59,900 75,200 84,200 109,700
Conventional Hangars
Storage Positions 0 25 34 44 64
Hangar Area (s.f.) 0 53,100 82,400 115,900 189,400
Apron Parking
Positions 76 93 123 147 198
Area (s.y.) 64,500 92,700 126,800 154,900 211,000
Maintenance Hangar (s.f.) 0 17,000 23,600 30,000 44,900
Services Building (s.f.) 10,600 14,300 18,400 22,200 29,300
Auto Parking (spaces) 130 254 327 392 519
Jet A (gal) 90,000 550,000 630,000 690,000 855,000
Avgas (gal) 10,000 6,000 10,000 11,000 15,000
AIR CARGO FACILITIES
GA AIRCRAFT HANGARS
GA TERMINAL SERVICES
AVIATION FUEL STORAGE
AVAILABLE DEMAND PLANNING HORIZONS
SUPPLY BASE YEAR SHORT INTERMEDIATE LONG
AVAILABLE DEMAND PLANNING HORIZONS
SUPPLY BASE YEAR SHORT INTERMEDIATE LONG
AVAILABLE DEMAND PLANNING HORIZONS
SUPPLY BASE YEAR SHORT INTERMEDIATE LONG
AVAILABLE DEMAND PLANNING HORIZONS
SUPPLY BASE YEAR SHORT INTERMEDIATE LONG
Chapter Four
ALTERNATIVES
4-1
Chapter Four
ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVES
In the process of updating the master plan
for Kona International Airport at Keahole
(KOA), it is important to review develop-
ment potential and constraints at the
airport. The purpose of this chapter is to
develop a series of airport development
scenarios by considering the actual
physical facilities which are needed to
accommodate projected demand and meet
the program requirements as defined in
Chapter Three - Facility Requirements.
In each of these scenarios, different
physical facility layouts are presented for
the purpose of discussion and evaluation.
The ultimate goal is to develop the
underlying rationale which supports the
final master plan recommendations.
Through this process, an evaluation of the
highest and best uses of airport property is
made while considering local goals,
physical constraints, and federal airport
design standards, where appropriate.
Any development proposed by a master
plan evolves from an analysis of projected
needs. Though the needs were determined
by the best methodology available, it cannot
be assumed that future events will not
change these needs. The master planning
process attempts to develop a viable concept
for meeting the needs caused by projected
demands through the planning period.
The number of potential alternatives which
can be considered is endless. Therefore,
some judgment must be applied to identify
the alternatives which have the greatest
potential for implementation. The alterna-
tives presented in the chapter were
developed to meet the overall program ob-
4-2
jectives for the airport in a balanced
manner. Through coordination with
the Technical Advisory Committees
(TAC), the public, and the Hawaii De-
partment of Transportation – Airports
Division (DOT-A), the alternatives (or
a combination thereof) were refined
and modified as necessary to shape
the recommended development pro-
gram. Therefore, the alternatives pre-
sented in this chapter could be consid-
ered a beginning point for formulating
the updated master plan development
program.
PREVIOUS PLANNING
EFFORTS
Prior to presenting airport develop-
ment alternatives, it is helpful to re-
view some of the previous planning
efforts and the subsequent develop-
ment now in place. The last airport
master plan for KOA was completed in
1998. Along with the previous master
plan, there have also been three ter-
minal-specific studies completed since
1997. The following briefly discusses
each of these plans as they relate to
what has taken place with regard to
airport facility development.
1998 MASTER PLAN
The previous master plan was based
primarily on the projected aviation
demands through 2015, but also fac-
tored in some flexibility for demand to
2020 and beyond. Long-range facili-
ties were designated on the airport
layout plan (ALP) for land reservation
purposes.
The runway had just been extended to
11,000 feet in 1993 and was viewed by
the Master Plan as adequate for the
future. In fact, the only airfield-
related improvements recommended
through 2015 were the development of
a new airport traffic control tower
(ATCT) mauka (east) of U`u Street
and a heliport. To date, neither has
been developed.
The demand forecast by the 1998 Mas-
ter Plan suggested that the single
runway would be adequate through
2020. The plan, however, did include
a future parallel runway 1,400 feet
makai (west) of the existing runway to
ensure that adequate space was re-
served beyond the planning period. As
shown on Exhibit 4A, a parallel tax-
iway was also planned between the
two runways. Category I instrument
approach capability was also reserved
for each runway end.
On the landside, the proposed termi-
nal complex development was planned
to maintain its linear pattern. The
major expansion of the passenger ter-
minal was to the north of the existing
complex with expansion of general
aviation, air tour facilities, and air
cargo to the south.
The 1998 Master Plan proposed an
airline terminal development plan
that followed the projected growth of
an estimated 3.8 million passengers in
the year 2020, and confirmed the
overseas passenger growth of the 1997
Overseas Terminal Study.
At the time, remedial improvements
were in progress to serve overseas
flights from the existing terminal.
1998 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN Exhibit 4A
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
A
-
1
1
/
2
0
/
0
7
4-3
The master plan recommended that
ultimately the existing terminals
would return strictly to interisland
use and incorporated the 1997 study’s
concept of a new overseas terminal
planned to the north.
Recommended improvements included
additional airline operating spaces,
expanded baggage facilities, and addi-
tional covered space in the waiting
areas near the gates. The parking lot
and terminal loop would be expanded
to the north to Pao`o Street (Road N)
to provide for additional parking, ter-
minal curb, and circulation.
Moderate growth in air cargo was pro-
jected and the master plan called for
accommodating this growth by ex-
panding the current cargo area to the
south with an additional cargo build-
ing in line with the two existing build-
ings.
The master plan projected a doubling
of based aircraft so doubling of hangar
space was planned. The existing gen-
eral aviation facilities were split on
either side of the cargo area. The area
to the south had already been graded
for future development. The master
plan recommended the development of
ramp and fixed base operator (FBO)
facilities to the south to anchor a new
general aviation area. The existing
general aviation hangars were
planned to be relocated to the south to
consolidate all general aviation in one
area. This would include the reloca-
tion of the existing air tour facilities to
a permanent site adjacent to the rest
of the general aviation facilities.
The itinerant aircraft parking that
was planned to the south along Tax-
iway A has been developed. This in-
cludes taxiway stubs on either side
that were intended to provide depth
into the general aviation area as it
was developed.
Finally, the heliport was planned for
an area mauka (east) of Pao`o Street.
This area would include two heliports
as well as lease lots, helicopter park-
ing, and vehicle parking.
Support uses were generally planned
to the north of the passenger terminal.
This included areas for a fuel farm,
wastewater treatment, flight kitchen,
postal facilities, and administrative
uses. Ground transportation service
and storage was planned to remain
and expand in its current location just
north of the airport access road. The
plan also included the relocation of the
rental car counters and ready return
area in the parking lot to the service
and storage areas. This has occurred
since the master plan was completed.
Besides expansion of the terminal loop
road described earlier, on-airport cir-
culation included the development of a
pattern of roads in support of not only
the flight line development but other
areas within the airport property. The
airport access road was planned to be
expanded to four lanes. A second
access to Queen Kaahumanu Highway
was planned for a service road (Road
P) to the north of the access road.
Roads “L,” “M,” and “N” were planned
as internal circulation routes as shown
within Exhibit 4A.
4-4
PREVIOUS PASSENGER
TERMINAL PLANNING
The plans recommended from the pre-
vious terminal planning studies are all
depicted on Exhibit 4B for review and
comparison. Each is discussed below.
1997 Overseas Terminal Study
This study was conducted shortly after
the interim FIS (Federal Inspection
Services) facility was completed to
service flights arriving from Japan.
Forecasts at the time of the study
showed an increase in wide body ser-
vice from Asia, thereby requiring the
development of an overseas terminal
with an appropriate level of service.
The recommended terminal would be
located north of the existing main
terminal and would require a new pe-
ripheral roadway, infrastructure, and
parking. The terminal building itself
would be built for international and
domestic overseas flights with a two-
level pier concourse. The concept was
phased for an initial two-gate con-
course with a later five-gate expansion
planned. This preferred concept was
never realized and the interim tent
structure is still in operation today as
the CBP (Customs and Border Protec-
tion) facility for international arriving
flights.
2001 Terminal Facilities Study
This study followed the Master Plan
Update of 1998 and provided a more
detailed evaluation of the development
opportunities for the terminal area.
These opportunities include the air-
craft apron, passenger processing fa-
cilities, airport and airline operations
facilities, passenger service conces-
sions, and the terminal curbs, parking,
and roadways. The preferred plan
would improve and expand facilities in
the existing terminal area for the pur-
pose of elevating passenger levels of
service, and increasing capacity, effi-
ciency, and flexibility of operations.
The preferred concept included an ele-
vated passenger boarding corridor
that would provide a connection to all
holdrooms and to the FIS facility. It
would function as a covered walkway
for inter-island passengers as well as a
sterile corridor for international arriv-
ing passengers. The main terminal
area functions such as Ticketing (cen-
tralized to one zone) and Baggage
Claim (two separate zones) are
grouped for clearer understanding of
overall airport functions. The current
“two-unit terminal” airport layout
transitioned toward a more centra-
lized terminal by connecting south and
north terminal areas with airside im-
provements. The Ellison S. Onizuka
Space Center was planned to remain
in its existing location. Additional
holdroom and baggage handling facili-
ties were also included in the recom-
mended plan as well as an increase in
long term parking capacity.
2005 Terminal Safety
and Security Study
This terminal study evaluates the cur-
rent terminal facilities for safety and
security requirements and makes rec-
ommendations for terminal devel-
PREVIOUS TERMINAL PLANNING Exhibit 4B
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
B
-
1
1
/
2
0
/
0
7
1997 TERMINAL STUDY
2001 TERMINAL FACILITIES STUDY
1998 MASTER PLAN
2005 SAFETY & SECURITY STUDY
4-5
opment to accommodate forecast
growth through 2025. The study fo-
cused on six key areas which included
holdrooms, security screening check-
points, FIS facility, ticket lobby, bag-
gage claim, and baggage screening.
Recommendations were phased for
short term, mid-term, and long-term
projects. Improvements included cen-
tralizing ticketing and security screen-
ing as well as additional baggage
claim and a centralized and larger
outbound bound baggage facility in
the space between the north and south
holdrooms. Above this baggage facili-
ty would be an enclosed second level
concourse level that would include
loading bridges. The recommended
concept assumed the relocation of the
Ellison S. Onizuka Space Center.
Long term phase recommendations
include expanding the facility to the
north, incorporating a new FIS inter-
national arrivals facility.
NON-DEVELOPMENT
ALTERNATIVES
Non-development alternatives include
the “No Action” or “Do Nothing” alter-
native, transferring service to an ex-
isting airport, or developing an airport
at a new location. Several previous
planning efforts have also considered
these alternatives. All have resulted
in the same conclusion: continue to
develop the existing airport site to
meet the needs of Hawaii County and
its western coast.
NO ACTION
The “No Action” alternative essen-
tially considers keeping the airport in
its existing condition, with no addi-
tional improvements. As the island of
Hawaii continues to develop and grow,
the transportation system must also
adjust to meet the changing needs.
Air transportation is a part of this sys-
tem and, in many ways, the most dy-
namic and key element of the system.
Travel by air is the fastest means to
cover long distances, and it provides
businesses the capability to expand
their markets nationally and globally.
It provides tourists the means to max-
imize their vacation experience within
the time available. It can be argued
that the airlines provide the most suc-
cessful form of mass transportation in
the world today.
Today’s technological advancements
have made the internet the most dy-
namic form of communication. While
the capabilities of the internet may
have reduced the need for some trans-
portation for communications (i.e., cer-
tain meetings and letter deliveries), it
has also increased the demand for
short turnarounds, both in business
and household purchases. Air trans-
portation is critical to providing the
“just-in-time deliveries” for an indus-
try that has dramatically reduced
overhead related to inventory storage.
Even individual households can have
virtually any consumer product deliv-
ered to the doorstep within 24 hours
because of the capabilities of the in-
ternet and air transportation.
4-6
Activity statistics for Kona Interna-
tional Airport at Keahole indicate that
it has evolved into the most important
interface to the air transportation sys-
tem on the Big Island. The airport’s
forecasts and facility requirements
analysis indicate future needs for im-
provements throughout the facility.
The passenger terminal building,
which is often the first and last memo-
ry of the area for visitors, will need to
be able to adapt and grow to accom-
modate changing security and inspec-
tion requirements as well as a growing
nonstop overseas market.
A simple review of history indicates
that today’s airport is handling nearly
two million more passengers than it
did in the early 1980s. Growth in air
cargo has been just as dramatic. Gen-
eral aviation needs continue to evolve
and change as the use of corporate air-
craft become more commonplace. The
use of general aviation for sightseeing
and interisland travel is also increas-
ing, and the Big Island is also being
discovered as an excellent location for
pilot training.
Even though the old airport had expe-
rienced some jet activity, the opening
of the airport in 1970 truly brought
the west coast of the island into the jet
age. Runway extensions since that
time have provided direct links to the
mainland and to the world.
Landside improvements have allowed
the airport to adjust to the increasing
volumes of passengers as well.
If KOA had not been able to respond
to the growth in demand and the
changing marketplace, the island’s
and the state’s ability to participate
and compete in the national and glob-
al economy would have been compro-
mised. If facilities are not maintained
and improved so that the airport re-
mains a pleasant experience to the vis-
itor or business traveler, or if delays
and queues become unacceptable, then
these groups or individuals may con-
sider doing business elsewhere or
choose not to frequent the area.
Thus, a “No Action” alternative re-
mains inconsistent with the goals of
the State of Hawaii, as well as those of
the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), which include enhancing local
and interstate commerce. A policy of
no action would be considered an ir-
responsible approach affecting the
long term economic growth of the is-
land and the state.
TRANSFERRING
AVIATION SERVICES
Transferring services to another air-
port, existing or new, is one that may
typically be favored by many residing
close to an existing airport. Relocat-
ing an airport, however, is very com-
plex and expensive, especially when
commercial service is involved.
TRANSFER SERVICES
TO AN EXISTING AIRPORT
A master plan for an existing airport
typically looks at the needs over a 20-
to 25-year period. In this manner, any
short term investment in improve-
ments at the airport will be ensured of
being amortized over a useful period of
time. The same would be true of
4-7
transferring services to another exist-
ing airport, provided that the transfer
airport could absorb much of the cur-
rent and 20-year demand without ma-
jor investment beyond what would be
required at the present airport.
Examples of how this could occur
would be if services could be effective-
ly consolidated at another nearby
commercial service airport, a large
general aviation airport, or at a near-
by military air base. In most cases, an
existing general aviation airport will
require such an extensive upgrade
that it would essentially be the same
as starting over with a new airport on
the same site.
The military air base is viable only if
there is one available that is either
planned to be or recently was de-
commissioned, or a base that is willing
to operate as a joint-use facility. This
most recently occurred in Austin, Tex-
as, where Bergstrom AFB was con-
verted to Austin-Bergstrom Inter-
national Airport. Of course, Honolulu
International Airport is currently a
joint-use facility with Hickam Air
Force Base. There are, however, no
air bases on the Big Island to even be
considered.
The other commercial service airport
on the Big Island is Hilo International
Airport (ITO). Like all public airports
in Hawaii, ITO is owned by the state
and operated by the Hawaii Depart-
ment of Transportation Airports Divi-
sion (DOT-A). The airport has two in-
tersecting runways, the longest of
which is 9,800 feet long. ITO current-
ly handles approximately half the pas-
senger level of KOA. Annual opera-
tions have been around 100,000 for
the last several years.
The level of facilities available at ITO
would need to upgrade significantly to
accommodate the traffic at KOA. The
primary runway is 1,200 feet shorter
than the 11,000-foot runway at KOA.
The facility requirements indicated
that additional airfield capacity will be
needed at KOA in the short term. The
same would be required immediately
at Hilo International Airport if servic-
es were to be transferred. This would
likely include a parallel runway. The
passenger facility would be required to
nearly triple in size along with an ex-
pansion of cargo facilities just to han-
dle current levels of traffic at one air-
port. Access roads would also require
upgrading.
Hilo International Airport is sur-
rounded by established urban devel-
opment on its north, west, and south-
west sides. Adding the traffic levels of
KOA to this airport would more than
double operations and increase the po-
tential for impacts on the established
neighborhoods nearby.
Perhaps the largest drawback, howev-
er, is the travel distance from the west
side of the island to Hilo. It is approx-
imately a 96-mile drive between the
two airports with a drive time esti-
mated at over two hours one-way.
Most of the trip would be on two-lane
highways. This would be a significant
cost in time and travel to the large
majority of KOA passengers. The ad-
ditional travel distance would have a
major impact not only on residents but
also on the tourism industry on the
west coast. As the state’s largest is-
4-8
land, the distance between the two
major economic centers on the island
is the primary reason there are two
existing airports. To transfer services
to one commercial service airport
would have a major economic impact
on the island and the state.
Waimea-Kohala Airport and Upolu
Airport are the two general aviation
airports on the Big Island. Both are in
the northern reaches of the island.
Waimea-Kohala Airport has a 5,197-
foot runway while Upolu Airport has a
3,800-foot runway. Each of these air-
ports would need to basically be rede-
veloped like a new site if either were
to serve as a replacement commercial
service airport for KOA. This would
also require major property acquisi-
tions and have potentially major envi-
ronmental impacts.
One of the advantages of Kona Inter-
national Airport at Keahole is that it
is relatively centrally located for the
four districts on the west side of the
island. Waimea-Kohala Airport is the
closer of the two airports to KOA, and
it is over 36 miles northeast and ap-
proximately 47 minutes drive time.
This distance would be even further
from the South Kona district.
Kona International Airport was de-
signed and planned in the late 1960s
with room to develop. Its current loca-
tion best serves the population and
tourism industry of the west side of
the island. As long as this facility re-
mains viable with room to meet the
long term aviation needs, transferring
services to another site would not be
prudent or feasible.
The two airports do serve a purpose of
providing convenient general aviation
access to the north side of the island.
Waimea-Kohala Airport does have
some small commuter activity as well.
In addition, both airports can be valu-
able for supporting training activity
that is generated by flight schools
based at KOA. Continuing to support
the development and improvement of
general aviation facilities at these two
airports can help to accommodate
some of the growing general aviation
demand on the west coast.
RELOCATE TO A
NEW AIRPORT SITE
In addition to the major financial in-
vestment, the development of a new
commercial airport also takes a com-
mitment of extensive land area. The
location for a new site is usually unde-
veloped. As a result, the potential for
impacts to wildlife habitat, wetlands,
prime farmland, and cultural re-
sources is higher than at an existing
site which still has development capa-
bility.
That is why in the past 30 years, there
have been only two completely new
“green field” airports constructed in
the United States to replace existing
airports serving over one million an-
nual enplanements. Those airports
were in Ft. Myers, Florida and Den-
ver, Colorado. Southwest Florida In-
ternational Airport was constructed
because the existing airport was se-
verely limited in runway length and
room for airfield or terminal develop-
ment. Denver International Airport
4-9
was constructed primarily to replace
an airport with some of the highest
operational delays in the nation and
with no feasible means to increase the
airfield’s capacity on-site.
Kona International Airport at Keahole
does not experience any of these con-
straints, nor is it expected to expe-
rience severe constraints. The airport
was developed in the late 1960s with
the foresight to acquire and protect
sufficient acreage to be able to develop
and grow in the future. As presented
in the 1998 Master Plan, the airport
has adequate room to grow and devel-
op to carry the facility well into the
future. Given the investment in the
existing facilities and the ability to
meet future needs, complete relocation
to another site would be neither pru-
dent nor feasible.
A less demanding alternative could be
the development of a new general avi-
ation airport or heliport. The previous
chapter indicated a need for capacity
improvements such as a parallel run-
way and/or a heliport. In essence, this
capacity could be provided at a new
general aviation “reliever” airport or
stand-alone heliport. If developed in a
location convenient to general aviation
users, such an airport could serve to
relieve operational level demand at
the existing airport.
FAA regulations and the airport’s
grant assurances prohibit the restric-
tion of a class of aircraft from using
the airport. So forcing general avia-
tion to move to a different airport is
not an alternative. A new general
aviation airport would have to be con-
venient and offer advantages to at-
tract general aviation users. Such ad-
vantages could include less congested
and less restricted airspace, as well as
shorter taxis and more advantageous
locations for general aviation services.
A new general aviation airport will re-
quire less property and will likely
have fewer environmental impacts
than a new commercial service air-
port. A site as convenient as the exist-
ing airport and without significant en-
vironmental impacts may be difficult
to find. As long as there are economi-
cally feasible and environmentally
reasonable alternatives for providing
adequate capacity at the existing air-
port site, development of a new gener-
al aviation airport cannot be consid-
ered as prudent or feasible at this
time.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES
Analysis in the previous chapters of
this master plan indicates that several
improvements will be necessary to en-
hance the capability of the airport to
serve its users well into the 21st cen-
tury. The key airfield issue facing the
airport in the coming years is expected
to be operational capacity. In the ter-
minal area, early public input has in-
dicated that maintaining a “sense of
place” will be critical as issues are ad-
dressed in the organization, optimiza-
tion, and ultimate expansion of the
passenger terminal. Opportunities for
general aviation of all types to develop
and grow are a key concern. Adequate
space to accommodate air cargo needs
in a consolidated manner must be con-
sidered. Support facilities to comple-
ment these primary components must
also be incorporated. Finally, the
4-10
acreage associated with Kona Interna-
tional Airport at Keahole offers oppor-
tunities to further enhance aviation on
the Big Island as well as provide ave-
nues to generate revenue towards
maintaining a self-sufficient airport
and state aviation system.
Exhibit 4C outlines key consider-
ations for this alternatives analysis.
The facility requirements analysis
from the previous chapter identified
several needs over the planning pe-
riod. Carrying over from the previous
master plan is the development of a
parallel runway. Added to the airfield
mix, however, is the Kona auxiliary
training runway (KATR) proposed by
the United States Air Force. This is
essentially a landing strip 4,250 feet
long intended for the purpose of prac-
ticing short field landings by C-17
Cargomaster aircraft.
The previous master plan also recom-
mended an independent touch-down
and lift-off (TLOF) area for helicop-
ters. This heliport concept still needs
to be considered as it can improve the
capacity of the airfield. As the airport
has a large amount of existing and po-
tential helicopter training, considera-
tion should also be given to a separate
training area for practicing landings
and takeoffs, auto-rotations, etc. for
capacity relief.
In addition to operational capacity, the
airfield planning must also consider
safety and efficiency enhancements.
The airfield’s taxiway system will be
reviewed to ensure that runway incur-
sion potential is minimized, and that
the available taxiways provide effi-
cient access and egress to the runway
system. Circulation is also a key to the
overall efficiency of the system. The
locations of future taxiway exits will
be reviewed, as will the parallel and
connecting taxiway system.
As indicated in the previous chapter,
the Airbus 380-800 and the Boeing
747-800 aircraft requires ARC D-VI
airfield standards. The potential for
ultimately accommodating these stan-
dards at KOA as at least an alternate
airport to Honolulu International Air-
port will be considered.
The facility requirements indicated
that the runway length is currently
adequate. While there is no specific
need at this time, to ensure viability
for the future, the opportunity for re-
serving an ultimate runway length up
to 12,000 feet will be considered.
Other airfield issues include the air-
craft rescue and firefighting (ARFF)
station, and the airport maintenance
facilities which need to allow for space
for potential expansion with growth of
the airfield.
The passenger terminal at KOA is
unique among the world’s airports, be-
ing completely open air and preserving
the indigenous architecture of the is-
land. Passengers walk under hut roof
structures, through open courtyards
and alongside tropical landscaping on
their way to and from the aircraft.
While the terminal was originally de-
signed to service small aircraft flying
interisland routes, the terminal has
seen increasing passenger traffic from
the U.S. mainland and Asia. With the
continued popularity for Kona as a
tourist destination, the challenge in
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
C
-
5
/
1
9
/
1
0
DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Exhibit 4C
• Airfield capacity
- KATR for C-17
- Parallel runway
- Independent helicopter operations
• ARC D-V vs. D-VI design
• Ultimate runway length
• Future south CAT I approach
• Taxiway system
- Parallels
- Exit locations
• Support facilities
- ATCT location
- Relocate VOR on-airport
- ARFF
- Maintenance facilities
• Maintaining sense of place and character
• Passenger comfort
- Shade and cooling
- Protection from inclement weather
• Terminal layout and organization
- Future north terminal option
- Commuter terminal vs.
Integrated operations
• Optimization of the existing terminals
- Balance utilization of terminals
- Common use vs. exclusive leases
- Combine terminals
• Departures processing
- Electronic and off-site check-in and bag drop-off
- Security checkpoint (split vs. consolidated)
- Agricultural check combined with
TSA bag screening
- In-line baggage screening
- Passenger circulation and wayfinding
• Baggage claim
- Claim device capacity
- Circulation/greeter space requirements
• Concourse development
- Second level boarding/enhanced boarding
- Agricultural check-in line with
Security checkpoint
- Retail/concessions requirements
- Restroom expansion/modernization
- Adequate seating and amenities
• International operations/CBP requirements
- Integrate CBP within terminal
vs. separate facility
- Improve international passenger experience
• Phased construction
- Maintaining operations and passenger safety
• Air cargo development
- Future cargo site requirements
- HDOA site requirements
- Post office site location
• General aviation development
- Commuter terminal and parking requirements
- Underserved hangar needs
- FBO development sites
- Apron and overflow parking requirements
- Helicopter facilities
• Expanded fuel storage/distribution
• Land use development revenue generation
- Onizuka Space Center relocation
- Regional ARFF/public safety training facility
- Shared government office complex
- Commercial development opportunities
• Access and circulation
- Future airport access points
- Loop road/internal road circulation
- Public parking needs
- Cell phone lot
• Infrastructure
- Utility upgrade and development
- Wastewater treatment plant
- Sustainability opportunities
AIRFIELD CONSIDERATIONS
TERMINAL CONSIDERATIONS
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
4-11
this master plan will be to expand the
terminal to meet the forecast demand
while maintaining the character and
ambience that is strongly desired by
the community and passengers. This
will be balanced, however, by consider-
ing an adequate level of passenger se-
curity and comfort such as shade, cool-
ing, and protection from inclement
weather.
Originally designed to operate as two
separate terminals for interisland air-
craft, the airport’s capacity is now
challenged by larger overseas aircraft
and an unbalanced demand between
the two terminals. Concepts that op-
timize current facilities through oper-
ational improvements such as common
use systems and combining two ter-
minals into one will be considered.
This will be followed by efficient, flexi-
ble, and expandable alternatives that
meet the forecast demands. Maintain-
ing airport operations and passenger
security and safety will be require-
ments for the alternatives. Improving
the passenger experience through the
departures and arrivals processing
will be another important considera-
tion. This will include good passenger
circulation and wayfinding throughout
the terminal, consolidating processing
functions, improving passenger amen-
ities, and providing protection for pas-
senger boarding of aircraft.
As overseas flights increase as fore-
casted, there will be a need to provide
facilities that are appropriate to mul-
tiple larger size aircraft. This facility
could also include international arri-
vals processing which is currently con-
tained in a temporary tent structure.
Air cargo continues to be an industry
that shows dynamic potential world-
wide. On the Big Island, however, it is
also an essential part of the modern
economy. Protecting the potential for
increased cargo capability will be im-
portant for the island’s west coast. In
addition, cargo development has the
potential to work in concert with a for-
eign trade zone to further enhance re-
gional economic development and air-
port revenue generation.
Currently, cargo is handled in two
separate parts of the airport. As de-
mand grows, consolidation of cargo fa-
cilities will become more of a necessity
for safety and functional efficiency.
Other considerations are the needs of
the U.S. Postal Service for a facility on
site, as well as the needs of the Hawaii
Department of Agriculture for refrig-
eration storage, enclosed holding
space, and inspection areas.
General aviation is once again a grow-
ing industry. This is being reflected at
KOA as corporate activity increases,
pilot training grows, and the demand
for small aircraft storage is on the
rise. The rise in second homes, high
end resorts, and convention opportuni-
ties are contributing to the increased
corporate demand. Flight schools on
the airport have found a large demand
for training in the excellent weather
conditions of the west coast. In addi-
tion to the growth, there is a large un-
derserved demand for hangars on the
airport.
Maintaining areas for corporate avia-
tion development, FBO and specialty
operator growth, and individual air-
4-12
craft storage are essential for serving
this sector of the aviation industry.
More defined areas for helicopter ac-
tivity will also be considered.
The on-site fuel storage capabilities at
KOA are dangerously low, especially
considering the fact that fuel must
currently be trucked around the island
from the port in Hilo. This chapter
will consider potential locations for in-
creased fuel storage.
Another planning consideration on the
airport includes the potential use of
remaining landside property on the
airport. While it is important to main-
tain these areas on-airport for opera-
tional safety and land use compatibili-
ty purposes, putting them to use in a
manner that will generate revenue to
support airport operational costs, as
well as provide economic opportunities
for the community, should be consi-
dered.
AIRFIELD IMPROVEMENT
CONSIDERATIONS
Airfield facilities are, by nature, a fo-
cal point of the airport complex. Be-
cause of their primary role and the
fact that they physically dominate air-
port land use, airfield facility needs
are often the critical factor in the de-
termination of viable airport develop-
ment. Analysis in the previous chap-
ter indicated the need to plan for addi-
tional airfield, as well as examine op-
tions that could provide additional
runway length if ever needed for long-
er haul overseas flights. Other fac-
tors to be considered include the air-
field taxiway system and the potential
to accommodate airport reference code
(ARC) D-VI at least as an alternate
airport. The relocation of the ATCT is
being evaluated by the FAA and is
discussed here. Options for relocating
the very high frequency omnidirec-
tional range (VOR) onto the airport
are also examined.
AIRFIELD CAPACITY
ALTERNATIVES
Physical improvements that can in-
crease airfield capacity include addi-
tional taxiway exits, a parallel run-
way, and independent helicopter land-
ing areas. There is an opportunity to
increase airfield capacity by up to 10
percent at KOA with the proper
placement of two additional taxiway
exits. These will be addressed later in
the taxiway subsection. A more signif-
icant increase in capacity, however,
can be attained with the development
of a parallel runway. A helicopter
landing and takeoff area that can sup-
port operations independent of the
runway activity can also increase ca-
pacity due to the level of helicopter ac-
tivity at the airport. The following
subsections examine parallel runway
and helicopter TLOF alternatives.
The discussion begins, however, with a
description of the KATR programmed
for KOA by the Department of De-
fense.
Kona Auxiliary Training
Runway (KATR)
The United States Air Force (USAF)
utilizes the C-17 aircraft in its role of
supporting security response, provid-
4-13
ing civil defense, and supplying hu-
manitarian aid. The C-17 is used to
furnish supplies, equipment, food,
clothing, and military assistance
throughout the world and within the
Pacific Asian Theater of Operations.
In 2006, a squadron of C-17 aircraft
was established at Hickam Air Force
Base (AFB) as part of this mission.
One of the critical elements of the
training curriculum for the C-17 air
crews is the use of an auxiliary train-
ing runway to gain experience in op-
erating into and out of short runways.
By military design criteria, the train-
ing facility can be as small as 3,000
feet by 90 feet or as large as 5,000 feet
by 100 feet.
The USAF proposed the KATR at
4,250 feet long and 90 feet wide. The
USAF searched and evaluated alter-
native locations for an auxiliary train-
ing runway in the Hawaiian Islands,
ultimately selecting an alternative at
Kona International Airport at Kea-
hole. An environmental assessment
was prepared on the proposed KATR
in 2004.
Exhibit 4D includes a depiction of the
KATR as proposed by the Air Force.
The proposed KATR is planned along
the alignment of the ultimate parallel
taxiway between the proposed parallel
runway and Runway 17-35 in the 1998
Master Plan. This would place the
centerline of the KATR 700 feet makai
(west) of the centerline of Runway 17-
35. The 4,250-foot KATR would also
have 300-foot paved overruns within a
500-foot extended safety area off each
end. Exit taxiways are planned to
align with Taxiway A North and with
Taxiway G. Training aircraft will land
on the KATR, then use the taxiways to
return to Runway 17-35 for departure.
This layout is included in each of the
proposed airfield alternative layouts to
be discussed.
It should be noted, however, that the
proposed location could allow the
KATR to be readily developed to the
maximum size of 5,000 feet by 100
feet. In fact, this size would have the
potential for joint interisland GA and
cargo use.
Parallel Runway
When possible, the best means for im-
proving runway capacity is the devel-
opment of a parallel runway. The op-
timum capacity is attained by a paral-
lel runway that matches the design of
the primary runway. A runway that
can accommodate a majority of the
airport’s operational mix, however,
can still significantly improve capaci-
ty. Since instrument meteorological
conditions (IMC) exist a small percen-
tage of the time at KOA, there is not a
need for simultaneous instrument ap-
proaches. For simultaneous opera-
tions in visual conditions, a runway
separation of 1,200 feet is the mini-
mum FAA standard for aircraft in air-
port reference code (ARC) D-V and D-
VI.
Exhibit 4D presents the parallel
runway in the location proposed in the
1998 Master Plan. The runway sepa-
ration is 1,400 feet. Besides the phys-
ical runway there are several mini-
mum standards that are designed to
allow for safe operation of the runway.
4-14
As discussed in the previous chapter,
these vary with the operating charac-
teristics of the design aircraft. While
the parallel runway may initially start
out with a lesser design, it is prudent
to plan and protect the area expected
to be needed over the long term.
The runway safety area (RSA) is the
most critical standard. As can be seen
on the exhibit, this would be graded
and maintained within the current
property. At the north end of the
runway, however, there is minimal
clearance between the RSA and the
property boundary. Next is the run-
way object free area (ROFA), also de-
picted on the exhibit. While this area
does not necessarily need to be graded,
the ROFA should still be kept clear of
all objects not fixed by airfield func-
tion, and those objects must be on
frangible mounts. Airport fencing and
perimeter service roads should be lo-
cated outside of the ROFA. The ROFA
on the north end of the ultimate paral-
lel runway in this alternative would
extend beyond the airport property
and over the water. This would re-
quire that the perimeter fencing and
service road be placed within the
standard ROFA in this area. To ac-
commodate the fence and road, the
FAA would need to issue a Modifica-
tion to Design Standard for this
alignment to be feasible.
Another runway design standard is
the runway protection zone (RPZ).
While it is desirable to keep this trap-
ezoidal area off each of the runway
clear of all objects, uses such as park-
ing and roadways are permissible out-
side the central core (extended ROFA)
of the RPZ. It is also preferred that
the airport maintain fee simple control
of the area if at all possible.
As shown on Exhibit 4D, the south
RPZ of the parallel runway would ex-
tend over a public road and into prop-
erty leased by the National Energy
Laboratories of Hawaii (NELHA).
This would require FAA approval of
the public road within the RPZ as well
as easements over the property cur-
rently outside the airport boundary.
Exhibit 4E presents an alternative
where the parallel runway would be
located at the minimum standard sep-
aration of 1,200 feet from Runway 17-
35. In addition, the ultimate runway
would be shifted 1,000 feet to the
north. This would keep the ROFA en-
tirely within the existing makai (west)
boundary of the airport and allow for
the perimeter fencing and service road
to remain outside the ROFA. This al-
so would allow the potential to ulti-
mately develop airport landside uses
makai (west) of the runways.
Alternative 2 would place the runway
closer to the planned KATR. This
would be an operational problem only
if the KATR and parallel runway were
intended to have simultaneous opera-
tions.
As indicated earlier, the parallel run-
way can be expected to be developed in
stages. A length of 3,600 feet would be
capable of accommodating aircraft
weighing less than 12,500 pounds with
less than 10 seats. To accommodate
small aircraft with 10 or more passen-
ger seats, a 4,200-foot runway would
be needed.
AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 1 Exhibit 4D
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
D
-
5
/
1
1
/
1
0
0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
2,000’2,000’2,000’
324’324’324’
ASR 1,500’ASR 1,500’ASR 1,500’
Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)
KATR 4,250’ x 90’KATR 4,250’ x 90’KATR 4,250’ x 90’
#2
#1#3
ATCT #10
ATCT #9
ATCT #8
Existing ARFF Site
3,300’3,300’3,300’
XX
X
Pao‘o St. (Road N)
Kupipi St.
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.
Ka
i
m
i
n
a
n
i
D
r
.
Shor
e
l
i
n
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
d
.
Ro
a
d
P
(
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
F
u
t
u
r
e
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
d
.
)
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
(
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
a
d
)
Alternative
ARFF Site
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Object Free Area (OFA)
Extended OFA
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
Short Term Airfield Pavement
Ultimate Airfield Pavement
Kona Auxiliary Training Runway (KATR)
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)
Site Alternatives
Heliport Site Alternatives
Helicopter Training Pad
Ultimate Perimeter Service RoadUltimate Perimeter Service RoadUltimate Perimeter Service Road
700’700’700’
700’700’700’
1,000’1,000’1,000’
Initial GA Parallel Runway 4,500’ x 75’Initial GA Parallel Runway 4,500’ x 75’Initial GA Parallel Runway 4,500’ x 75’
VOR #4J
VOR #8 VOR #9
1,000’1,000’
1,000’1,000’
VOR #11
1,0
0
0
’
1,000’
1,0
0
0
’
VOR #12
VOR #10
1,000’1,000’1,000’
1,000’1,000’1,000’1,000’1,000’1,000’
Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’
AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE 2 Exhibit 4E
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
E
-
5
/
1
1
/
1
0
0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
1,800’1,800’
381’381’381’
ASR 1,500’ASR 1,500’ASR 1,500’
Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)
KATR 4,250’ x 90’KATR 4,250’ x 90’KATR 4,250’ x 90’
#2
#1
ATCT #10
ATCT #9
ATCT #8
2,500’2,500’2,500’
1,800’
XX
X
Pao‘o St. (Road N)
Kupipi St.
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.
Ka
i
m
i
n
a
n
i
D
r
.
Ro
a
d
P
(
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
F
u
t
u
r
e
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
d
.
)
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
(
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
a
d
)
Existing ARFF Site
Shor
e
l
i
n
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
d
.
Alternative
ARFF Site
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Object Free Area (OFA)
Extended OFA
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
Short Term Airfield Pavement
Ultimate Airfield Pavement
Kona Auxiliary Training Runway (KATR)
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)
Site Alternatives
Heliport Site Alternatives
Helicopter Training Pad
Ultimate Perimeter Service RoadUltimate Perimeter Service RoadUltimate Perimeter Service Road
Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’
500’500’500’
700’700’700’
500’500’500’
1,000’1,000’1,000’
#3
VOR #4J
VOR #8 VOR #9
VOR #11
VOR #12
VOR #10
1,000’1,000’1,000’
1,000’1,000’1,000’
1,0
0
0
’
1,000’
1,0
0
0
’
1,000’1,000’1,000’
1,000’1,000’1,000’1,000’1,000’1,000’
Initial GA Parallel Runway 3,600’ x 75’Initial GA Parallel Runway 3,600’ x 75’Initial GA Parallel Runway 3,600’ x 75’
4-15
Exhibits 4D and 4E depict two op-
tions for this initial development. Al-
ternative 1 shows the initial parallel
runway developed at the north end of
the airfield. This would be aligned
with the north end of existing Runway
17-35 and the planned KATR. The
initial length would be 4,500 feet with
taxiway access at each end of the
runway.
Alternative 2 shows the initial parallel
runway developed at the south end of
the shifted runway. Starting the run-
way development at the south end
would maintain the runway closer to
the airport’s general aviation facilities.
This would reduce taxi times and like-
ly increase the propensity of general
aviation operators to regularly use the
parallel runway. As depicted, the
runway could initially be developed at
a length of 3,600 feet and with tax-
iway exits at both ends. This would
not only be staggered south of the
KATR, but would also be clear of the
RPZ for the KATR. A 4,500-foot long
runway would require the north exit
taxiway to cross the RPZ for the
KATR. If the ultimate runway align-
ment were planned similar to Alterna-
tive 1, a length of 4,600 feet could be
attained before the KATR’s RPZ be-
came a factor.
Independent Helicopter TLOF
To better accommodate the growing
helicopter traffic as well as increase
the airfield’s capacity, helipads for in-
dependent operations by helicopters
should be considered. For completely
independent operations, the helicopter
TLOF should be separated at least
2,500 feet from the runway. A base
heliport for operators should be consi-
dered as well as a separate landing
area for helicopter training. Ideally,
the heliport should be in reasonable
proximity to the general aviation facil-
ities for potential cross-utilization of
services and facilities. The training
TLOF can be located in a separate
area away from other activities.
The previous master plan recommend-
ed a separate heliport location mauka
(east) of the general aviation area
across Pao`o Street (Road N). This lo-
cation is generally depicted by Heli-
port Site #1 on Exhibit 4D. In this
location the heliport would be at least
2,500 feet from the runway. There is
some concern for the line-of-sight be-
tween the heliport ATCT Site #10.
Alternate Site #2 is also shown on the
exhibit. This site is closer to the gen-
eral aviation facilities, for even great-
er cross-utilization of services and fa-
cilities. A helipad in this area, how-
ever, would be as close as 2,200 feet
from the runway. Traffic at this site
would directly overfly ATCT Site #8.
There is also concern for potential
line-of-sight problems with ATCT Site
#10.
Site #3 would co-locate the heliport
with the heliport facilities adjacent to
the helicopter training pad. This
would maintain essentially all helicop-
ter activity in one general location.
Line-of-sight for ATCT Site #10 would
be better, but this location could
create potential problems for viewing
from ATCT Site #9.
4-16
Heliport layouts for these two loca-
tions will be examined later with the
general aviation landside alter-
natives.
The airport’s large acreage offers op-
portunities for establishing a helicop-
ter training area away from other air-
side and landside facilities. The opti-
mum location appears to be at the
north end of the airport away from the
general aviation area, and at least
2,500 feet from the runway. For com-
patibility with developing off-airport
land uses, locations in close proximity
to Queen Kaahumanu Highway were
avoided.
The Hawaii County General Aviation
Council (HCGAC) has recommended a
training area/runway 1,500 feet long
and 300 feet wide. The area would be
paved and marked to accommodate
multiple training aircraft. While this
would be ideal, funding and other de-
velopment factors could limit the
paved width of the facility, although
the 1,500-foot length should be main-
tained.
Exhibit 4D depicts an alternate
training location approximately one-
half mile makai (west) of Queen Kaa-
humanu highway. This location main-
tains a 3,300-foot separation from
Runway 17-35. The separation from
the heliport in the general aviation
area should be sufficient to establish
separate traffic routes for the two
landing areas.
Exhibit 4E presents an alternate lo-
cation at 2,500 feet mauka (east) of
Runway 17-35. This location is gener-
ally along an extension of the Road N
(Pao`o Street) alignment. This align-
ment would provide a general flight
path between the training area and
the heliport terminal.
RUNWAY 17-35
Runway 17-35 is currently the only
runway on the airport. While parallel
runway alternatives to improve air-
field capacity are being considered,
Runway 17-35 will likely remain as
the primary runway because of its
current length, instrument capability,
and proximity to the terminal area.
One consideration for Runway 17-35
as traffic increases is a CAT I ap-
proach to the south end of the runway.
While this may not be a short term
priority, the capability for CAT I min-
imums should be protected for future
viability. The primary planning con-
sideration is to ensure that the ap-
proach is protected. This would in-
clude planning for an RPZ for CAT I
standards. Exhibits 4D and 4E de-
pict this RPZ off the south end of the
runway. All but the southwest corner
of the RPZ would remain within the
current airport boundaries. The Nat-
ural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Au-
thority (NELHA) has a roadway that
is within this corner off-property. Ac-
cording to FAA design criteria, road-
ways are acceptable within the RPZ as
long as they are outside an extended
ROFA to the back of the RPZ. The
NELHA roadway would remain out-
side the extended ROFA, suggesting
that a future CAT I approach can be
accommodated on Runway 35.
4-17
While there is not a pending need for
additional runway length, the facility
requirements indicated that reserving
the capability for a runway up to
12,000 feet in length should be consid-
ered in long range planning. Exhibit
4D depicts adding 1,000 feet to the
north end of the runway. This can be
accommodated well within the airport
property. The existing approach light
lane as well as the glide slope would
have to be relocated. A southern ex-
tension would require not only reloca-
tion of the localizer, but would also
place a larger portion of the future
runway protection zone over NELHA
and its roadway. As a result, any fu-
ture runway extension is recommend-
ed to be planned at the north end of
Runway 17-35.
The runway and its taxiway system
currently meet FAA design standards
for up to ARC D-IV. This includes air-
craft such as the B-767 and DC-10.
The runway itself meets ARC D-V
standards to accommodate aircraft
such as most B-747 and B-777 air-
craft. If the runway were to regularly
accommodate ARC D-VI aircraft such
as the A380-800 and the B747-800, it
should be planned for a 200-foot width
with taxiways 100 feet wide. While
this can be accommodated, it is not
anticipated to be necessary. The cur-
rent runway and taxiway widths will
be adequate to accommodate these
large aircraft on an infrequent basis,
such as a special charter or to serve as
a diversion airport for Honolulu Inter-
national Airport.
Most important in the short term is to
provide adequate separation distances
on the taxiway system. The 225-foot
separation between Taxiway A and
the partial parallel taxiway in the
terminal area meets Group IV stan-
dards, but is not adequate for Group V
aircraft (267-foot standard). In fact,
the push-backs from some aircraft
parking positions are also affected by
Group V taxiway standards.
To provide such separation mauka
(east) of the existing Taxiway A would
require moving terminal facilities
farther back from the runway. Since
the taxiway is currently located 881
feet from the runway, there is ade-
quate space between the runway and
taxiway to consider improving circula-
tion makai (west) of Taxiway A.
Exhibit 4D depicts establishing a
second parallel taxiway alignment 324
feet makai (west) of the current paral-
lel taxiway. This is the taxiway sepa-
ration standard for Group VI aircraft.
The clearances in the terminal area,
however, would remain tight, thus
limiting aircraft parking flexibility at
the terminal gates.
Exhibit 4E examines locating the in-
side taxiway closer to the runway. A
500-foot runway-taxiway separation
would still meet Group V design stan-
dards. This would also allow a 114-
foot “bump-out” of Taxiway A in front
of the terminal, thereby increasing the
terminal apron for parking and circu-
lation. The resulting parallel taxiway
separation of 267 feet meets the Group
V standard. As will be demonstrated
in the discussion of terminal alterna-
tives, this also enhances terminal de-
velopment options.
4-18
The dual parallel taxiway can also
provide flexibility for adding taxiway
exits. Exhibits 4D and 4E depict rec-
ommendations for the placement of
additional taxiway exits to enhance
runway efficiency. The grade differen-
tial between the runway and Taxiway
A in front of the current cargo area,
however, currently prohibits an exit in
this area. This leaves a 3,000-foot gap
between exits for aircraft that cannot
slow sufficiently to exit within 6,400
feet of the runway threshold. The
grade of the inside parallel taxiway
could be designed to allow an exit in
this area.
The exit plan as proposed on these ex-
hibits would ultimately maintain exits
from the runway at least every 2,000
feet, with a higher concentration near
midfield.
AIRFIELD SUPPORT FACILITIES
Airport Traffic Control Tower
As indicated in the previous chapter,
the existing ATCT is old and out-of-
date. In addition, the cab height is not
sufficient to provide full line-of-sight of
all airfield movement areas. In par-
ticular, a northern section of Taxiway
A and portions of the terminal apron
are shadowed from the tower by large
aircraft parked on the terminal ramp.
A site selection study conducted by the
FAA identified and evaluated 10 po-
tential sites, including the current lo-
cation. From this preliminary evalua-
tion, the sites were narrowed down to
three alternate locations for further
analysis. Those three sites are identi-
fied on both Exhibits 4D and 4E.
Site #8 is located mauka (east) of the
terminal loop and parking lot, between
Kupipi Street and Pao`o Street. This
would place this alternative in a loca-
tion that could include future terminal
parking. While the basic footprint of
the terminal would have a minimal
impact, the potential requirement for
a 300-foot secure radius around the
tower could require shifting future
parking farther north.
Site #9 is located makai (west) of the
current airfield, near the west boun-
dary of the airport. A concern with
this site is its proximity to the parallel
runways as proposed by Airfield Al-
ternatives 1 and 2.
Site #10 is located north of the current
terminal along the flightline. While
this area is currently undeveloped, it
does have access and can be main-
tained within the security. The loca-
tion is sufficiently north of the ter-
minal so that it should not impede
northward development of the termi-
nal for well beyond the planning pe-
riod.
The FAA completed final evaluations
and determined Site #10 to be the
most viable site. This recommend-
ation is included in the final master
plan concept.
VOR Relocation
The Kona VOR is currently located 4.3
nautical miles south of the airport.
4-19
Development pressures around this
site require that the FAA find a new
location for the VOR, preferably with-
in the airport boundaries. As with the
ATCT, the FAA conducted a site study
to determine its future location. After
considering a multitude of sites, the
primary candidate locations consid-
ered for additional review and evalua-
tion are depicted on Exhibits 4D and
4E.
General siting requirements recom-
mend that the VOR be located a min-
imum of 500 feet from any runway
centerline and at least 250 feet from
taxiway centerlines. The VOR should
also be at least 500 feet from metal
fences and overhead transmission
lines. A single tree can be tolerated at
500 feet, but groupings of trees should
be maintained at least 1,000 feet
away. Structures should be kept at
least 1,000 feet away. In addition,
metal structures beyond 1,000 feet
should not penetrate a 1.2 degree an-
gle from the base of antenna, and non-
metal structures should not penetrate
a 2.5 degree angle.
One of the primary candidate locations
was on the north end of the airfield,
while the rest were on the southern
portion of the field. VOR Site 4J is
located within the secured airfield pe-
rimeter, approximately 200 feet makai
(west) of the service road, and 1,100
feet mauka (east) of the runway cen-
terline. This site could be readily ser-
viced from the power to the approach
light system. Access could be ex-
tended from the service road. There
was a concern that this location could
affect the developable flight line at the
north end.
VOR Site 8 is located approximately
600 feet makai (west) of Runway 17-35
and approximately 2,000 feet north of
the Runway 35 threshold. While this
area is within the secured airfield pe-
rimeter, it would affect the ability to
develop a full length parallel taxiway
between the existing and future paral-
lel runway.
VOR Site 9 is also located approx-
imately 600 feet makai of Runway 17-
35, but is approximately 700 feet
north of the Runway 35 threshold. It
is also within the secure airport opera-
tions area (AOA), and would affect the
development of the southern portion of
the parallel taxiway between the run-
ways in Airfield Alternative I. Airfield
Alternative II shifts the parallel run-
way and taxiway north so they do not
affect Site 9. The elevation of the
VOR, however, was a concern to be
evaluated to determine its potential
impact on the ultimate parallel run-
way approach.
VOR Sites 10, 11, and 12 are each
located beyond the south runway
thresholds. Site 10 is makai of the
runway centerline, and Sites 11 and
12 are mauka the centerline. All are
within the AOA, and appear to be out
of the way of airport development. A
Site 11 concern was its potential affect
on future general aviation apron de-
velopment. Sites 11 and 12 would
need to be coordinated with NELHA to
ensure its potential development
would not derogate the VOR signal.
4-20
Airport Rescue and
Firefighting Facility
The current ARFF is located south of
the terminal area next to the ATCT.
This location is suitable for future
needs provided the ATCT is relocated
as planned and/or the T-hangar to the
south can be relocated to allow for ex-
pansion and improvements to the
ARFF building.
According to an environmental as-
sessment prepared for the military for
construction and operation of a KATR,
the current ARFF at KOA would not
meet the military response time. If
the ARFF remains in its current loca-
tion, a second facility with one vehicle
would need to be constructed.
If a passenger terminal alternative is
selected that requires development to
the south, the ARFF building would
need to be relocated. The key consid-
eration for siting an ARFF facility is
the response time requirements under
FAR Part 139. Proximity to the ter-
minal is also advantageous for emer-
gency medical response.
Exhibits 4D and 4E depict an alter-
nate location for the ARFF if it be-
comes necessary to be relocated. The
location south of ATCT Site #10 will
still meet required airfield response
times for both Part 139 and for the
KATR, as well as be relatively close to
the terminal building without impact-
ing future terminal growth. It is also
adjacent to an existing service road.
PASSENGER
TERMINAL COMPLEX
The alternatives analysis for the pas-
senger terminal complex at Kona In-
ternational Airport at Keahole in-
cludes the terminal, roads and park-
ing, and adjacent facilities. The analy-
sis of the terminal building on the air-
side will be limited by the constraints
imposed by the runway and taxiway
systems and the utilization of the air-
craft apron. Airfield alternatives that
alter the constraints and allow for
terminal growth opportunities will be
coordinated with the terminal alterna-
tives.
Both initial and long term strategies
that are considered will be developed.
These include the optimization of ex-
isting terminal facilities, and identify-
ing potential modest incremental ex-
pansion to meet near term demand. A
critical factor in the implementation of
the incremental expansion will be
based on the appropriate availability
of funding.
For the airside analysis, the focus is
on the efficient utilization of the air-
craft apron as it relates to the termi-
nal, size, and type of aircraft it serves,
and the needs of the airlines operating
the aircraft. In addition, aircraft
movement in and out of the gates, ser-
vicing of the aircraft, and passenger
boarding methods are considered.
The focus of the landside analysis is
the level of service afforded to passen-
4-21
gers, efficiency of airport operations,
passenger safety and security, efficient
use of capital resources, and opera-
tional flexibility. Together these op-
timize the utilization of terminal
building facilities. The landside analy-
sis also considers how development
strategies relate to operations sectors
(interisland, overseas U.S. mainland,
and international) of the airport and
the terminal facilities needs of the air-
line.
DESIGN BASIS
The existing terminal facilities at
KOA can be very crowded at peak
times. There is already concern about
the level of service provided to passen-
gers at the airport. Seating space is
limited at peak departure times for
mainland passengers, restrooms are
not well placed for convenient access,
and concessions are limited in their
space and offering. Ticketing and bag
claim are each congested during their
respective peak periods, as is passen-
ger security screening. With all of this
in mind, launching into a remodel and
expansion of these facilities while
keeping them in full public use re-
quires careful attention to a number of
factors.
These include the following Basis of
Design factors:
1. Create a unique environment for
people: their travel experience; lev-
el of service and convenience; re-
duce stress.
2. Continue the focus on the natural
environment: responsive to cli-
mate; efficient use of site; sustain-
able.
3. Retain and reinforce community
values, culture and vision.
4. Create an efficient, flexible, ex-
pandable facility responding to
forecast demands as they occur and
meeting all safety and security re-
quirements.
5. Create alternatives responsive to
funding availability: prioritized
“shopping list” of improvements;
upgrade existing facilities; optimize
operations and maintenance; maxi-
mize revenue generation oppor-
tunities.
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
AND OPPORTUNITIES
(Strategies to Expand
the Terminal Area)
The alternative analysis begins with a
thorough understanding of the ter-
minal building constraints that are
influenced by runway and taxiway
setback and clearance regulations, the
terminal building’s unique location as
it relates to existing buildings, and
development within the terminal area.
Knowledge of these constraints then
reveals the opportunities available for
terminal growth as outlined by the
Constraints/Opportunities diagram on
Exhibit 4F.
The size and shape of the existing
terminal area limits opportunities for
facilities development to meet the fu-
ture needs of aviation demand. Thus,
determining strategies to expand the
footprint of the terminal area are ap-
propriate.
4-22
The existing terminal area includes
the aircraft parking apron, the ter-
minal buildings and the terminal
drives, roadways, and parking. The
terminal area envelope is defined as
the footprint boundary of these facili-
ties – from the ground plane up to the
vertical height limit determined by the
lower of two imaginary surfaces. The
first imaginary surface is a horizontal
plane 165 feet above grade. The
second has both a horizontal and
sloped surface where the horizontal
component projects 500 feet from the
centerline of Runway 17-35 at grade.
The sloped component begins where
the horizontal ends and projects up-
ward at a slope of one vertical to seven
horizontal until it intersects the 165-
foot height limit. Other horizontal
controls that affect the boundary of
the terminal area mainly occur along
the makai (west) and mauka (east)
edges of the existing terminal area.
On the airside, it is the layout of the
airfield – runway, parallel taxiway,
and taxilanes. On the landside, it is
the layout of the terminal drives,
roadways, and parking.
The terminal area envelope can be ex-
panded to the north into the former
fuel facilities (recently removed) and
developing vacant land. Expanding to
the south would require the relocation
of the ATCT and ARFF facility and
consolidating general aviation and air
cargo facilities. Expanding to the ma-
kai (west) requires relocating the par-
allel taxiway, and to the mauka (east)
relocating roadways and parking.
Alternatives were developed for plan-
ning horizons that can be imple-
mented on an as needed basis accord-
ing to aviation demand. Generally,
they incrementally increase in magni-
tude from limited operational changes
to major facilities relocation and addi-
tions.
Short Term
This strategy results in a very limited
footprint increase along the west edge
of the aircraft apron. The operational
change requires downsizing Taxiway
A from Group V capability to Group
IV, striping an aircraft push-back zone
designed for B767-300 ER aircraft
size, and striping for a vehicle service
road (VSR). The resulting depth of the
aircraft parking apron would be ap-
proximately 200 feet.
The impact of this strategy on the air-
field operations is that if a Group V
aircraft is taxiing on Taxiway A, then
aircraft ready to push back would
have to hold until that aircraft passes.
Terminal facilities improvements
would be limited to those that would
provide the most immediate improve-
ment to the passenger level of service.
Intermediate
This strategy results in a reasonable
footprint increase along the makai
(west) edge of the aircraft apron and
along the terminal landside. The im-
provements include relocating the
Taxiway A centerline to a position 767
feet east of the centerline of Runway
17-35 for the length between the
ARFF service road and Taxiway G.
Relocating this distance from the
runway allows the addition of a new
ADDITIONAL PARKING
ADDITIONAL BAGGAGE
CLAIM DEVICES AT
BOTH TERMINALS
ADDITIONAL LANE
AT BOTH SECURITY
CHECKPOINTS
FAA RTR
FACILITY
AIR TRAFFIC
CONTROL TOWER
35
0
.
6
’
DISTANCE TO AIRCRAFT TAIL BASED ON TAXIWAY
A FOR GROUP IV AND 767 PUSH BACK ZONE. IF
GROUP 5 ON TAXIWAY THEN HOLD PUSH BACK.
20
0
’
GROUP V TAXIWAY
EXISTING TAXIWAY A
DISTANCE TO NEXT GROUP V TAXIWAY
IS 267 FEET AND ANOTHER 500 FEET TO
CENTERLINE OF RUNWAY
PAO’O STREET
ROAD ‘P’ EXTENDED
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
F
-
1
1
/
2
0
/
0
7
TERMINAL CONSTRAINTS/OPPORTUNITIES Exhibit 4F
CONSTRAINTS/OPPORTUNITIES
ST-1/2/3
4-23
parallel taxiway between the runway
and Taxiway A in the future. Both the
new taxiway and Taxiway A would be
Group V capable. A new Group IV
taxilane would be placed east of Tax-
iway A with a vehicle service road
(VSR) adjacent. The resulting depth
of the aircraft apron would be approx-
imately 285 feet. Alternatively, if the
new Group IV taxilane were designed
specifically for B767-300 ER aircraft
or smaller, then the resulting aircraft
apron depth would be approximately
310 feet. If the taxilane would be fur-
ther reduced to Group III capability,
the resulting apron depth would be
approximately 367 feet.
A further strategy results in a reason-
able footprint increase along the mau-
ka (east) edge of the terminal build-
ings. The improvements include relo-
cating the terminal drive to the first
row of parking. Short term parking
would remain within the loop with a
new long term parking lot constructed
mauka (east) of the terminal roadway.
The terminal area footprint can be ex-
panded to the north by removing the
fuel farm facilities which are no longer
in use and to the south by relocating
the ATCT, ARFF, and consolidating
general aviation facilities.
The impact of this strategy on the air-
field operations is limited to aircraft
movement flexibility lost as the taxi-
lane is downsized from Group IV,
though frequency of large aircraft
movements is not high at this airport
and the future configuration of the air-
field for maximum flexibility is not af-
fected. The impact on the landside is
that the long term parking location
requires pedestrian crossing of the
terminal loop roadway and terminal
drives to reach the terminal buildings
through the intermediate phase.
Long Range
This strategy results in a very large
footprint increase along the west edge
of the aircraft apron, along the ter-
minal landside, and to the north or
south. The improvements include re-
locating the Taxiway A centerline to a
position 767 feet east of the centerline
of Runway 17-35 for the length be-
tween the ARFF service road and Tax-
iway G if not accomplished in the in-
termediate phase and constructing a
new full-length taxiway 500 feet east
of the runway centerline. Both tax-
iways would be capable of Group V
aircraft movement. After reserving
space for a VSR, the resulting depth of
the aircraft apron would be approx-
imately 450 feet. This configuration
allows for total flexibility of aircraft
parking and movement adjacent to the
terminal.
The long range plan also provides a
very large footprint increase along the
mauka (east) edge of the terminal
buildings. The improvements include
relocating the terminal drive to the
first row of parking if not already im-
plemented in the intermediate phase
and relocating the terminal roadway
to the existing Road N.
The north turn of the new roadway
and drives would align with the future
terminal area entrance roadway from
Queen Kaahumanu Highway at ap-
proximately existing Road P. The
south turn of the new roadway would
4-24
continue its connection to the existing
airport access road. The interior of
the roadway system would be large
enough to include all types of parking,
short term, long term, employee, other
ground transport, as well as a park
area which would include the petro-
glyph site and a potential cultural her-
itage development between the ter-
minal area to the rental car site.
The terminal area footprint can be ex-
panded to the north by removing the
fuel farm facilities no longer in use
and improving undeveloped land. Ex-
pansion to the south requires relocat-
ing the ATCT, the ARFF facility, con-
solidating general aviation and air
cargo facilities, each of which are con-
sidered for relocation as a part of this
master plan.
The impact of this strategy on opera-
tions is minimal since it generally ex-
pands the terminal area footprint
without changing the relationship ad-
jacencies of the aircraft parking area,
terminal buildings, and the roadway
system and vehicle parking. Further,
each component can be expanded to
meet its individual demand without
requiring changes to the other compo-
nents. The long range capability of
this strategy to meet future aviation
demand beyond the 20-year time
frame is excellent.
TERMINAL AREA ALTERNATIVE
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS
The strategies to expand the terminal
area are identified and can be incre-
mentally implemented as demand for
additional air terminal facilities re-
quires. Alternative development con-
cepts for using the expanded terminal
area footprint are associated with the
Short Term, Intermediate, and Long
Range opportunities. The alternative
concepts to add terminal facility ca-
pacity focus on aircraft gates, passen-
ger terminal processing facilities, ter-
minal roadways, and parking. They
depict potential means to add capacity
to the terminal area for each of the
strategies that expand land area.
The terminal area at KOA has an ex-
isting capacity to meet current pas-
senger demand, and the facility re-
quirements also project future need for
facilities. Generally, there is a current
need to add capacity for departure
queuing areas and gate holdrooms,
baggage claim, baggage and passenger
security screening, concessions, im-
proving restrooms, and adding capaci-
ty to public parking. The short term
need includes more facilities for these
areas and the relocation of baggage
security screening to the baggage
make-up area. Beyond the short term
planning horizon, the need for capaci-
ty improvements to all departures and
arrivals facilities would logically fol-
low growth in passenger processing
demand. Notably, intermediate and
long range passenger processing need
is for agricultural check, security
checkpoint, gate holdroom space, bag-
gage make-up and claim, concessions
and restrooms, public parking, rental
car facilities, and one to three addi-
tional aircraft gates. The expansion of
facilities for processing arriving inter-
national passengers will also be re-
quired.
Current need for airport terminal im-
provement is incorporated within the
4-25
short term alternative concept de-
picted on Exhibit 4F and is common
to all three alternatives. Alternatives
for future development have a broader
range as the terminal area footprint is
enlarged. Some of the near term con-
cepts evolve into longer range oppor-
tunities by the nature of their configu-
ration to flexibly grow into other
layouts. This increases their viability
for incremental expansion.
Three alternatives were developed as-
sociated with the forecast facilities
demand growth and opportunities to
increase the size and shape of the
terminal area footprint. Further stud-
ies were developed for Long Range Al-
ternative 1 (LR-1) to explore the dif-
ferent configurations of an expanded
concourse from the existing terminal
and are labeled LR-1A to LR-1D. Af-
ter evaluating all concepts, the Master
Plan team determined that these con-
figurations did not offer any additional
flexibility in terms of aircraft parking.
If the airport decides to transition to
common-use in the future, this flex-
ibility will be required and the other
concourse options would limit the
choice of aircraft at the gates. These
concepts are shown on Exhibit 4G. As
noted, they can be implemented on an
as-needed basis according to aviation
demand. Further, each component can
be expanded to meet its individual
demand without requiring changes to
the other components. The long range
capability of this strategy to meet fu-
ture aviation demand beyond the 20-
year time frame is excellent. The con-
cepts are identified by ST (Short
Term), INT (Intermediate) and LR
(Long Range).
The short term expansion, as noted
previously, is a “Do Minimal Work”
alternative and assumes only limited
funding is available. As presented on
Exhibit 4F, this alternative allows
the Ellison S. Onizuka Space Center
to remain in its current location for a
period of time, continues the two sepa-
rate passenger screening checkpoints,
and generally retains the existing sep-
arate North and South Terminal con-
figuration. An additional lane would
be added to the passenger security
screening lanes, baggage security
screening would be relocated into the
present bag make-up areas, and new
bag claim devices would be added to
the north and south claim areas.
The flow at ticketing would be im-
proved by reorganizing the processing
between agriculture screening, kiosks
and ticket counter, and a change to
common use kiosks and check-in.
These kiosks could also be placed in
the rental car area as well as in the
old rental car pavilion adjacent to
parking to further expedite the flow.
Restrooms would be upgraded and ex-
panded as would flight information
and signage. This alternative does not
address the passenger boarding
process or aircraft parking. If suffi-
cient budget is available for a more
aggressive development program,
parts of this short term development
could be incorporated with implemen-
tation of one of the three intermediate
alternatives.
The three basic terminal area devel-
opment alternatives will be described
in detail below. They are coordinated
with exhibits that show the overall
4-26
growth in relation to the terminal area
as well as the operational detail of the
facility. The discussion and appropri-
ate exhibits focus on intermediate and
long range development.
Alternative 1 focuses all development
on continued use and expansion of the
existing terminal area facilities.
Alternative 2 creates a new terminal
for overseas and international passen-
gers north of the existing terminal
area, retaining the existing terminal
facilities for interisland passengers.
The improvements incorporated into
the existing facilities are limited to
those which will continue the existing
passenger experience and upgrade fa-
cilities to current standards. Tempo-
rary facilities for Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) are required for this
alternative.
Alternative 3 creates a new terminal
for overseas and international pas-
sengers to the south while retaining
the existing terminal for interisland
passengers as in Alternative 2.
All three alternatives assume a basic
upgrade to the existing terminal build-
ings and systems as required for pre-
ventive maintenance and code com-
pliance.
Terminal Alternative 1
(Exhibit 4H)
Intermediate Horizon (INT-1)
This stage of development addresses
the need to improve the existing air-
craft boarding procedure as well as in-
crease terminal capacity. A second
level concourse with passenger loading
bridges would be connected to the ex-
isting gate holdrooms by ramps or me-
chanical means such as escalators or
elevators. The second level concourse
would primarily serve four larger air-
craft for overseas flights while the ex-
isting hold rooms would serve the
ground-loaded interisland flights.
Taking full advantage of the elevated
concourse, large glazed windows on
the airside would provide views across
the apron to the ocean. To the mauka
side, views of the unique terminal
structures, palm trees and courtyards
and the mountains welcome arriving
passengers and continue the Aloha
experience for departing passengers.
The roof of the baggage make-up area
would include various arrangements
of local natural materials to further
enhance the views. While air condi-
tioning of the concourse is an option, it
may also be able to be served by natu-
ral ventilation.
During periods when the larger air-
craft are not present, the apron can be
used for multiple interisland aircraft
parking and the loading bridges would
be configured to serve both the wide-
body and interisland aircraft. Other
interisland aircraft would continue to
be ground-loaded. Taxiway A would
remain in its current location. When a
Group V aircraft is taxiing on Taxiway
A, however, aircraft ready to push
back would have to hold in the gate
until the aircraft passes. Given the
low-level frequency of large aircraft
movements, both now and anticipated
in the future, the loss of flexibility is
minor and can be alleviated at a later
stage if necessary.
PRELIMINARY TERMINAL CONCEPTS Exhibit 4G
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
G
-
1
1
/
2
0
/
0
7
LR-1 LR-2 LR-3
LR-1DLR-1CLR-1BLR-1A
TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 1 Exhibit 4H
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
H
-
1
1
/
2
0
/
0
7
INT-1 LR-1
ADDITIONAL PARKING
SECOND LEVEL BOARDING
WITH LOADING BRIDGES
CENTRALIZED BAGGAGE
SCREENING AND MAKEUP AREA
CONSOLIDATED
SECURITY CHECKPOINT
EXPANDED BAGGAGE CLAIM
AT BOTH TERMINALS
GNITEKCIT DEDNAPXE
AREA WITH RELOCATION OF
TERMINAL CURB TO EAST
CBP FACILITY FOR
INTERNATIONAL ARRIVALS
EXTENDED SECOND
LEVEL BOARDING WITH
CONNECTION TO CBP
ADDITIONAL PARKING ADDITIONAL PARKING
EXPANDED BAGGAGE CLAIM
AT BOTH TERMINALS
CONSOLIDATED
SECURITY CHECKPOINT
RELOCATED TERMINAL
LOOP DRIVE
ALTERNATIVE 1 - INTERMEDIATE TERM ALTERNATIVE 1 - LONG RANGE
4-27
This alternative includes relocation of
the Ellison S. Onizuka Space Center
from the center of the terminal com-
plex. This opens the opportunity for a
single, centralized passenger security
screening process with adequate
queuing area. TSA search rooms and
office space would be located adjacent
to the screening area. Upon clearing
security, passengers can go directly to
either the north or the south secure
waiting areas.
With the relocation of the overseas
passenger holdrooms to the second
level concourse, some of the existing
holdrooms adjacent to the central
courtyards can be converted to conces-
sions to improve the offering and rev-
enue generation, as well as the addi-
tion of cultural and regional displays.
The courtyards would continue to pro-
vide places for enjoyment of the natu-
ral environment and reinforce the
Aloha spirit. All passengers, both de-
parting and arriving, would be ex-
posed to these concession areas, dis-
plays, and courtyard plantings as ar-
riving overseas and interisland pas-
sengers will still flow through the
courtyards on their way to bag claim.
Consolidated bag make-up with TSA
bag screening would be developed be-
tween the north and south terminals
served by tunnels from ticketing. Ad-
ditional capacity for baggage claim can
be provided adjacent to existing claim
devices if not already provided by the
short term improvements.
Some additional ticketing will be pro-
vided adjacent to the existing area on
the south. The ticket counter within
the north ticketing lobby could be
turned 90 degrees and placed against
the makai wall of the lobby. This
would create a single “departures
courtyard” serving both ticket lobbies
as well as the consolidated passenger
screening entrance. USDA inspection
would be placed to be found more easi-
ly by passengers, prior to check-in.
Additional queuing for departure
processing areas will be provided by
relocating the terminal curbfront to
the east so that the terminal drives
are immediately adjacent to the edge
of the existing short term parking
area. This will also provide opportuni-
ty for additional covered queuing and
waiting areas as well as additional
planting and local and cultural dis-
plays. Some additional concessions
may be provided as well. Additional
public long term parking will be pro-
vided east (mauka) of the entry loop
road.
Individual improvements can be im-
plemented in a phased manner accord-
ing to priorities and budget availabili-
ty. If there is sufficient budget and
demand, a new Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) facility can be devel-
oped to replace the existing prefabri-
cated international arrivals facility.
Initially, passengers would deplane to
the apron and walk to the new facility
as they do today. International air-
craft parking would be coordinated
with interisland aircraft parking so as
to maximize the latter while not com-
promising the required security sepa-
ration of the former.
The initial phase of the CBP would in-
clude a new immigration hall, a new
baggage claim area which may be used
for domestic bag claim when not
needed for international passengers,
and customs offices and inspection fa-
4-28
cilities in remodeled and expanded ex-
isting airport management offices.
These replacement facilities can be
built without interrupting use of the
existing clearance facilities. The exist-
ing greeters area, bus parking, and
other facilities will continue to serve
the new CBP facility.
Long Range (LR-1):
The Alternative 1 Long Range expan-
sion builds upon the terminal frame-
work created in the intermediate
phase. If warranted due to unaccept-
able delays of departing aircraft push-
back due to Group V aircraft on Tax-
iway A, the apron could be expanded
to the west (makai) and the taxiway
rerouted between Taxiway “G” and the
ARFF Service Road as noted above.
This taxiway alignment was depicted
on Airfield Alternative 2 (Exhibit
4E).
The second level concourse would be
extended to the north to provide for a
holdroom for one additional widebody
aircraft. An elevated and enclosed se-
cure corridor would extend to the CBP
facility with a ramp to grade connect-
ing to the Immigration Area for arriv-
ing international passengers. Views
from the corridor to the ocean and the
mountains would introduce passen-
gers to the beauty of Hawaii. Access
to ground-loaded interisland aircraft
would be under this raised corridor. If
not provided as part of the Interme-
diate expansion phase, the Customs
and Border Protection facilities (de-
scribed earlier in the Intermediate
phase) would be developed at this
time. If already in place, the CBP
would be expanded as needed to re-
spond to international arriving pas-
senger demand. A second large capaci-
ty claim device would be added, as be-
fore, with the ability to be cross-
utilized for domestic passengers when
not needed for secure international
bag claim. The claim device provided
earlier in the Intermediate phase
would become exclusively for domestic
passengers.
An additional large capacity claim de-
vice would also be provided adjacent to
the south claim area. The passenger
screening checkpoint can be expanded
to six lanes as required to meet de-
mand. It is not anticipated that addi-
tional ticketing will be required due to
further enhancements to the common
use system and improvements to pas-
senger self check-in.
The entrance roadway from Queen
Kaahumanu Highway may be relo-
cated to the north to the general loca-
tion of the existing Road “P.” This
alignment would extend to the ter-
minal area providing an extended curb
frontage at the CBP area. The recircu-
lation road would be relocated to exist-
ing Pao`o Street (Road “N”). Long term
parking would be further expanded in
the area adjacent to the petroglyphs
with an open park setting from the
terminal to the rental car area further
enhancing this cultural heritage site.
The existing rental car area will be
expanded to the north with access and
egress from the new airport entrance
road at Road “L.”
4-29
Alternative 2 (Exhibit 4J)
Intermediate (INT-2)
Alternative 2 creates a new terminal
facility to the north of the existing
terminal. The new terminal would in-
clude facilities to process inter-
national arriving passengers as well
as arriving and departing overseas
mainland passengers. Customs and
Border Protection facilities must be
continuously available to process ar-
riving international passengers. This
can be achieved by phasing the con-
struction of the new terminal such
that the new CBP facilities are con-
structed first, the existing CBP demol-
ished, then the remainder of the new
terminal constructed on its site. The
existing terminal would be used for
interisland flights and receive up-
grades appropriate to meet the needs
of this aviation sector.
In order to locate the new terminal
close to the existing facilities and
avoid extensive construction in the ex-
isting lava field to the north, it may be
appropriate to first construct the CBP
facilities as shown in Alternative 1,
using the existing DOT-A office build-
ings, demolish the temporary CBP
structure, and build the initial phase
of the new north terminal immediately
north of the DOT-A / CBP facility.
When the new north terminal CBP
functions are in place and operational,
the existing facilities can be removed
and the terminal completed on that
site.
The concept organizes the new ter-
minal with departures processing,
passenger and bag security screening,
baggage make-up, domestic and inter-
national bag claim, and Customs
clearance facilities on the ground level
with international arrivals immi-
gration processing on the third level
above the concourse and passenger
support facilities at the second level.
The holdrooms on the concourse would
be at the second level as would conces-
sions, restrooms, airline club rooms,
and other passenger amenities. The
concourse would provide loading
bridges for four aircraft positions. By
locating the new terminal close to the
existing terminal, there would be
apron available for ground-loading/
deplaning of flights that arrive off-
schedule should no second level gate
be available.
International arriving passengers
would proceed from the aircraft up
across the sterile concourse to the im-
migration processing areas at the
third level, then down to ground level
for bag claim, customs clearance, and
exit. Arriving domestic passengers
would proceed down the concourse to a
separate escalator/elevator/stair to
domestic bag claim at ground level.
The international claim device would
be used for domestic claim when not in
use for international passengers.
With the relocation of all overseas
passengers to the new terminal, the
existing terminal facilities would be
more than adequate to serve the inter-
island passengers through the full
planning period. Baggage screening
would be located in the existing bag
make-up areas, and passenger screen-
ing would remain in its current loca-
tion. There may be a need for addi-
tional bag claim facilities both north
4-30
and south due to the existing conges-
tion in these areas and the length of
time required to design and build the
new north terminal. Ground loading
of aircraft would continue. Restrooms
would be upgraded and concession and
display areas would be expanded
somewhat. The Ellison S. Onizuka
Space Center would not need to be re-
located. Maximum use would be made
of the existing facilities with im-
provements to the structures and sys-
tems to respond to preventive main-
tenance and code requirements.
The terminal loop drive would be ex-
tended to the north to provide curb
frontage for the new terminal, and
public parking would be provided
within the loop.
The northern portion of the new ter-
minal site and aircraft apron is cur-
rently an undeveloped lava field. Ex-
tensive site development and new in-
frastructure to serve the terminal will
be required. Views to the ocean and
the mountains will be provided from
the second level of the terminal, as
well as development of planting and
other amenities at grade. There would
be the potential for natural ventilation
in the concourse, as well as in the new
terminal. Air-conditioning as a back-
up option during certain times would
be an option for further study.
Long Range (LR-2):
The long range expansion of the new
north terminal would include those
areas required to meet the demand
levels. CBP functions would only re-
quire significant expansion if a second
international flight were to arrive at
approximately the same time as the
current flight. Departures processing
is not anticipated to require signifi-
cant expansion due to further en-
hancements to the common use sys-
tems and self check-in. Baggage secu-
rity screening and baggage make-up
will require significant expansion as
will domestic bag claim.
The facility requirements forecast a
need for five, second level gates for the
long range planning horizon. Should a
sixth plane position be required, it
would be added on the south end of
the concourse as the existing CBP fa-
cilities will have been removed. This
will also avoid further incursion into
the lava field to the north.
With sufficient budget, the existing
terminal facilities may be developed to
provide second level boarding with
loading bridges, a centralized bag
screening and makeup area, and a
single passenger screening and
queuing area after the Ellison S. Oni-
zuka Space Center is relocated away
from the terminal area.
Road access to the terminal area in
the long range may be relocated to the
north at the Queen Kaahumanu
Highway to approximately the exist-
ing service Road P. It would extend
west directly to the terminal area
turning to the north at Pao`o Street
and looping to align with the existing
terminal curb. The extension to the
north will be sufficient to provide ade-
quate curb frontage for the new ter-
minal. Additional short and long term
parking would be provided within the
new loop drive, having to be developed
TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 2 Exhibit 4J
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
J
-
1
1
/
2
0
/
0
7
ALTERNATIVE 2 - INTERMEDIATE TERM ALTERNATIVE 2 - LONG RANGE
SECOND LEVEL CONCOURSE
WITH LOADING BRIDGES
TERMINAL LOOP DRIVE
EXTENDED TO THE NORTH
EXTENDED PUBLIC
PARKING
BAGGAGE CLAIM AND CUSTOMS
SECOND LEVEL ARRIVALS
IMMIGRATIONS PROCESSING
SECOND LEVEL BOARDING
WITH LOADING BRIDGES
CENTRALIZED BAGGAGE
SCREENING AND MAKEUP AREA
CONCESSIONS NODE
ADDITIONAL PARKING
GROUND LEVEL
TICKETING AND
SECURITY SCREENING
RELOCATED TERMINAL
LOOP DRIVE
EXPANDED OVERSEAS/
INTERNATIONAL FACILITY
ADDITIONAL PARKING ADDITIONAL PARKING
4-31
upon the existing lava field. Rental
car areas can be extended to the north
from their current location with access
and egress provided to the new airport
road at Road L.
Alternative 3 (Exhibit 4K)
Intermediate (INT-3)
Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative
2 except that the new terminal is de-
veloped immediately south of the ex-
isting terminal area. This location re-
quires the relocation of the ATCT, the
ARFF facility and the general aviation
aircraft parking and tie-down areas.
The ATCT is already planned for relo-
cation, and there are alternatives for
relocating the other uses if necessary.
The new south terminal and its CBP
facilities can be built adjacent to the
existing terminal area while the exist-
ing CBP facility continues in opera-
tion.
The site has already been developed
for its current uses; thus, a certain
amount of infrastructure is already in
place compared to the north terminal
development in Alternative 2. To limit
the difference in size and scale be-
tween the new terminal and the exist-
ing structures, the new terminal will
be largely on grade with only the
second level concourse and its support
functions of concessions, restrooms,
airline clubs, and other passenger
amenities at the second level. Views of
the airfield and the ocean would be
provided, as would views to the moun-
tains on the east. Natural ventilation
may be able to be used in the con-
course as well as the rest of the new
terminal while air conditioning may
be provided as a backup system, but
this issue will require further analy-
sis. The need to build gates beyond the
forecast demand can be eliminated by
cross-utilizing interisland apron area
and ground boarding aircraft when
there is a need for an additional gate
due to flight delays or other circum-
stances.
As with Alternative 2, the existing
terminal facilities will continue to be
used for ground-loaded interisland
flights. The baggage security screen-
ing would be located in the existing
make-up areas. The two passenger
screening areas would be maintained,
and the relocation of the Ellison S.
Onizuka Space Center could be de-
layed until the long range planning
horizon, if necessary.
If required, an additional bag claim
device would be added adjacent to the
existing bag claim area on the north
and south. This may be required in
the interim due to current demand
and the length of time it will take to
design and build the new terminal. If
a new bag claim device is required in
the short term for the existing south
terminal, it may be incorporated into
the new terminal when it is built. Un-
like the new north terminal which
would have the capability of shared
bag claim between international and
domestic operations, the new south
terminal would require two separate
claim areas. The existing terminal
structures and systems would be up-
graded to meet current codes and pre-
ventive maintenance. Some additional
concessions, improved restrooms, and
other passenger amenities would be
provided.
4-32
The existing terminal curb will be ex-
tended to the south to serve the new
terminal. The loop road back to the
entrance road will require the reloca-
tion of the airport maintenance facili-
ties but would not affect the existing
FAA RTR facility.
Long Range (LR-3):
In the long range, the second level
concourse of the new south terminal
would be extended to the north to pro-
vide one additional gate for overseas
flights. Baggage claim, baggage secu-
rity screening, and baggage make-up
areas would require expansion, as
would passenger security screening.
Expansion of the passenger processing
is not anticipated to be needed due to
improvements in common use func-
tions and self check-in.
If there is sufficient budget available,
the existing terminal facilities may be
expanded to include second level
boarding, improved concessions and
passenger amenities, a central pas-
senger security screening location, and
centralized baggage screening and
make-up once the Ellison S Onizuka
Space Center is relocated away from
the terminal area.
As with each of the other alternatives,
the airport entrance and egress loca-
tion may be moved north on Queen
Kaahumanu Highway providing a new
entrance at approximately Road P di-
rectly to the terminal area. Recircula-
tion and exiting traffic would use
Pao`o Street to return to the new en-
try road. Substantial additional short
and long range parking would be re-
quired within the loop roadway prox-
imate to the new south terminal.
Long Range Flexibility
It should be noted that Alternative 1
can be developed through the inter-
mediate development phase and still
allow the development of any of the
three long range alternatives without
altering any of the investment made to
that point in the terminal, apron,
roadways, or parking.
AIR CARGO DEVELOPMENT
ALTERNATIVES
Currently, air cargo operations are
conducted from two different locations
on the airport. The cargo area to the
south of the terminal includes an
apron and two cargo buildings. This is
used primarily by Aloha Air Cargo for
its cargo flights with B-737 aircraft.
There is not adequate space in the
cargo area to handle the daily UPS B-
747 aircraft. That aircraft is currently
handled on the ramp immediately
west of the International Arrivals fa-
cility.
To accommodate all of the cargo activ-
ity in the current cargo area would re-
quire redevelopment of the current fa-
cility. Alternative 1 on Exhibit 4L
depicts a layout for the area that could
accommodate the forecast air cargo
needs at the current location. As pro-
posed in this alternative, the current
air cargo buildings would be replaced
mauka (east) of their present location
to provide the apron depth necessary
to accommodate larger aircraft. The
TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE 3 Exhibit 4K
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
K
-
1
1
/
2
0
/
0
7
ALTERNATIVE 3 - INTERMEDIATE TERM ALTERNATIVE 3 - LONG RANGE
EMPLOYEE PARKING
SECOND LEVEL CONCOURSE
WITH LOADING BRIDGES
BAGGAGE CLAIM
ARRIVALS
PROCESSING
TICKETING AND SECURITY
SCREENING
TERMINAL LOOP
DRIVE EXTENDED TO
THE SOUTH
ADDITIONAL PARKING
RELOCATED TERMINAL
LOOP DRIVE
EXPANDED OVERSEAS/
INTERNATIONAL FACILITY
CENTRALIZED BAGGAGE
SCREENING AND MAKEUP AREA
CONCESSIONS NODE
SECOND LEVEL BOARDING
WITH LOADING BRIDGES
ADDITIONAL PARKING
PASSENGER TERMINAL#10
XX
AIR CARGO
PASSENGER TERMINALAIR CARGO #10
XX
PASSENGER TERMINAL GENERAL AVIATION
Pao‘o St. (Road N)
Kupipi St.Ro
a
d
M
‘U‘u St.
#2
#8
#2
AIR CARGO PASSENGER TERMINAL
AIR CARGO
#10
XX
AIR CARGO ALTERNATIVES Exhibit 4L
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
L
-
5
/
1
9
/
1
0
0 800
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
ALTERNATIVE 1
ALTERNATIVE 3
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 4
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Ultimate Road/Parking
Ultimate Airfield Pavement
Ultimate Building
Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)
Site Alternatives
Passenger Terminal
General Aviation
USPS Parcel USPS Parcel
USPS Parcel
4-33
ramp would also need to be expanded
south to provide for adequate parking
positions for the long term planning
horizon. This would displace the
commuter terminal and adjacent facil-
ities.
U`u Street would need to be aban-
doned at the cargo area as well with
access developed off Pao`o Street.
The new access would feed into a larg-
er landside area developed to include
loading docks and vehicle parking.
The United States Postal Service
(USPS) has maintained ownership
rights to a 4.0 acre parcel on the air-
port with the intent to serve as a re-
gional distribution center. To date
they have not developed any facilities
on the parcel. While the USPS does
not require direct airfield access, prox-
imity to aircraft carrying mail under
contract would be advantageous.
Their site is located makai (west) of
Pao`o Street, north of the passenger
terminal. When obtained several
years ago, most mail was transported
by the passenger airlines. Today,
most mail is handled by contract car-
rier. The current carrier is FedEx,
which subcontracts with Aloha Air
Cargo for interisland mail to and from
KOA.
Thus, proximity to the air cargo facili-
ties is now more desirable. Cargo Al-
ternative 1 would leave the cargo
area far removed from the current
USPS property. Under this alterna-
tive, air mail from the cargo operators
would need to be transported across
the terminal ramp to the future USPS
facility. The other option would be to
swap property to place the USPS facil-
ity closer to the cargo area in this al-
ternative.
While it appears that the site could be
redeveloped to accommodate the needs
for the planning horizon, air cargo is
very dynamic and perhaps has the
greatest potential to exceed the fore-
casts. As is evidenced by the exhibit,
the site is very constrained for further
cargo development. Expansion into
the terminal or general aviation areas
would be necessary for further growth.
As a result, an undeveloped area along
the flightline north of the terminal
area was examined as an alternative.
Cargo Alternative 2 on Exhibit 4L
depicts the similar layout on the north
site. The location is north of ATCT
Site #10, so it would not impede future
terminal development to the north. It
has ready access to the airfield, as
well as landside access and utilities
from Road N.
This cargo area could be developed
beyond the planning horizon activity
levels by continuing the linear pattern
to the north.
While the general topography of the
airport slopes towards the ocean, on
the north cargo alternative site, eleva-
tions range from 50 feet above mean
sea level (MSL) on the south side to as
much as 80 feet in the northwest cor-
ner near the wastewater treatment
facility. The southern half of the site
would require much less grading than
the northern half of the site for Cargo
Alternative 2 due to the layout of the
ramp.
4-34
Cargo Alternative 3 organizes the
cargo area into a “pod” with the cargo
buildings perpendicular to the airfield
and on both sides of a cargo ramp that
extends deeper into the site. Under
this alternative, the southern half of
the pod could be developed in stages to
meet the needs of the planning hori-
zon, while taking the best advantage
of the site topography. The northern
half would provide expansion flexibili-
ty beyond the long term horizon activi-
ty level.
The two previous concepts maintain a
single, continuous ramp that requires
a large graded area with minimum
slope. Cargo Alternative 4 main-
tains the perpendicular concept of the
previous alternative, but places the
cargo building and landside docks and
parking in a center core with separate
ramps both north and south of the
core. This provides some flexibility for
reducing the grading requirements for
the site. The south ramp could be at a
lower grade than the north ramp.
Each of the north cargo alternatives
indicates the location of the USPS
parcel just makai (west) of Pao`o
Street. Trucks would have easy acces-
sibility from the cargo area. In fact,
trailers could be transferred directly
from the ramp to the USPS facility via
the service road.
GENERAL AVIATION
DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
Since the last master plan, general
aviation has been focused on the south
side of the airport. In fact, several
grading and ramp improvements have
been undertaken to establish this area
for future general aviation develop-
ment. A series of development alter-
natives have been formulated for the
general aviation area on the south
side of the airport. Each of the four
alternatives presented have the fol-
lowing in common:
All are designed to accommodate at
least the general aviation facility
requirements as outlined in Chap-
ter Three – Facility Require-
ments.
Each assumes that the existing
general aviation T-hangars would
eventually either be relocated or
replaced by new hangars farther
south in the expanded general avi-
ation area.
The two taxilane stubs (K and L)
located in the south general avia-
tion area can be extended to the
mauka (east) from their current
terminus at U`u Street.
The future core of the general avia-
tion area can be made accessible
from Pao`o Street (Road N) by a
connector road (Road M).
Road M subdivides the developable
area mauka (east) of U`u Street in-
to two areas described here as
“mauka north” and “mauka south.”
Two fixed base operator (FBO)
pads are already established front-
ing the apron in this core. A fuel
farm has also been established.
The south end of the general avia-
tion area can be made accessible
from the landside by an extension
4-35
of Pao`o Street (Road N) and a con-
nector road to the makai (west)
from Road N.
Heliport facilities will be planned
in one of the two areas (makai and
mauka of Road N) depicted on the
alternative exhibits. A third heli-
port option is to co-locate with the
helicopter training pad on the
north side of the airport.
During the preparation of the master
plan, the Hawaii DOT-A has been in
the process of requesting proposals for
development of a 10-acre parcel at the
south end of the general aviation area.
The parcel is outlined on each alterna-
tive exhibit. The alternatives included
in this master plan provide examples
of the types of general aviation facili-
ties that can readily be developed
within the proposed 10-acre parcel,
but are not meant to restrict or limit
the general aviation development op-
portunities and options for the parcel.
GENERAL AVIATION
ALTERNATIVE 1
General Aviation Alternative 1, as de-
picted on Exhibit 4M, would establish
two FBO sites in the center core at the
end of the new Road M. Expansion of
the flight line apron would be reserved
south of Taxilane K to front the 10-
acre parcel.
This alternative assumes that the cur-
rent air cargo facilities would be relo-
cated to another area of the flight line,
opening up the ramp and adjacent
flight line for general aviation uses.
This would include a new commuter
terminal in the location of the current
south cargo building. The north cargo
building would be subdivided or re-
placed with a multi-tenant facility to
house specialty operators. Locating
the heliport facilities directly to the
east of this area would provide for a
common use parking lot for the vari-
ous tour operators. It should be noted,
however, this heliport location is clos-
er than the 2,500-foot separation from
the runway desired to accommodate
helicopter operations independent
from the runway. It would also have
visibility issues from the ATCT site
#10.
The existing commuter terminal area
would be subdivided into several
smaller lease parcels that could ac-
commodate buildings for various spe-
cialty operators. Farther north, the
existing T-hangars would be relocated
and replaced with a wash rack. The
wash rack area would be designed to
not only be used to wash aircraft, but
also ground service equipment (GSE)
and airport maintenance equipment.
The mauka north area would be re-
served for T-hangar development. The
mauka south area would be reserved
primarily for large parcel development
intended for large conventional and
corporate hangars.
GENERAL AVIATION
ALTERNATIVE 2
The remaining three alternatives fo-
cus new general aviation development
from the current terminal area south.
All still assume that the existing T-
hangars would be relocated or re-
placed to the south. Re-development
north of the current commuter ter-
4-36
minal would be dependent upon future
air cargo and passenger terminal al-
ternatives in this area.
Alternative 2 (Exhibit 4N) would de-
velop a new commuter terminal im-
mediately south of the existing ter-
minal. The terminal would be placed
in the corner with ramp access to the
south as well as the current ramp.
This would minimize disruption to
current operations while the new ter-
minal was constructed.
As with the previous alternative, two
FBO sites would be developed in the
core area at the end of Road M. The
flight line apron would be expanded to
the south of Taxilane L with two de-
velopment parcels fronting it. These
parcels could be developed with large
hangars for general aviation business
use or corporate aircraft storage.
Like in Alternative 1, the mauka
north area is planned primarily for
small general aviation aircraft stor-
age, just not all in T-hangars. While
half of the area is planned for the
standard T-hangars, the other half is
planned for executive box hangars of
5,000 square feet or less.
Also like Alternative 1, the mauka
south area is planned for large corpo-
rate parcels designed primarily for
corporate aircraft users. A “hammer-
head” taxilane at the end of Taxilane
L would subdivide and provide access
to several parcels ranging from one to
two acres in size.
The helipads and helicopter parking
would be developed mauka (east) of
Pao`o Street. This would provide the
2,500-foot separation desired for oper-
ations independent from the runway.
This layout is similar to that proposed
in the previous master plan. Parcels
are provided adjacent to the helipads
for lease by helicopter operators on the
airport. This site could have visibility
issues from the ATCT Site #10.
GENERAL AVIATION
ALTERNATIVE 3
General Aviation Alternative 3, as
presented on Exhibit 4P, would rede-
velop an expanded commuter terminal
in its current location. It would also
maintain the two FBO locations with-
in the core at the end of new Road M.
As with the other alternatives, the
flightline apron would expand to the
south, but the wash rack would be lo-
cated in the southeast corner of the
apron.
The mauka areas would develop with
basic hangar storage on either side of
Road M and larger parcel development
on the north and south ends. The
mauka north area would have T-
hangars adjacent to Road M with the
corporate parcels on the opposite side
of the extended Taxilane K. The
mauka south area would have conven-
tional hangars (up to 10,000 square
feet) as well as executive box hangars.
The 10-acre parcel could be subdivided
for several corporate-type users with
landside access extended around the
south side.
As with the previous alternative, the
heliport would be developed mauka
(east) of Pao`o Street. The layout
shown is a variation with staggered
GENERAL AVIATION LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 1 Exhibit 4M
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
M
-
1
1
/
1
9
/
0
7
FBO FBO
WASH RACK
ARFF
Taxiway A
‘U‘u Street
Pao‘o St. - Road N
Ta
x
i
l
a
n
e
K
Ta
x
i
l
a
n
e
L
APRON EXPANSION
FUEL
STORAGE
COMMUTER
TERMINAL
HELICOPTER
TERMINAL
PARKING
SPECIALTY
OPERATORS
NORTH
0 300 600
SCALE IN FEET
T-HANGARSARSTHA
CONVENTIONAL
HANGAR
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Ultimate Airfield Pavement
Ultimate Building
Ultimate Road/Parking
Building to be Removed
Lease Parcels
10 Acre Lease Site
Touchdown & Liftoff Area (TLOF)
Final Approach & Takeoff Area (FATO)
Helipad Safety Area
Protection Zone
AIRPORT
MAINTENANCE
EXPANSION
CONVENTIONAL HANGARS
Ro
a
d
M
GENERAL AVIATION LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 2 Exhibit 4N
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
N
-
1
2
/
2
1
/
0
7
APRON EXPANSION
FBO
COMMUTER
TERMINAL
T-HANGARS
HELIPAD
HELICOPTER
PARKING
HELIPAD
EXECUTIVE
HANGARS
NORTH
0 300 600
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Ultimate Airfield Pavement
Ultimate Building
Ultimate Road/Parking
Lease Parcels
10 Acre Lease Site
Touchdown & Liftoff Area (TLOF)
Final Approach & Takeoff Area (FATO)
Helipad Safety Area
Protection Zone
Taxiway A
U’u Street
Pao‘o St. - Road N
Ta
x
i
l
a
n
e
K
Ta
x
i
l
a
n
e
L
Ro
a
d
M
AIRPORT
MAINTENANCE
EXPANSION
FBO
FUEL
STORAGE
GENERAL AVIATION LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 3 Exhibit 4P
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
P
-
1
1
/
1
9
/
0
7
NORTH
0 300 600
SCALE IN FEET
APRON EXPANSION
FUEL
STORAGE
FBO FBO
T-HANGARS
COMMUTER
TERMINAL
WASH RACK
EXECUTIVE BOX HANGARS
CONVENTIONAL
HANGARS
HELICOPTER
TERMINAL
CONVENTIONAL
HANGARS
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Ultimate Airfield Pavement
Ultimate Building
Ultimate Road/Parking
Lease Parcels
10 Acre Lease Site
Touchdown & Liftoff Area (TLOF)
Final Approach & Takeoff Area (FATO)
Helipad Safety Area
Protection Zone
CONVENTIONAL
HANGARS
Ta
x
i
l
a
n
e
K
Pao‘o St. - Road N
Ro
a
d
M
Ta
x
i
l
a
n
e
L
U’u Street
RELOCATED
AIRPORT
MAINTENANCE
ALTERNATIVE 3 TERMINAL PLAN
4-37
helipads and four rows of parking for
up to 12 helicopters. In addition, a
helicopter terminal and conventional
hangar pads are provided around
three sides of the parking stands. As
with the previous alternative, howev-
er, there could be visibility issues from
ATCT Site #10.
The exhibit also shows this alternative
could be developed in concert with
Terminal Alternative 3. For the ter-
minal to develop southward, the T-
hangars and general aviation parking
apron would first need to be relocated
into the expanded general aviation
area. Air cargo would then need to be
relocated to the north side of the air-
field as presented in three of the four
air cargo alternatives. This would
open up space for the airport main-
tenance facilities to be relocated and
provide separation between the gener-
al aviation area and passenger ter-
minal complex.
GENERAL AVIATION
ALTERNATIVE 4
The last general alternative is shown
on Exhibit 4Q and locates an ex-
panded commuter alternative adjacent
to U`u Street to allow an expansion of
the ramp in front of the terminal.
Parking for the terminal would be re-
located and expanded mauka (east) of
U`u Street.
The helicopter facilities are depicted
makai (west) of Pao`o Street, again al-
lowing for some cross-utilization of
landside access and parking with the
commuter terminal. As with Alter-
native 1, however, independent opera-
tion may be sacrificed with the loca-
tion because the separation from the
runway is less than 2,500 feet. In ad-
dition, there would be visibility issues
with ATCT Site #10.
As with each of the other alternatives,
two FBO’s would be located in the cen-
ter core off Road M. With this alter-
native, however, a third FBO location
is included at the southeast corner of
the expanded flightline ramp. This
would allow additional ramp develop-
ment and a wash rack.
This alternative would locate the larg-
er three to five acre development par-
cels in the mauka north area off an
extended Taxilane K. The mauka
south area would include the T-hangar
development next to Road M and con-
ventional hangar development area
within the 10-acre parcel.
ACCESS AND LAND USE
After the major functional elements
intrinsic to the airport are accommo-
dated, other areas can be considered
for uses that provide additional sup-
port to the airport function, generate
revenue to help the airport maintain
self-sufficiency, or promote economic
development for the community. Key
to the land use considerations, howev-
er, is access and circulation. This sec-
tion begins with a discussion of alter-
natives related for off-airport access
and circulation within the airport
boundaries.
4-38
ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Queen Kaahumanu Highway will re-
main the primary off-airport access.
There is currently only one point of
access to the airport from the high-
way. That is at the intersection with
Keahole Street. The previous master
plan proposed a second access point to
the north along a new road named
Road P. This has been carried for-
ward in areawide planning to date.
Queen Kaahumanu Highway is
planned as a limited access highway.
The planned widening north from
Kealakehe Parkway to the airport will
restrict the number of full intersec-
tions with the highway. The Kona
Community Development Plan (CDP)
supports a frontage road makai of
Queen Kaahumanu Highway from the
airport south to Honokohau Harbor to
consolidate access points along the
highway. The frontage road is envi-
sioned with its own 60-foot right-of-
way, but it must be outside the 300-
foot right-of-way of the highway. It
will cross the NELHA property as well
as the O`oma development south of
the airport.
Original consideration was for a front-
age road alignment connecting to
Pao`o Street (Road N) on the airport.
While this would take advantage of an
existing roadway on the airport, it
could ultimately create larger circula-
tion problems as airport traffic grows.
As the terminal expands, the section
of Pao`o Street between Road P and
Keahole Road is expected to become
part of the one-way terminal loop road
system. Use of this street as the front-
age road would add unnecessary
through traffic and truck traffic to not
only the airport’s primary access road,
but also the terminal loop.
A better alternative would appear to
be a more traditional frontage road
closer to the highway, as depicted on
Exhibit 4R. This would stay near the
mauka side of the airport, but well
outside of the highway right-of-way.
It would also better serve access for
future development opportunities
along the highway.
Alternative 1 also shows the poten-
tial for an additional access point con-
necting to the airport. In this alterna-
tive, Keahole Street would remain as
the primary access point. A secondary
access point would be available at
Road P to the north. The frontage road
would also provide access to other
access points south of the airport.
Road P could provide access to the
cargo area and other support uses at
the north end of the flight line. It is
not likely that the DOT Highways Di-
vision will accept two full access
points so close together. Two access
points are more likely with one of
them at the existing Kaiminani Drive
to the south. Road P would provide
better separation between the full in-
tersections than Keahole Street.
Alternative 2 on Exhibit 4S
presents this option. Keahole Street
would be restricted to right-in, right-
out traffic. As shown, Road P would
ultimately be developed with a full in-
terchange; the interchange would pro-
vide access not only to the terminal
area, but to planned off-airport devel-
GENERAL AVIATION LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVE 4 Exhibit 4Q
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
Q
-
1
/
2
7
/
0
9
NORTH
0 300 600
SCALE IN FEET
FUEL
STORAGE
T-HANGARS
FBO
COMMUTER
TERMINAL
HELICOPTER
PARKING
CONVENTIONAL
HANGARS
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Ultimate Airfield Pavement
Ultimate Building
Ultimate Road/Parking
Lease Parcels
10 Acre Lease Site
Touchdown & Liftoff Area (TLOF)
Final Approach & Takeoff Area (FATO)
Helipad Safety Area
Protection Zone
CONVENTIONAL
HANGARS
EXECUTIVE
BOX HANGARS
Ta
x
i
l
a
n
e
K
Taxiway A
‘U‘u Street
Pao‘o St. - Road N
Ro
a
d
M
Ta
x
i
l
a
n
e
L
AIRPORT
MAINTENANCE
EXPANSION
FBO WASH RACK FBO
ACCESS/LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 1 Exhibit 4R
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
E
-
5
/
1
1
/
1
0
0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.
Ka
i
m
i
n
a
n
i
D
r
.
SECONDARY ACCESS
PRIMARY ACCESS
GENERAL AVIATION
NELHA
TERMINAL
Airport Property Line
MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL
CARGO
AIRPORT
SUPPORT
HOTEL/
CONFERENCE
CENTER
AIRPORT
RESERVE
PUBLIC SAFETY
TRAINING CAMPUS
ASR 1,500’ASR 1,500’ASR 1,500’
LARGE AIRCRAFT USES
RETAIL
Proposed
Museum Site
Flight
Kitchen
Waste Water
Treatment
USPS
MIXED USE/
COMMERCIAL
GROUND
TRANSPORTATION
Airport-Related
Offices
INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE/
AVIATION SUPPORT
AIRPORT SUPPORT
Ro
a
d
P
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
Halalu St.
Pao‘o St. (Road N)
‘U‘U Street
Kupipi St.
Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)
KATR 4,250’ x 90’KATR 4,250’ x 90’KATR 4,250’ x 90’
XX
X
Ultimate Perimeter Service RoadUltimate Perimeter Service RoadUltimate Perimeter Service Road
Initial GA Parallel Runway 4,500’ x 75’Initial GA Parallel Runway 4,500’ x 75’Initial GA Parallel Runway 4,500’ x 75’Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’
Fuel
Farm
Helicopter Training Pad
Ro
a
d
M
Proposed Frontage Road
Ro
a
d
P
(
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
F
u
t
u
r
e
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
d
.
)
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
(
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
a
d
)
ACCESS/LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 2 Exhibit 4S
06
M
P
0
6
-
4
S
-
5
/
1
1
/
1
0
0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.
Ka
i
m
i
n
a
n
i
D
r
.
Proposed Frontage Road
GENERAL AVIATIONTERMINAL
Airport Property Line
CARGO
AIRPORT
SUPPORT
AIRPORT SUPPORT
HOTEL/
CONFERENCE
CENTER
GROUND
TRANSPORTATION
LARGE AIRCRAFT USES
Waste Water
Treatment
USPSFuel
Farm
Flight
Kitchen
MIXED USE/
COMMERCIAL
Proposed
Museum Site
RETAIL
MIXED USE/
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL/
WAREHOUSE/
AVIATION SUPPORT
INDUSTRIAL/
WAREHOUSE/
AVIATION SUPPORT
AIRPORT
RESERVE
MIXED USE/
COMMERCIAL
ASR 1,500’ASR 1,500’ASR 1,500’
PUBLIC SAFETY
TRAINING CAMPUS
Helicopter Training Pad
NELHA
Ro
a
d
P
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
Ro
a
d
M
Halalu St.
Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)
KATR 4,250’ x 90’KATR 4,250’ x 90’KATR 4,250’ x 90’
XX
X
Initial GA Parallel Runway 3,600’ x 75’Initial GA Parallel Runway 3,600’ x 75’Initial GA Parallel Runway 3,600’ x 75’
Ultimate Perimeter Service RoadUltimate Perimeter Service RoadUltimate Perimeter Service Road
Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’
Pao‘o St. (Road N)
Kupipi St.
‘U‘U Street
Airport-Related
Offices
4-39
opment mauka of Queen Kaahumanu
Highway.
Road P would tie into the terminal
loop at the north end of the terminal.
Access to the cargo area would be de-
veloped from a Road P intersection
with Halalu Street. As shown, the
roadways could ultimately be grade-
separated. If it is desirable for the
Queen Kaahumanu Highway frontage
road to extend to Road P in this scena-
rio, Halalu Street might be considered
for the alignment as shown on the ex-
hibit.
In this alternative, the road extending
makai from the Kaiminani inter-
section would run along the airport
property boundary and tie directly in-
to Road M. This would ultimately be-
come the primary access for general
aviation users. Other roadways with-
in the property can be developed for
circulation in support of the proposed
land use development. The following
section discusses the alternatives for
land use outlined on Exhibits 4R and
4S.
LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
Flight line uses are outlined on each of
the alternatives. From earlier in this
chapter, general aviation will general-
ly be along the south portion of the
flight line. The airport passenger
terminal is planned for the center of
the airfield with air cargo to the north
of it. Airport support corridors are lo-
cated between the three key aviation
uses to meet the needs for ATCT,
ARFF, airport maintenance, etc.
The flight line north of the cargo area
could be developed for large aircraft
uses such as hangars for large com-
mercial jet storage and/or mainte-
nance. This could include not only
commercial service needs, but also
needs for the private corporate users
of large commercial aircraft.
This leaves a large expanse of airport
property for aviation-related support
uses as well as for revenue support
uses.
Land Use Alternative 1
Land Use Alternative 1 is based upon
Keahole Street remaining as the pri-
mary access to the passenger termin-
al. Road P would be a secondary
access for air cargo, and the Kaimina-
ni extension would serve general avia-
tion.
Land uses immediately mauka of the
terminal loop and parking and north
of the access road would remain pri-
marily in ground transportation uses.
A flight kitchen location is also shown
in this area. Other property along the
access road would be recommended for
mixed use/ commercial, while retail
uses are planned mauka of the fron-
tage road to take advantage of the vis-
ibility from the highway. The pre-
ferred site for the relocation of the El-
lison S. Onizuka Space Center is
shown near the airport entrance. It
too would have high visibility from
Queen Kaahumanu Highway. A loca-
tion for a hotel/conference center is
shown just south of Keahole Street in
this alternative. The hotel/conference
4-40
center would be a focal point along the
airport’s main entryway and would be
surrounded by retail and commercial
uses, as well as across the street from
the transportation center and the Elli-
son S. Onizuka Space Center.
A natural extension mauka of the car-
go area are uses related to the support
of cargo and the terminal. The USPS
parcel would be highly compatible
with the cargo area. This would allow
access to the cargo ramp and to the
terminal area via the service road ma-
kai of the USPS site. Alternative 1
also depicts a fuel farm location along
Pao`o Street that could service the
cargo and terminal areas.
Another specific aviation support use
shown is a location for an airport re-
lated office. This could be a building
or campus of buildings to house air-
port administration, TSA offices, and
other offices directly related to airport
functions, but that do not need to be
directly on the flight line.
If Road P is planned primarily for air
cargo access, the area along this
roadway would be planned for indus-
trial and warehouse uses that can
take advantage of the proximity to the
air cargo facilities. This alignment
provides greater separation from the
Queen Kaahumanu Highway entrance
to allow for the ultimate grade separa-
tions.
Another potential use that is well
suited for the airport environment is a
public safety training center. The
primary focus of the regional training
center would be for training the air-
port’s emergency and security person-
nel. An ARFF training facility could
become an anchor for the training cen-
ter, which would also be expanded to
include multi-disciplinary training for
first responders and support agencies,
many of which would be involved in an
airfield incident. A 60-acre site is de-
picted on Exhibit 4R for this use.
The location encompasses the present
ARFF training facility and extends
northward along an extended Pao`o
Street. As shown on the exhibit, the
proximity of the proposed north side
heliport and helicopter training area
could allow them to be used in train-
ing programs as well.
This alternative provides room for ex-
pansion of the wastewater treatment
facility to the north of the current site.
The proposed road circulation system
can serve as the basic grid for utility
line distribution. Pao`o Street has
been considered as the alignment for a
potential chilled water distribution
line from NELHA for energy conserva-
tion in cooling the terminal and poten-
tially other buildings on the airport.
Land Use Alternative 2
Exhibit 4S presents a land use alter-
native based upon the primary airport
entrance moving north to Road P. In
this scenario, Keahole Street will like-
ly become a secondary access with
right-in/right-out traffic. As proposed,
Halalu Street would become the pri-
mary airport frontage.
With the primary entryway moved
north, the hotel/conference center use
is also positioned along Road P be-
tween the Queen Kaahumanu High-
way interchange and Halalu Street.
4-41
Mixed use commercial and ground
transportation uses would surround it
to the south and mauka (east). Retail
remains proposed along the Queen
Kaahumanu frontage south of Keahole
Street, along with mixed use commer-
cial behind it.
As with the previous alternative, in-
dustrial/warehouse and airport sup-
port uses are recommended mauka of
the cargo area north of Road P. This
area would include the USPS facility
and fuel farm, as shown on the exhi-
bit. This is also an alternative loca-
tion for a flight kitchen.
Another option for airport related of-
fice space is shown immediately mau-
ka of the terminal loop road. This lo-
cation would have a direct view of the
terminal area across the parking lot.
On this alternative, additional indus-
trial/warehouse use is shown to the
south of Keahole Street between Pao`o
Street and Halalu Street. This would
be in the approach to the heliport.
Sixty acres at the north end of the
area is also set aside for the public
safety training campus. The area
shows the flexibility in space design
that is available to design a facility
that can best serve the training needs
of the airport, the island, and the state
in a single, consolidated location.
Finally, an alternative site for an ex-
panded wastewater treatment facility
is depicted farther north of the current
site. As with the previous alternative,
the circulation system forms the grid
for utility planning for the site.
CONCLUSIONS
The process used in formulating and
evaluating airside and landside devel-
opment alternatives involves an anal-
ysis of short and long range require-
ments, as well as future growth poten-
tial. Compliance with airport design
standards was considered in every
scenario. Safety, both air and ground,
were given high priority in the analy-
ses, as were potential effects on the
environment.
The updated development plan for the
airport must represent a means by
which the facility can be improved in a
balanced manner, both airside as well
as landside. In addition, it should
consider flexibility to meet activity
growth beyond the planning horizons.
The remaining chapters will be dedi-
cated to refining the proposed concept
into a final plan with recommenda-
tions to ensure proper implementation
as a demand-based program.
Chapter Five
AIRPORT PLANS
5-1
Chapter Five
AIRPORT PLANSAIRPORT PLANS
The planning process for the Kona
International Airport at Keahole (KOA)
Master Plan has included several
analytical efforts in the previous chapters
intended to project potential aviation
demand, establish airside and landside
facility requirements, and evaluate options
for improving the airport to meet the
identified airport facility needs. The
purpose of this chapter is to describe, in
narrative and graphic form, the
recommended plan for the future of Kona
International Airport at Keahole.
As stated in the Introduction section, the
primary objective of the master plan is to
provide the community and public
officials with proper guidance for future
development which will address aviation
demands and be wholly compatible with
the environment.
Specific goals outlined at the outset
were to:
• Provide a high level of service to
passengers while maintaining a
“Hawaiian sense of place that
represents the unique culture and
physical environment of Kona.”
• Stimulate and support island and state
economic development.
• Enhance services for air cargo
operations.
• Encourage international flights at the
airport.
• Accommodate existing and future
general aviation (including corporate
aviation) customer needs.
5-2
Maintain good relationships with
neighborhood communities by min-
imizing environmental impacts
such as noise.
From the outset of the Master Plan
process, it has been clear that the
people of West Hawaii highly value
the unique, open air, Polynesian at-
mosphere of Kona International Air-
port at Keahole. For this community,
reflection of the Hawaiian culture and
island lifestyle is more than a design
element: it goes to the relationship
people have with their airport – a
sense of connection, pride and owner-
ship.
Accordingly, preservation and en-
hancement of the unique aesthetic
elements of the airport has been a main priority for this Master Plan. In
every recommendation made, specific
attention has been paid to this aspect.
It will be of utmost importance that
this focus be sustained throughout the
process of design and implementation
of the Master Plan.
AIRPORT DESIGN
STANDARDS
As a Part 139 certificated commercial
service airport, Kona International Airport at Keahole must comply with
FAA design and safety standards.
Advisory Circular 150/ 5300-13, Air-
port Design, is the key reference used
to ensure compliance with these stan-
dards. These design and safety stan-
dards are based primarily upon the
characteristics of aircraft expected to
use the airport on a regular basis.
As previously discussed in Chapter
Three, the design codes are based up-
on the approach speeds and wingspans
of these “critical” aircraft. This is
comprised of the most demanding air-craft or “family” of aircraft conducting
at least 500 annual operations at the
airport.
The critical design aircraft for Kona
International Airport at Keahole is
driven by the transport category air-
craft used in the scheduled airline and
air cargo service at the airport. Anal-
ysis in Chapter Three – Facility Re-
quirements indicated that KOA’s cur-
rent airport reference code (ARC) is D-
V. This includes aircraft in Aircraft
Design Group V such as the Boeing
747 and 777 aircraft that already op-
erate at the airport.
Recognizing the airport’s importance
to air cargo on the island, and the im-
portance of the international pas-
senger market to the island as well,
the master plan recommends the air-
port continue to maintain the capabili-
ty to accommodate the larger civilian
aircraft in the future. This would in-
clude aircraft in ARC D-V and poten-
tially D-VI. The B747-series and B777
aircraft would be the critical aircraft
in D-V. At a minimum, the airport
should plan to regularly accommodate
these aircraft.
Larger aircraft are now entering the
civilian fleet. The Airbus A380-800
and the Boeing 747-800 are in ARC D-
VI and are the largest civilian aircraft
in the commercial fleet. They are ex-
pected to be used on international
routes. Honolulu International Air-port is being planned for A380 service
to Hawaii, but KOA has been ap-
proved as an alternate airport. While
ARC D-V is recommended as the criti-
cal ARC for future design at KOA, it is
recommended that D-VI separation
5-3
design standards be maintained on at
least one runway for future viability.
Runway 17-35 is currently designed to
the ARC D-V design standards with
Category (CAT) I instrument approach
capability. The current runway is po-sitioned to maintain adequate separa-
tions and clearances to support ARC
D-VI at least as an alternate airport.
The current runway-to-parallel tax-
iway separation of 881 feet provides
adequate space to add a dual parallel
taxiway at Group D-VI standard sepa-rations.
Ultimately, parallel Runway 17R-35L
is planned to be the same length and
ARC as the primary runway, but
without Category (CAT) I approach
minimums. The parallel runway sep-
aration standard for this runway is
400 feet. While this runway is ulti-
mately planned for ARC D-V, its ini-
tial development will be to serve com-muter, corporate, and general aviation
aircraft which are in D-II or below.
Table 5A summarizes the various air-
field design standards for Kona In-
ternational Airport at Keahole. These
standards were considered in the
planned improvements for the airport
site, to be discussed further within
this chapter.
TABLE 5A
Airfield Design Standards
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Runway
17-35
Initial Runway
17R-35L
Ult. Runway
17R-35L
Critical Aircraft B 747-400 Gulfstream V B 747-400
Airport Reference Code D-V1 D-II D-V
Instrumentation CAT I One-mile
visibility
One-mile
Visibility
RUNWAYS
Length (ft) Width (ft.) Shoulder Width (ft.)
Safety Area
Width (ft.)
Length Beyond End (ft.)
12,0002 150 35 500
1,000
5,500 100 20
500
1,000
11,000 150 40
500
1,000
OBJECT FREE AREA
Width (ft.) Length Beyond End (ft.) 800 1,000 800 1,000 800 1,000
CENTERLINE TO:
Holding Position (ft.)
Parallel Taxiway (Centerline)
280
400 (500)
250
400
280
400
TAXIWAYS
Width (ft.) Centerline to:
Fixed or Movable Object (ft.)
Taxiway Centerline (ft.)
Taxilane Centerline to:
Fixed or Moveable Object (ft.)
75
160 (193)
267 (324)
138 (167)
35
65.5
105
57.5
75
160
267
138
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES
Inner Width (ft.)
Length (ft.)
Outer Width (ft.)
1,000
2,500
1,750
500
1,700
1,010
500
1,700
1,010
Notes: 1 Runway will be D-V, but consider ability to serve ARC D-VI aircraft as an alternate airport. Where applicable, sepa-
rations for D-VI are shown in parentheses. 2 Existing Runway 17-35 length of 11,000 feet is adequate for the foreseeable future. A 12,000-foot length is reserved
on the ALP for future capability should demand dictate.
5-4
RECOMMENDED MASTER
PLAN CONCEPT
The Master Plan Concept includes im-
provements to the airfield, terminal
area, air cargo, and general aviation
facilities to meet current and forecast
needs over the long range planning
horizon. It is also designed to ensure
a viable aviation facility for the West
Coast, the Big Island, and the State
well beyond the long range horizon.
The recommended concept is depicted
on Exhibit 5A. The following sections
further detail these plans and recom-
mendations.
AIRFIELD RECOMMENDATIONS
The principal airfield recommenda-
tions should always focus first upon
safety and security. Of key impor-
tance is to ensure that airport design
standards are adequately planned for
and met. Recommendations are then
provided to improve the operational
efficiency, circulation, and capability
of the airfield. Exhibit 5A depicts the
principal airfield recommendations.
The following subsections discuss the
recommendations as they pertain to
each runway, the taxiway system, and
the airfield support facilities.
Runway 17-35
Runway 17-35 will remain the pri-
mary runway in the future, although
it will ultimately be used in concert
with a parallel runway and a helicop-
ter touchdown and lift-off (TLOF)
area. The primary runway is current-
ly 11,000 feet, but the plan reserves
the capability to extend the runway to
12,000 feet should demand dictate.
The 1,000-foot extension would occur
to the north, but only if and when an
airline or group of airlines would
commit scheduled daily flights that
would require the additional length to
reach long haul international destina-
tions.
Runway 17 currently supports the
airport’s only CAT I instrument ap-
proach. A CAT I approach from the
south on Runway 35 is reserved. This
would likely be through a lateral pre-
cision performance with vertical guid-
ance (LPV) approach utilizing satel-
lite-based GPS (global positioning sys-
tem). The only ground-based invest-
ment would be in the approach light-
ing necessary to obtain the lower min-
imums.
The other key improvements rec-
ommended for Runway 17-35 involve
the taxiway access system. Parallel
Taxiway A currently provides circula-
tion and access along the mauka (east)
side of the runway. The section of
Taxiway A in front of the passenger
terminal is planned to be relocated
114 feet makai (west). This will pro-
vide for adequate circulation for Group
V aircraft in and around the passenger
terminal area.
A second parallel taxiway is planned
between Taxiway A and the runway to
provide for flexibility with future air-
craft circulation. All landside aviation
facilities are located and will continue
to be planned for the mauka (east)
side of the airfield. As a result, avia-
tion uses will eventually stretch along
XX
X
AIR CARGO
VOR1,000’1,000’1,000’
0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
Ka
i
m
i
n
a
n
i
D
r
.
Ultimate Perimeter Service RoadUltimate Perimeter Service RoadUltimate Perimeter Service Road
Taxiway ATaxiway ATaxiway A
Taxiway ETaxiway ETaxiway E
Taxiway FTaxiway FTaxiway F
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.
Fuel
Farm
AVIATION SUPPORTAVIATION
SUPPORT
AVIATION
SUPPORT
AIRPORT
SUPPORT
NELHA
Halalu St.Halalu St.
Ro
a
d
M
Ro
a
d
M
ATCBI 1,500’ATCBI 1,500’
CULTURAL/EDUCATION
Proposed Parallel Rd.Proposed Parallel Rd.
AIRPORT
INDUSTRIAL
AIRPORT
INDUSTRIAL
MIXED USE/
COMMERCIAL
Initial Parallel Runway 5,500’ x 100’Initial Parallel Runway 5,500’ x 100’Initial Parallel Runway 5,500’ x 100’
Pao‘o St. (Road N)Pao‘o St. (Road N)
MIXED USE/
COMMERCIAL
GENERAL AVIATION
AIRPORT
SUPPORT
U‘U StreetU‘U Street
USPS
FAA
Petroglyphs
Existing Entrance
Wash
Rack
Heat Exchanger Site
Kupipi St.
Parking
Proposed Museum Site
Conference
Center
AIRPORT SUPPORT
KATR 5,000’ x 100’KATR 5,000’ x 100’KATR 5,000’ x 100’
1,000’1,000’1,000’
Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)
TLOF 1,700’ x 200’
LARGE AIRCRAFT USES
AIR CARGO
PP
MM NN GG HH DD
CC
KK LL
AAAA
FLIGHT LINE
RESERVE
AVIATION SUPPORT Waste Water
Treatment
PUBLIC SAFETY
TRAINING CAMPUS
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’
381’381’381’
500’500’500’
2,000’
700’700’700’
500’500’500’
TERMINAL
GENERAL
AVIATION
(Helicopters)
3,000’
TLOF Emergency
Response Route
Remote
Fuel Station
Ha
p
u
‘
u
p
u
‘
u
S
t
.
Ha
p
u
‘
u
p
u
‘
u
S
t
.
REVENUE SUPPORT
(LARGE TRACT)
HOTEL
GROUND
TRANSPORTATION
Ro
a
d
P
Ro
a
d
P
Proposed
Main Entrance
ARFFA
ATCT
WATER RESCUE FACILITY/
BOAT LAUNCH
Flight
Kitchen
AIRPORT SUPPORT
RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT Exhibit 5A
06
M
P
0
6
-
5
A
-
5
/
1
1
/
1
0
Airport Property Line
Object Free Area (OFA)
Extended OFA
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
Lease Parcels
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Ultimate Roads/Parking
Ultimate Airfield Pavement
Short Austere Airfield (SAAF)
Existing Facilities per Photograph
LEGEND
5-5
the entire length of the runway in the
future. The dual parallel taxiway will
ultimately provide for two-way circu-
lation, and are planned at airport de-
sign group (ADG) VI separation stan-
dards. The dual taxiway system can be
developed in sections as needed to ad-
dress specific circulation needs as they
arise. For example, the section be-
tween taxiway exits G and H can as-
sist with circulation in front of the
terminal.
The construction of the second parallel
section south of Taxiway G would per-
mit the installation of an additional
taxiway exit from Runway 17-35. The
separation between taxiway exits in
this area is currently 2,700 feet. An
exit in this area is not currently possi-
ble due to the grade change between
the runway and Taxiway A. The
grade of the second parallel taxiway
would be designed to allow for the exit
and would result in reduced taxi times
for airline and air cargo aircraft.
Additional exit taxiways have been
planned to provide more efficient eg-
ress from the primary runway. This
includes a high speed exit near mid-
field for both landing directions, as
well as supplemental right-angle exits
that reduce the maximum spacing be-
tween exits to 2,000 feet.
Kona Auxiliary Training
Runway (KATR)
The plans depict the proposed location
for the Kona auxiliary training run-
way (KATR) for use in military pilot-
proficiency training by C-17s for land-
ing on short field conditions. This lo-
cation at KOA was selected by the De-
partment of Defense (DOD) after eval-
uating a range of alternative locations
throughout the Hawaiian Islands.
The KATR as originally proposed by
the DOD would be 4,250 feet long and
90 feet wide with taxi access to Run-
way 17-35 for departure after execut-
ing the short landing.
The master plan recommends that a
parallel runway be developed not only
for capacity, but to provide a second
runway to keep the airport open when
the primary runway must be tempo-
rarily closed for any reason. KOA is
currently the only small hub or larger
commercial service airport in Hawaii
that does not have a second runway.
The following subsection outlines ul-
timate plans for that parallel runway
development. The DOT-A, however,
has been negotiating with the DOD for
the potential use of the KATR as an
interim solution for providing a second
runway at KOA. For this to be prac-
ticable, the KATR would need to be a
minimum length of 5,000 feet, a width
of 100 feet, and be available for civil-
ian use when not being used for mili-
tary training. As a result, the Exhib-
it 5A and the airport layout plan de-
pict the potential interim 5,000-foot
length for the KATR. The proposed
location is 700 feet makai (west) of
Runway 17-35.
The KATR would be constructed by
the Department of Defense and could
be used until such time that a full-
length parallel taxiway becomes ne-
cessary between the parallel runways.
At that time, it could be incorporated
into the proposed taxiway as depicted
on the exhibit.
5-6
Parallel Runway 17R-35L
Parallel Runway 17R-35L is ultimate-
ly planned as a full-service runway
1,200 feet makai (west) of the primary
runway. The 1,200-foot separation is
recommended as it meets the FAA
standard separation for parallel run-
ways serving D-V and larger aircraft,
and it also ensures that the perimeter
fencing and service road can be main-
tained outside of the runway’s object
free area on the makai (west) side.
The ultimate length is planned to be
11,000 feet and would have the same
design standards (D-V) and pavement
strength as the primary runway. It is
planned for one-mile visibility instru-
ment approaches to each end. A full-
length parallel taxiway is ultimately
planned between the parallel runways
along the same alignment as the pro-
posed KATR. This would place the
centerline of the taxiway at 500 feet
from the centerline of the parallel
runway.
It is anticipated that the runway
would initially be developed at a
length to accommodate at least small
general aviation aircraft and corporate
and commuter aircraft. An initial
runway length of 5,500 feet is shown
on Exhibit 5A. If maintained at D-II
design standards and at least 60,000
pound pavement strength, this run-
way would be capable of accommodat-
ing approximately 60 percent of the
airport’s operational mix.
The initial parallel runway would be
developed from the south threshold of
the ultimate runway. This will make
it readily accessible to the general avi-
ation facilities already located at the
south end of the airport’s flight line.
Future extensions of the runway
would make it more usable by the
commercial service and cargo aircraft.
The ultimate goal is to maximize the
airfield capacity of the parallel run-
ways and ensure there is always a
runway available in service when a
runway must be temporarily closed in
emergencies or for maintenance or
construction.
Helicopter Touchdown and
Lift-Off Area (TLOF)
The plan includes a separate area to
accommodate helicopter operations
virtually independent of fixed wing
operations. The facility is focused on a
touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) to
be developed approximately 3,000 feet
mauka (east) of the north end of the
existing runway. This will allow air
traffic control to permit helicopter op-
erations independent of operations
from the main runway system. This
site was chosen for its separation from
the runway environment as well as its
visibility from the programmed airport
traffic control tower (ATCT).
The TLOF is designed to serve heli-
copter training and function as a base
for other helicopter operations on the
airport. The ultimate paved TLOF is
planned to 1,700 feet long and 200 feet
wide, but can be developed in stages.
The TLOF is also planned with 280
feet clearance on three sides from any
publicly occupied areas to provide for
protection zones.
Helicopter terminal area facilities are
planned mauka (east) of the TLOF to
5-7
ensure that line-of-sight is maintained
to the programmed ATCT.
Support Facilities
Airfield support facilities include facil-
ities necessary for the maintenance
and operation of the airfield. These
include the airport traffic control
tower (ATCT), other on-site FAA facil-
ities, an airport rescue and fire-
fighting (ARFF) facility, airport main-
tenance facilities, and perimeter ser-
vice roads.
The current ATCT is old and outdated.
It also does not have sufficient visi-
bility of all airfield operations areas.
As this master plan was being pre-
pared, the FAA conducted a siting
study for a new ATCT. The recom-
mended location was Site #10 from the
previous chapter, and is shown on
Exhibit 5A. The new ATCT has been
programmed for design and construc-
tion by 2012.
The FAA has also evaluated potential
sites for relocating the very-high omni-
directional range with tactical air nav-
igation (VORTAC) to the airport from
its current site south of KOA. Chapter
Four outlined the six primary candi-
date sites located within the airfield
operations area (AOA) that were being
considered. After considering input
from the DOT-A and its consultants
regarding the master plan, the FAA
selected a location between candidate
Sites 11 and 12.
As depicted on Exhibit 5A, the se-
lected site is located 900 feet makai
(west) of the runway centerline, and
2,270 feet from the runway end. This
location should not affect existing
buildings and remain out of areas an-
ticipated to be developed in the next
20 years. It is also located just outside
the ultimate RPZ for Runway 35 and
will not pose a hazard to aircraft oper-
ations.
The ARFF building equipment is cur-
rently housed in a structure next to
the existing ATCT on the south side of
the airport. The facility is also located
behind the general aviation transient
and tie-down ramps. As depicted on
Exhibit 5A, a location for a new,
modern facility has been planned to
the north of the passenger terminal
and just south of the proposed ATCT
site. The proposed location will have
more direct access to the airfield, is
closer to the helicopter TLOF area,
and is still close to the passenger ter-
minal. A direct emergency access
route from the ARFF to the runways
and the KATR will also serve to re-
duce response times and eliminate the
need for an auxiliary response station
to meet military response times to the
KATR.
Training for ARFF personnel as well
as other regional first responder facili-
ties is being planned for a 60-acre pub-
lic safety training campus on the air-
port. In addition, a boat launch for wa-
ter rescue facilities and training
should be considered as part of the
ARFF and regional training facilities.
The proposed location is indicated on
Exhibit 5A on the coast line near the
north end of the airfield.
The airport maintenance facilities are
mauka (east) of U`u Street and south
5-8
of the terminal loop road. Area to ex-
pand the airport maintenance yard
has been reserved immediately south
of the current location.
The plan includes relocations and an
addition to the perimeter service road
as necessary to maintain secure access
that will essentially circumvent the
entire airfield. The perimeter service
road on the makai (west) side of the
airfield will need to be relocated for
the KATR and parallel runway devel-
opment. In addition, an emergency
response route is planned to extend
from the north end of Taxiway A then
mauka (east) to the proposed helicop-
ter TLOF. This will provide emergen-
cy access to the helicopter facility for
ARFF equipment. Similarly, service
road access to the water rescue facility
is also planned.
PASSENGER TERMINAL
CONCEPT
The previous chapter examined poten-
tial terminal alternatives that would
accommodate the needs determined
for the passenger terminal area in
Chapter 3 - Facility Requirements.
Those alternatives considered the
short-, intermediate-, and long-term
planning horizon needs of the airport
as well as the functional, en-
vironmental, and financial factors in-
volved. While the planning horizons
are established to be demand-driven,
they have been keyed to demand lev-
els anticipated in the five-, ten-, and
twenty-year time frames.
In order for the Master Plan team and
the stakeholders of the airport to bet-
ter evaluate the alternatives, these
factors were developed into evaluation
criteria and listed in a matrix for the
purposes of scoring the three alterna-
tives. An example of this form is found
in Appendix C. Further, a cost bene-
fit analysis was performed for all three
alternatives. This analysis can also be
viewed in Appendix C.
From the cost benefit analysis, Alter-
native 1 was the least expensive op-
tion and the primary benefits include
the following:
1. Maintains the current archi-
tectural character – “Hawaiian
Sense of Place.”
2. Increases airport operational effi-
ciency.
3. Optimizes current facilities.
4. Increases passenger level of ser-
vice.
5. Allows for expandability.
6. Constructability and minimizes
impacts to airport operations.
7. Minimal expenditure.
Alternative 2 prioritizes the building
of a new north terminal for overseas
operations before focusing on the ex-
pansion of the existing terminal. The
benefits of the new north terminal for
overseas passengers include:
1. Increases passenger level of ser-
vice.
5-9
2. Flexibility of facilities – baggage
claim use for both international
and domestic travelers.
3. Minimizes disruption of airport op-
erations during implementation.
Alternative 3 proposes the building of
a new overseas facility at the south
end of the terminal area, and the ben-
efits are similar to Alternative 2.
The recommended concept strategy for
future terminal development is based
on Alternatives 1 and 2. More specifi-
cally, the preferred concept includes
the short and intermediate plans from
Alternative 1 with the option of mov-
ing forward with either the long range
plan of Alternatives 1 or 2. With ei-
ther option, the Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) facilities would be
relocated from the existing location,
thereby allowing for the construction
of the North Terminal if desired at
some point in the future.
The full build out of the recommended
plan is illustrated in Exhibit 5B. It is
color coded by facility operations as
consistent with other diagrams in this
study. The recommended terminal
plan by phase will be described below.
They are coordinated with exhibits
that show the overall growth in rela-
tion to the terminal area as well as the
operational detail of the facility.
Terminal Development Priorities
Input and comments from the public
workshop, the TAC, and other stake-
holders were reviewed and taken into
consideration as the concept was re-
fined and priorities established.
Through further analysis and dis-
cussion of the alternatives evaluation
with the Master Plan team, terminal
development priorities were deter-
mined to be as follows:
1. Improve baggage claim areas to re-
duce crowding and improve circula-
tion.
2. Improve ticket lobby experience
and reduce crowding.
3. Improve TSA security checkpoint
operations.
4. Implement TSA in-line baggage
screening.
5. Increase gate holdroom areas.
6. Improve CBP international arri-
vals experience.
The recommended development plan
for the passenger terminal follows the
Short Term, Intermediate, and Long
Range time frames of the aviation
forecast and its requisite requirements
for facilities. Generally, though the
master plan requirements identify
need for expanded facilities in respec-
tive 5, 10, and 20 years time frames,
the master plan is “demand driven”
and as such facilities should be devel-
oped to address growth or operational
change at the airport. For KOA the
Short Term and Intermediate plans of
the terminal area, in addition to in-
creasing capacity to meet future
needs, address current need to im-
prove passenger level of service and
safety noted above. This led to the de-
cision by DOT-A to identify an “Initial
Development Phase” that combines
5-10
the Short Term and Intermediate
phases for terminal area development.
Therefore, initial development of the
passenger terminal will focus on im-
provements within the existing ter-
minal as described below and depicted
on Exhibit 5C.
Initial Development Phase
(Short Term plus
Intermediate Term)
Baggage Claim (Short Term)
The perimeter rails at baggage claim
can be relocated in order to provide
more space for circulation at the ends
of the claim device. Currently, the
space between the ends of the baggage
claim devices and the perimeter rail
create a pinch point. An additional
baggage claim device will be added to
each end of the terminal. The added
claim devices will need to be sloped
plate devices able to handle the bag-
gage demand from large aircraft flying
overseas.
Ticketing (Intermediate Term)
Crowding and lack of wayfinding clari-
ty result in an inadequate level of ser-
vice within the two current ticket lob-
bies. The best solution to resolving
these issues would be to create a cen-
tralized ticket lobby with adequate
space for queuing and processing func-
tions without hindering passenger
wayfinding and flow. This can be
achieved first by a relocation of the El-
lison S. Onizuka Space Center, which
would allow space for an automated
kiosk check-in area. These self-service
kiosks would be the first step of a two-
step process that would organize
queuing and streamline passenger
flow.
A centralized ticket lobby would also
require the remodeling of the north
ticket lobby so that the counters face
the center of the terminal as do the
current south ticket lobby counters.
These ticket counters would be desig-
nated bag check counters for both
mainland and interisland passengers.
Mainland passengers at this second
step of a two-step process would re-
quire processing through USDA Agri-
cultural screening before advancing to
the bag check counters. The current
two locations of the TSA security
checkpoints would be consolidated into
one checkpoint and would be located
makai (west) of the self-service kiosks
where the ticket counters converge.
Airside (Intermediate Term)
On the airside, between the two de-
parture areas, new covered centralized
in-line EDS outbound baggage areas
would be constructed. Tunnels would
also have to be built so that the bags
can be moved from the ticketing area
to the EDS baggage system. The tun-
nels would include baggage con-
veyance systems, utilities, and be of a
size to maintain the systems. In order
to maintain the level of passenger ser-
vice for the short term, restrooms and
concessions would be upgraded and
expanded.
Above the new outbound baggage sys-
tem is a second-level concourse from
Kupipi St.
SHORT TERM PARKING
RECOMMENDED PASSENGER TERMINAL PLAN Exhibit 5B
06
M
P
0
6
-
5
B
-
1
1
/
1
3
/
0
8
0 150
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
LEGEND
Ultimate Roads/Parking
Ultimate Airfield Pavement
Public Area
Holdroom
Airline
Ticket Queuing
Concessions
Aviation Department
Security
Security Queuing
Restroom
Existing Facilities per Photograph
ULTIMATE TERMINAL EXPANSION
INITIAL TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT - SHORT AND INTERMEDIATE TERM Exhibit 5C
06
M
P
0
6
-
5
C
-
1
/
2
7
/
0
9
LOWER LEVEL
UPPER LEVEL
0 100
SCALE IN FEET
NORTHARRIVALS PROCESSINGARRIVALS PROCESSIN
G
RELOCATE EXIT
FROM SECURE AREA
Subgrade tunnels
for baggage conveyors
Open Landscaping
(Restrooms double in size)
COVERED CIRCULATION
SPACE
EXIT FROM
SECURE AREA
Note: Existing facilities displaced by
new facilities to be replaced prior
to constructing new
Note: Existing facilities displaced by
new facilities to be replaced prior
to constructing new
Note: Preferred method of USDA screening of
checked baggage is in-line with TSA EDS
screening to achieve 2-step check-in
processing of passengers - will also limit
crossing flow of passengers
ST-6
ST-4
ST-2
ST-1
ST-1 NT Courtyard Canopies
ST-2 ST Courtyard Canopies
ST-3 NT Bag Claim Retrofits
ST-4 ST Bag Claim Retrofits
ST-5 NT Bag Claim / IBB
ST-6 ST Bag Claim / IBB
ST-7 Employee Parking Expansion
INT-1
INT-11
INT-4
INT-10
INT-8INT-9
INT-7
INT-6
INT-12
INT-14
INT-13
INT-2
INT-5
ST-3
ST-5
ST-7
(beyond drawing)
SHORT TERM
INT-1 NT Expand Restrooms
INT-2 ST Expand Restrooms
INT-3 Central OBB / EDS / Tunnels (not shown)
INT-4 NT Concessions
INT-5 ST Concessions
INT-6 Demolish Onizuka Museum
INT-7 Central Automated Check-in
INT-8 NT USDA Building
INT-9 ST USDA Building
INT-10 Central TSA PAX Screening
INT-11 NT Bag Check
INT-12 ST Bag Check Remodel
INT-13 Second Level Holdrooms
INT-14 Passenger Loading Bridges
INTERMEDIATE TERM
5-11
which larger overseas aircraft can be
accessed via passenger loading
bridges. Ground boarding for narrow
body aircraft on interisland routes
would be maintained from the existing
holdrooms. The second level concourse
would be accessed via escalators and
stairs at either side upon exiting the
security checkpoint. Once above, pas-
sengers pass through agricultural
screening of hand baggage prior to en-
tering the main holdroom area. The
second-level departures area would
have restrooms and concessions.
Long Range Options
The long range plan focuses on im-
proving the international arrivals op-
erations. As indicated earlier, the ini-
tial plan preserves the flexibility to
choose either Alternative 1 or Alterna-
tive 2 for long range terminal devel-
opment. With each option, a “Beyond
Plan” addresses needs if and when the
long range planning horizon forecasts
are exceeded.
Long Range - Option 1
Exhibit 5D presents the long range
Option 1. A new immigrations facility
would be built south of the existing
tent structure and would be connected
to the main terminal upper level con-
course via a corridor and ramp. This
would increase the level of service for
the international arriving passengers
by allowing them to deplane from
loading bridges.
A new sloped plate baggage claim de-
vice would be added next to the one
added in the previous phase. This new
claim device would be swing use and
could operate either as domestic or in-
ternational depending on schedule.
The current administrative buildings
would be converted for use as the CBP
offices and the Customs facility.
An increase in international flights is
anticipated beyond the long range ho-
rizon. This option would address the
need by adding an upper level con-
course with loading bridges. The con-
course would be directly connected to
the immigrations facility via a ramp
and vertical transport. The long range
would also see the expansion of the
CBP processing facility.
In this phase, the terminal drive
would be relocated to the east in order
to expand the curb and allow for more
capacity at the terminal front.
Long Range – Option 2
The long range alternate plan depicted
on Exhibit 5E addresses the needs of
the airport if international demand
increases significantly in the future. A
new north terminal would be built for
departures and arrivals processing of
international passengers as well as
overseas mainland passengers. Ticket-
ing and security screening would be
located on the ground floor with hold-
rooms, concessions, and restrooms on
the second level concourse. In-
ternational arriving passengers would
deplane onto a sterile third level,
process through immigrations, and
then proceed to ground level for bag-
gage claim and customs processing.
5-12
Once the new international facility is
built and operational, the interim CBP
facility built in the intermediate phase
can be demolished to clear the area for
increased baggage claim capacity.
Three new sloped plate devices will be
added between the international bag
claim and the domestic bag claim de-
vice. Two of these will be for domestic
use and the other will be swing use
domestic or international depending
on the schedule.
Airport Terminal Vision
Throughout the Master Planning
process for Kona International Airport
at Keahole, it has been emphasized by
all involved that any future develop-
ment should consider maintaining the
existing unique character and am-
bience of the airport as a top priority.
The recommended terminal plan iden-
tifies the facilities needed to be im-
proved and built to meet the future
growing demand. The final concept
and all previous alternatives, however,
have been studied and developed with
the requirements as a base and with
the vision as identified above.
The human scale of the buildings,
open air structures, integration of
landscape, and use of indigenous ar-
chitectural style are principles that
contribute to the unique experience at
this airport. The terminal portion of
this master plan has been developed
throughout with building information
modeling (BIM) as the integration tool
of facility requirements and vision.
Exhibit 5F illustrates three alterna-
tives for roof designs that can shape
the future development with the prin-
ciples as stated above. Roof Option 1
uses a similar roof type as the existing
roof and is adapted in size to the facili-
ty function below. Roof Option 2 uti-
lizes the language and scale of the ex-
isting hut roofs; however, they are
constructed of fabric on tensile struc-
ture much like the existing CBP struc-
ture. Roof Option 3 uses a modified
version of the traditional hut roof and
can possibly be perforated at the top
for natural air flow and have solar pa-
nels on the south facing slope. Exhi-
bit 5G further illustrates the various
views of these roof options.
Special Considerations
AGRICULTURAL INSPECTIONS
Different than most airports within
the US, Hawaii airports require in-
spection of passengers and both hand-
carried and checked baggage for items
not allowed into or out of the state.
This requirement adds to the depar-
tures and arrivals processing of pas-
sengers and baggage. The recom-
mended plan considers this unique
condition and acknowledges the need
for facilities and their detailed re-
quirements to ensure proper inspec-
tions by both United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture (USDA) and the
Hawaii Department of Agriculture
(HDOA).
Generally for this master plan level of
detail within the terminal – for de-
parting passengers, baggage must be
inspected either prior to checking it as
“aircraft checked baggage” or carrying
it on board aircraft as “hand carry”
TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - OPTION 1 Exhibit 5D
06
M
P
0
6
-
5
D
-
1
1
/
1
3
/
0
8
0 120
SCALE IN FEET
LOWER LEVEL - LONG RANGE
LOWER LEVEL - BEYOND PLAN
NORTH
LR1-4
LR1-3
LR1-2
LR1-1
(beyond drawing)
Second Level Holdrooms
Expand CBP Processing
LR1-1 Airport Administration
LR1-2 CBP Facility
LR1-3 Arrivals Cooridor
LR1-4 Passenger Loading Bridges
LONG RANGE
TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - OPTION 2 Exhibit 5E
06
M
P
0
6
-
5
E
-
5
/
1
9
/
0
8
0 120
SCALE IN FEET
ALL LEVELS - LONG RANGE
LOWER LEVEL - BEYOND PLAN
NORTH
Expand North Terminal GatesExpand North Terminal Gates
Expand North Terminal CBP ProcessingExpand North Terminal CBP Processing
Expand North Terminal Gates
Expand North Terminal CBP Processing
LR2-1
LR2-2
LR2-3
LR2-1 Expand Curb / Relocate Drive
LR2-2 North Terminal
LR2-3 Passenger Loading Bridges
LONG RANGE
06
M
P
0
6
-
5
F
-
5
/
1
9
/
0
8
FULL BUILDOUT TERMINAL AREA MODEL Exhibit 5F
ROOF OPTION 1
ROOF OPTION 2
ROOF OPTION 3
View of Terminal Area From SW - Roof Option 3View of Initial Development From SW-Roof Option 1 View of Terminal Area From SW - Roof Option 2
View of Terminal Area From NE - Roof Option 3View of Terminal Area From NE - Roof Option 2
View of Terminal Area From SE - Roof Option 2 View of Terminal Area From SE - Roof Option 3
View of Terminal Area From NE - Roof Option 1
View of Terminal Area From SE - Roof Option 1
View of Terminal Area From NE - Roof Option 3View of Terminal Area From NE - Roof Option 2
View of Terminal Area From NE - Roof Option 1
TERMINAL PERSPECTIVES Exhibit 5G
06
M
P
0
6
-
5
G
-
5
/
1
9
/
0
8
5-13
baggage. For arriving passengers, a
declaration of contents not allowed in-
to the state is required, and inspection
of checked or hand carry baggage
must be conducted prior to departing
the airport.
Space must be allocated in the master
plan to support these inspection func-
tions as well as for agency offices to
support operations and staff. The rec-
ommended plan includes spaces allo-
cated to the inspection of checked bag-
gage either prior to checking the bag
with the airlines (as it occurs now) or
after if it is in-line within the out-
bound baggage system, but prior to
TSA screening of checked baggage.
The plan also includes an area to
screen hand-carried baggage prior to
passengers entering the holdroom
area for mainland and international
departures. The plan includes bag-
gage claim additions of new buildings
and claim devices mainly to serve
larger aircraft. These buildings would
include adequate space for inspection
areas prior to their controlled exit
points. Space is also provided in the
plan for processing live domestic ani-
mals that arrive as checked baggage.
The plan includes office space within
the terminal buildings adjacent to de-
partures processing for both agencies,
as well as a centralized joint-use US-
DA/HDOA marshalling area with di-
rect airside access for aircraft belly
freight cargo. If interim facilities are
needed due to vacation of existing
space in order to build new facilities,
they will accommodate that agency’s
requirements for operations. Detailed
programming for both agencies should
be conducted prior to the design phase
of future projects.
AIRPORT REVENUE –
CONCESSIONS
Airport concessions are important to
the level of service provided pas-
sengers, visitors, and employees at the
airport as well as for generating air-
port revenue. The airport currently
has approximately 8,200 s.f. of conces-
sions space that will be increased to
approximately 15,800 s.f. in the Initial
Development Phase and to 19,500 s.f.
in the Long Range.
The majority of concessions are
planned to be located beyond the TSA
security checkpoint as that is where
passengers tend to spend most of their
time waiting before boarding flights.
These concessions can also serve em-
ployees at the airport.
Concessions are also planned to be
available to visitors prior to the secu-
rity checkpoint. The type will be de-
termined by market conditions.
The concessions post-security are lo-
cated in three areas. Immediately af-
ter the TSA security checkpoint and
upon turning to the north or south de-
pending on gate location, passengers
will encounter concessions opportuni-
ties laid out in a “shopping street”
type arrangement. Immediately after
the shopping street arrangement, is a
second area for concessions that will
front the existing departures court-
yards. This area is accessible to all
passengers, though it is directly adja-
cent to gates for interisland travel. A
5-14
centralized concessions area is also
located in the second level departure
area serving mainland flights.
In support of the concessions and de-
partures process, the restrooms adja-
cent to the two interisland departures
courtyards are anticipated to more
than double in size. The second level
departure area will have restrooms in
two locations adequate to support the
mainland flight activities.
DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION PHASES
The terminal development plan is a
strategy that offers guidance for the
development of the airport over time
to address capacity, operational re-
quirements, safety, and necessary ser-
vices for all users of the airport.
This plan also recommends main-
taining and enhancing the unique ar-
chitectural character of the air ter-
minal complex and a course of action
describing a facilities development se-
quence to make improvements.
The next phase of study, definition of
the projects in further detail, prior to
detailed design and construction is a
necessary step. This phase of study
should be conducted with the partici-
pation of user groups that will occupy
the new facilities. In addition to de-
tailed programming and concepts this
definition phase should include defini-
tion of administrative systems to im-
plement the projects, financial strate-
gies to support their costs, detailed
scheduling for phasing and staging of
construction, identification of agency
requirements and reviews for permit-
ting development (such as for broader
concerns like shoreline management
and detail concerns like storm water
management during construction),
and other design standards necessary
to management of development at a
major institution as an airport.
AIRPORT SECURITY BLAST
MITIGATION
The US Department of Homeland Se-
curity (US DHS) has requirements,
guidelines and recommendations for
air terminal buildings related to their
ability to withstand forces generated
by vehicle transported explosives det-
onated within the terminal area of
airports. DOT-A conducted a separate
study of the main passenger airports
in the state with recommendations for
physical improvements of the air ter-
minal buildings or operational proce-
dures for controlling vehicle access to
the terminal and/or prox-imity of
parking based on size categories of ve-
hicles – or a combination of both. This
master plan identifies expansion of
terminal parking, relocation of the
terminal curbs (though not to the 300’
distance to terminal structures re-
quired by the US DHS), and relocation
of the main entrance roadway systems
in phases. As such, this master plan
allows for layout of interim vehicle
access control for the airport terminal
area to enforce operational procedures
that meet the various “state of alert”
US DHS requirements.
5-15
INTERIM AND TEMPORARY
FACILITIES
Implementation of new facilities with-
in the existing operating terminal area
will, in some instances, require relo-
cating airport related operations to
temporary facilities. Phasing, staging,
and sequencing of improvements and
their construction will prioritize com-
pletion of new facilities before necessi-
ty to relocate existing operations.
When temporary facilities are neces-
sary, consideration should be given to
locating those facilities in proximity to
the functions they will serve. Addi-
tionally, detailed requirements for the
relocated operations should be identi-
fied prior to detailed design of the
temporary facilities for airlines, agen-
cies, airport operations, concession-
aires and others. This will insure that
operational needs (space requirements
as well as specialized information
technology and communications) are
met.
Terminal Parking
and Access Loop
The facility requirements indicated
that even with the recent additions to
terminal area lots, the parking facili-
ties will be marginally undersized by
the short term planning horizon.
More than 800 additional spaces will
be needed by the long range planning
horizon level.
With the parking area within the ex-
isting terminal loop essentially fully
developed, recent additions have been
located mauka (east) of the terminal
loop road. This is less than desirable
as pedestrians from these lots must
cross terminal traffic twice. The mau-
ka side of the loop is the area of con-
cern as traffic tends to move faster in
this area and drivers are not as pre-
pared to encounter pedestrian traffic
here as they are at the terminal curb
front.
As parking needs increase, it is rec-
ommended that the terminal loop be
expanded mauka to Pao`o Street
(Road N). This will place all of the
terminal parking lots inside the loop
road. Exhibit 5H depicts the plan for
the terminal parking and loop road
system.
Pao`o Street between Keahole Street
and the proposed new airport access
road (Road P) to the north would be
converted to a northbound one-way
road to become the backside of the
terminal loop system. The proposed
intermediate terminal improvements
could require the curb in front of the
terminal to be moved 30 feet mauka
(east). If the roadway shift is made, it
is recommended that a wider median
island and an additional outside lane
be planned. The shift and additional
width would extend at least to the
edge of the parking lot.
This would also require the removal of
the building known as the Ground
Transportation Building. The build-
ing was previously used for rental car
counters. It has not been needed for
this use since all rental car operations
were relocated to their lease areas off
Keahole Street and away from the
parking lot. The building currently
houses a local style eatery, the only
restaurant concession outside of secu-
5-16
rity on the airport. Since new restau-
rant facilities will be provided within
the terminal modernization, the build-
ing will become disposable.
The need for the shift will depend
upon the final terminal design. If the
design does not require additional
mauka space for pre-security queuing,
the roadway and the ground transpor-
tation building could be maintained.
The parking lot would be divided into
short and long term parking. Kupipi
Street would bisect the lot with short
term parking makai and long term
parking mauka. It would also be con-
verted to an internal one-way access
spine for entering and exiting parking
lots. The main entrance would be at
the north end of the loop. Vehicles
could enter long or short term parking
from this entrance. Exits from the lots
would be located farther south with
the toll plaza located south of the lots.
The toll plaza would exit to the mauka
side of the terminal loop. An addi-
tional entrance to the long term park-
ing lot could be made available from
Pao`o Street. A second entrance to the
short term lot could also be developed
at the south end of the terminal front-
age road.
The short term parking lot would have
a higher percentage of spaces than
typical. It could be priced to accom-
modate not just hourly parkers, but
also all-day parking by island com-
muters, as well as overnight users
willing to pay a higher rate for close-in
parking. The parking as depicted on
the plan will accommodate both public
and employee parking needs through
the long term planning horizon. Ad-
ditional space is available for expan-
sion beyond the planning horizons. It
should be noted that the petroglyphs
in the area would be avoided by the
parking lot development plan.
The proposed parking plan is purpose-
ly designed around preserving the pe-
troglyphs that are located mauka of
Kupipi Street. This is a unique histor-
ic cultural setting that can be tied into
the overall plan for maintaining the
Hawaiian sense of place. As will be
shown in later discussions of the over-
all airport land use plan, the petro-
glyphs are part of the link between the
terminal plans, the new site for the
Ellison S. Onizuka Space Center, and
other areas designed to maintain and
honor the Aloha Spirit.
AIR CARGO CONCEPT
The air cargo facilities are currently
located south of the passenger termi-
nal and are surrounded by general
aviation facilities. The ramp can only
accommodate aircraft up to Aircraft
Design Group (ADG) III. Larger cargo
aircraft must be parked on the ramp
north of the passenger terminal. As
cargo traffic grows it is recommended
that cargo be consolidated to an area
north of the passenger terminal and
the ATCT. This will not only consoli-
date the use, but separate it from the
general aviation activity at the south
end of the terminal area.
Exhibit 5J depicts the recommended
plan for the cargo area. The plan is a
refinement of Cargo Alternative 2 in
the previous chapter. The cargo build-
ings are aligned parallel to the run-
Pao‘o St. (Road N)
Kupipi St.
Petroglyphs
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
XX
USPS
TERMINAL LOOP AND PARKING PLAN Exhibit 5H
06
M
P
0
6
-
5
H
-
3
/
2
3
/
1
0
0 300
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Ultimate Road/Parking
Ultimate Airfield Pavement
Ultimate Building
SHORT TERM PARKING
PASSENGER TERMINAL
EXPANSION
COMMUTER
AIR TERMINAL
TOLL
PLAZA
CELL PHONE LOT
AIRPORT
MAINTENANCE
EXPANSION
RMINAL
ANSION
LONG TERM PARKING
XX
AIR CARGO
FUEL FARM
(ORIGINAL SITE)
RESERVE FOR
AIRPORT SUPPORT
RESERVE FOR TRUCK STAGING
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
EXPANSION
AREA
JOINT INSPECTION FACILITY
USPS
RESERVE FOR
FUTURE TERMINAL
EXPANSION
FLIGHT
KITCHEN
FAA
06
M
P
0
6
-
5
J
-
3
/
2
3
/
1
0
0 300
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Ultimate Road/Parking
Ultimate Airfield Pavement
Ultimate Building
Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)
Site Alternatives
Passenger Terminal
PASSENGER TERMINAL
EXPANSION
TERMINAL PARKING
RMINAL
PANSION
ARFF
REMOTE
FUEL STATION
Current BRL
Ha
p
u
‘
u
p
u
‘
u
S
t
r
e
e
t
Group VI Taxiway Clearance/Ultimate BRL
RECOMMENDED AIR CARGO CONCEPT Exhibit 5J
Pao‘o St. - Road N
Halalu Street Exte n sio n
WWASTEWATER
TREATMENT
EXPANSION
AREA
AAAAARA
Service Road
ATCT
5-17
way with apron makai and truck
docks and vehicle parking mauka.
Space is also provided at the south end
of the cargo complex for a Joint In-
spection Facility building. This is de-
signed to house the Hawaii De-
partment of Agriculture (HDOA), the
United States Department of Agricul-
ture (USDA), and other state and fed-
eral agencies with jurisdiction over
cargo exports and imports. The facili-
ty is expected to include inspection
areas, treatment areas, office space,
and cargo consolidation and deconsoli-
dation areas. The facility is expected
to meet all food quality and food safety
requirements.
As depicted on the exhibit, the apron
is sized to accommodate Group V air-
craft, but could also accommodate
Group VI on an infrequent basis. The
apron is set back from Taxiway A to
Group VI design standards as well.
Space is provided on the ends as well
as on the ramp side of the buildings
for storage of ground support equip-
ment (GSE).
Access to the cargo area would be ex-
tended from Pao`o Street. Secondary
access points are depicted at the north
and south ends of the cargo parking
lot.
For the terminal loop road to be relo-
cated to Pao`o Street as planned, the
primary access for the new cargo area
will need to be relocated mauka of
Pao`o Street. As shown on Exhibit
5A, the cargo access road would then
tie into an extension of Halalu Street.
Halalu Street would intersect with the
future airport access Road P. There
will be more discussion on the access
system later in this chapter.
Exhibit 5J also depicts the locations
reserved for several other support uses
that would be developed by others.
The new FAA ATCT and the ARFF
relocation sites were discussed earlier.
While the flightline areas used by the
ATCT and the ARFF provide the
sightlines and airfield access those
uses require, areas just mauka of the
flightline are ideal for other uses that
support both the passenger and cargo
functions. Such support uses planned
for this area include a United States
Postal Service (USPS) facility, a flight
kitchen, and a consolidated airline fuel
farm.
The four-acre site owned by the Postal
Service is shown on the northwest
corner of the intersection of Pao`o
Street and future Road P. Although
consideration had been given to a po-
tential land swap with the USPS if
this site was determined to affect the
Master Plan concept, the site actually
works well with the recommended
concept. The site has good access to
Pao`o Street and the utility corridor
along it. The site is also in good prox-
imity to the cargo area to aid in the
transfer of air mail between the facili-
ties. At the same time, it stays out-
side the potential long term path of
terminal expansion.
Just to the north across the service
road from the USPS site is a parcel
reserved for a flight kitchen. Mauka
of the flight kitchen and across Pao`o
Street is the site recommended for the
consolidated fuel farm. These loca-
tions provide both of these uses with
5-18
the landside access necessary for
ground deliveries as well as being a
short distance from the aircraft they
are intended to service.
The new setting for the cargo area and
other support facilities provides
another opportunity to incorporate the
Hawaiian sense of place into what
may ordinarily be considered one of
the more drab components of the air-
port. Sufficient space is available to
incorporate native landscaping into
the area. The façades of the new cargo
buildings can be designed in a manner
to blend with that of the terminal,
ATCT and other new structures on the
airport
GENERAL AVIATION CONCEPT
The general aviation (GA) facilities
are presently located south of the pas-
senger terminal and on both sides of
the air cargo area. As discussed pre-
viously, the cargo facilities are rec-
ommended to eventually be relocated
to the north of the passenger terminal,
providing three distinct and separate
functional areas for the primary avia-
tion uses on the airport.
Exhibit 5K outlines the recom-
mended concept for the general avia-
tion area. This concept is based upon
the input and comment received from
the TAC and the public through the
alternatives review. The basic prem-
ise to the concept is derived primarily
from GA Alternative 3. Aspects of the
redevelopment of the northern por-
tions of the area, however, are from
Alternatives 1 and 2.
The concept essentially maintains the
subdivision of function within the gen-
eral aviation area that exists today.
The areas south of Taxilane K would
continue to primarily serve business
jets and other corporate aircraft. The
areas north of Taxilane K would con-
tinue to serve uses related to smaller
general aviation aircraft.
Property mauka (east) of U`u Street
has been divided into four areas for
possible lease to private developers
through a request for proposal (RFP)
process. The DOT-A intends these
areas to have corporate/general avia-
tion facilities constructed to assist in
meeting the future demands as ex-
pressed by the general aviation com-
munity. The areas are to be developed
in accordance with the DOT-A’s Devel-
opment Standards for Leased Proper-
ty, and can include, but are not limited
to, storage hangars, maintenance fa-
cilities, aircraft parking, and asso-
ciated infrastructure.
The four areas are essentially defined
by the area between U`u Street and
Pao`o Street (Road N). They are di-
vided by extensions of Taxilane L and
the future roads as shown on Exhibit
5K. The parcels range in size from 11
to 17 acres for a combined total of
58.59 acres. The following discussion
and the layouts within these parcels
as depicted on Exhibit 5K are in-
tended to demonstrate the general
recommended concept based upon in-
put obtained from the general aviation
community, the TAC, and the general
public. It is not meant to restrict or
limit the general development oppor-
tunities and options for the parcels.
06
M
P
0
6
-
5
K
-
3
/
2
3
/
1
0
NORTH
0 300 600
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Ultimate Airfield Pavement
Ultimate Building
Ultimate Road/Parking
Lease Parcels
General Aviation Development Areas
Ta
x
i
l
a
n
e
K
Pao‘o St. - Road N
U‘u Street
GA SPECIALTY
SUITES
GA RAMP
PARKING
AREA DAREA DAREA D AREA CAREA CAREA C
AREA BAREA BAREA B AREA AAREA AAREA A
AIRPORT
MAINTENANCE
EXPANSION
INTERIM
COMMUTER
AIR TERMINAL
TOLL
BOOTH
RECOMMENDED GENERAL AVIATION CONCEPT Exhibit 5K
COMMUTER
AIR TERMINAL
HEAT EXCHANGER SITE
T-HANGARS
APRON EXPANSION
FUEL
STORAGE
FBOFBO
Ta
x
i
l
a
n
e
L
EXECUTIVE BOX HANGARS
WASH RACK
CONVENTIONAL
HANGARS
Ro
a
d
M
5-19
The two northern areas (Areas C and
D) are recommended to primarily
serve typical general aviation uses. T-
hangars and other facilities that can
store and serve small general aviation
aircraft (primarily in ADG I but up
through ADG II) are recommended for
this area.
The two southern areas (Areas A and
B) are recommended to primarily
serve cabin-class and corporate air-
craft through at least ADG III. This
could include conventional hangars to
store larger aircraft and “corporate
parcels” for developing corporate han-
gars and/or maintenance hangars.
Increased traffic and proposed revi-
sions to the terminal loop road will
make it imperative to provide access
to the general aviation area that
avoids the terminal loop. Therefore,
the general aviation area will need to
be made accessible from Pao`o Street
via Road M and other roads extending
makai from U`u Street.
Road M will not only provide access to
two of the parcels, but will also be-
come the access point for the two fixed
base operator (FBO) sites already es-
tablished fronting the apron in this
core area. This road will need to be
developed before U`u Street can be cut
off to extend taxilane access into the
parcels. The fuel storage facilities will
remain between the two FBO sites
and will be used to supply fuel for
general aviation and corporate aircraft
even after the airline fuel farm is de-
veloped north of the passenger ter-
minal.
The ramp south of Taxilane K remains
as a corporate ramp with expansion
planned south of Taxilane K. If neces-
sary, this ramp could be extended
farther south of that shown on Exhi-
bit 5K to meet jet parking needs. The
south ramp expansion also includes a
location for a wash rack next to a site
that would be reserved by DOT-A for
future consideration as to its use.
North of Taxilane K is the site of the
interim commuter air terminal (CAT).
The interim CAT will be the first
LEED-certified facility on the airport.
It will provide commuter terminal ser-
vices until such time as a permanent
location can be developed on the site
now occupied by the ATCT and the
ARFF. At that time, the interim ter-
minal can be converted into a GA ter-
minal and GA offices.
As with other new structures through-
out the airport, the interim commuter
terminal is being designed to carry
forward the Hawaiian sense of place.
The architecture fits with the terminal
design, with an open air plaza availa-
ble for awaiting aircraft and watching
the activity in the general aviation
area. First as the interim commuter
terminal and later as a GA terminal,
this facility can remind the user and
visitor of the early days of flight
around the islands.
The buildings on parcels immediately
north of the commuter terminal are on
small parcels that can continue to be
used for general aviation businesses.
Proceeding north along the flightline,
the current cargo buildings can be
5-20
converted to GA specialty suites after
the cargo facilities are moved north of
the passenger terminal. The specialty
suites would have subdivided space in
each building that can be leased to
various general aviation specialty op-
erators for flight training, small air-
craft charter operators, avionics shop,
etc. The ramp in front of these build-
ings would also be converted to gener-
al aviation parking.
Under this concept, the current T-
hangars and tie-downs will be able to
stay in their location between the ex-
isting ARFF and cargo buildings. The
transient general aviation parking
currently located in front of the exist-
ing ATCT, however, would ultimately
trade locations with the existing com-
muter parking when the permanent
commuter terminal is developed just
south of the passenger terminal at the
location of the current ATCT and
ARFF.
As depicted on Exhibit 5K, the com-
muter terminal’s planned permanent
location at the south end of the pas-
senger terminal becomes the tran-
sition area between general aviation
and airline activity. The commuter
terminal is used by passengers flying
on smaller aircraft between other air-
ports within the Hawaiian Islands.
Some passengers do transfer to com-
mercial airline flights in the main
terminal. This location will make such
transfers within walking distance. In
addition, day commuters will be able
to use the terminal loop road to be
dropped off at the commuter terminal
or they can park at the south end of
the short-term parking lot just across
Kupipi Street.
As shown, the new permanent com-
muter terminal could be designed to
match with the architectural style of
the main terminal.
As mentioned earlier and depicted on
Exhibit 5A, helicopter facilities are
planned for the area immediately
mauka (east) of the helicopter TLOF.
The plan includes an access road ex-
tended from Pao`o Street to parking
on the south and east sides of the heli-
copter terminal area. A terminal facil-
ity and vehicle parking is planned
along the south edge of the parking
ramp to serve helicopter tours and
other operations.
Hangars are planned on the east side
of the parking ramp for maintenance
and storage of helicopters. Additional
parcels for helicopter operators are
planned for lease north of these facili-
ties as the need arises.
LAND USE PLAN
The objective of airport land use plan-
ning is to coordinate uses of the air-
port property in a manner that is both
functional with the design of the air-
port and compatible with the airport
environs. There are two primary con-
siderations for on-airport land use
planning. First is to secure those
areas essential to the safe and effi-
cient operation of the airport. Second
is to determine compatible land uses
for the balance of the property which
would be most advantageous to the
airport and the community.
Exhibit 5L depicts the rec-
ommendations for the ultimate land
AIRPORT LAND USE CONCEPT Exhibit 5L
06
M
P
0
6
-
5
L
-
5
/
1
1
/
1
0
0 2000 4000
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
TLOF 1,700’ x 200’
Petroglyphs
381’
Kona Auxiliary Training Runway 5,000’ x 100’
XX
X
Ka
im
ina
n
i D
r
.
Initial Parallel Runway 5,500’ x 100’
Ultimate Perimeter Service Road
Ultimate Runway 17R-35L 11,000’ x 150’
1,000’
500’
700’
500’
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.
Proposed Parallel Rd.
REVENUE SUPPORT
(LARGE TRACT)
REVENUE SUPPORT
(LOW PROFILE COMPATIBLE USE)
REVENUE
SUPPORT
NELHA
NELHA
GENERAL AVIATION
AIRPORT SUPPORT
TERMINALAIR CARGO
AIRPORT
SUPPORT
AIRPORT
SUPPORT
AIRPORT SUPPORT
GROUND
TRANSPORTATION
LARGE AIRCRAFT USESFLIGHT LINE
RESERVE
AVIATION SUPPORT
Waste WaterTreatment USPS
FAA
Fuel
Farm
RemoteFuel Station
AVIATION
SUPPORT
AVIATION
SUPPORT
AVIATION SUPPORT
Ro
a
d
P
Pao‘o St. (Road N)Ro
a
d
M
ATC BI 1,500’
PUBLIC SAFETY
TRAINING CAMPUS
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
CULTURAL/EDUCATION
HOTEL
Proposed Museum Site
Heat Exchanger Site
U‘U Street
AIRPORT
INDUSTRIAL
AIRPORT
INDUSTRIAL
Kupipi St.
Hapu
‘
up
u
‘u
S
t
.
ATCT
ARFF
MIXED USE/
COMMERCIAL
MIXED USE/
COMMERCIAL
GENERAL
AVIATION
(Helicopters)
Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’ (Future 12,000’ x 150’)
Flight
Kitchen
TLOF EmergencyResponse Route
Existing Entrance
Proposed
Main Entrance
Conference
Center
VOR
1,000’
5-21
use development on the airport. The
long range future for an area may dif-
fer from the current use of the proper-
ty. In these areas, major expansion or
improvements of the existing use
should be discouraged. If expansion is
needed, it should be directed to the
appropriate use areas depicted on the
land use plan.
Several airport land use categories
have been identified. The primary
uses such as passenger terminal, air
cargo, general aviation, and airport
support have all been discussed in de-
tail in the previous sections. These
are the uses that should occupy the
flightline and must be completely ac-
commodated before other uses are
considered.
Once these uses are provided for now
and into the future, other uses that
are compatible with and complement
the primary uses can be considered.
They should provide a function that is
either a complimentary service to the
airport (i.e., warehousing and storage,
ground transportation, emergency
training, hotel/conference center, etc.),
a cultural tie that enhances the “Ha-
waiian sense of place” at the airport,
and/or enhances revenues in support
of the airport operation.
Flight Line Land Uses
Next to the airfield itself, the flightline
is the most valuable commodity of an
airport. It is the interface between air
and ground transportation. For this
reason, the plan calls for the area from
the parallel Taxiway A to Pao`o Street
to be reserved for uses directly relat-
ing to the primary functions of the
airport.
Starting at the south end of the flight
line is the area planned for general
aviation uses. Centered on the flight-
line are the passenger terminal func-
tion and the terminal loop road and
parking lot. As with GA, space is re-
served to the north that can accommo-
date the passenger terminal needs
through the planning horizon activity
levels and beyond. To the north of the
passenger terminal is the area re-
served to be developed for air cargo in
the future. This plan provides a sepa-
ration of the three functions, yet al-
lows interaction between the functions
because of their proximity.
Areas for airport support uses are des-
ignated between the three functions.
The area mauka (east) of U`u Street
between the GA and terminal uses
currently supports the airport main-
tenance facilities as well as some air-
port-related transmitter equipment.
Space is allowed for the expansion of
the maintenance facilities as well as
other airport support uses in the fu-
ture. Between the terminal and air
cargo areas is a corridor that will ac-
commodate the ATCT and other FAA-
related functions, the ARFF, a flight
kitchen, and a Postal Service facility
that will handle the air mail going in
and out of the airport. The support
corridor will actually extend mauka
west of Pao`o Street in this area to in-
clude the airline fuel farm site.
There still remains an area of
flightline north of the cargo area. A
portion of this area has been desig-
nated for large aircraft uses. This is
5-22
envisioned to be the location for air-
line maintenance facilities and for
hangars that could accommodate the
largest of corporate aircraft (ADG III
and larger). Because these hangars
will be of significant height, the area
does not extend completely back to the
extended Pao`o Street. There will be
some restrictions on the height of
buildings in the area marked for avia-
tion support to ensure that line-of-
sight can be maintained between the
new ATCT and the helicopter facili-
ties.
An additional area farther north along
the flightline is simply placed in
Flightline Reserve at this time. The
need for this space will be long term,
and there may be pressure to put it
into other uses. Other temporary uses
might be examined on a case-by-case
basis, but they should be allowed only
with the stipulation that this area
could ultimately be needed for uses
requiring airfield access.
Second Tier Land Uses
The second tier encompasses the air-
port property mauka of Pao`o Street
(Road N) or beyond the runway protec-
tion zones. Priority in this area is giv-
en to access routes to the flightline (to
be discussed in the next section) and
to uses that directly support the air-
port function.
Helicopter Facilities - The helicop-
ter facilities are actually a flightline
function, but their flightline is the hel-
icopter TLOF located 3,000 feet mau-
ka of the north end of Runway 17-35.
This allows for independent operation
of helicopter activity at the airport,
thereby increasing the capacity of the
runway system. Thus, space is re-
served for general aviation facilities
related to helicopters, including a
small terminal, hangars, and devel-
opment parcels.
Ground Transportation Facilities
- The center core area between Kea-
hole Street and future Road P is the
current and future location for ground
transportation facilities. This consists
primarily of rental car facilities. Addi-
tional area for ground transportation
facilities has been reserved north of
the existing facilities.
Aviation Support - The area imme-
diately mauka (east) of the future
terminal loop, north of the ground
transportation facilities, and along
Road P is reserved for aviation-related
uses. This is anticipated to be an area
that could host government and/or
commercial uses that support the ter-
minal and ground transportation func-
tions. It could also host overflow park-
ing areas. The area located mauka
(east) of the general aviation area is
also depicted as aviation support uses.
The northern portions of this area
nearest Keahole Street could house
airport administration, FAA, TSA, air-
line and other airport-related offices
that do not have to be at the flightline
in a campus-like setting. Further to
the south, the area would support uses
more likely to be attractive to busi-
nesses that rely on general aviation
for travel and small cargo shipments
between islands, or for access to corpo-
rate jets and airline travel overseas. A
parcel immediately south of the pro-
posed extension of Road M is indicated
5-23
as a potential location for an airport
heat exchanger site in cooperation
with NELHA.
Airport Industrial - The area mauka
of air cargo is specifically envisioned
for industrial/warehousing uses that
compliment the air cargo function.
This would be an ideal location for
freight forwarders and for industries
that can take advantage of the prox-
imity to the air cargo facilities for just-
in-time deliveries of raw goods and
supplies and for similar shipments of
finished products.
Public Safety Training - An area for
a public safety training campus is
another use that relates to airport
needs, but also has the potential to
serve the broader-based community.
An 80-acre campus is depicted south of
the helicopter facilities. The location
encompasses the current fire training
pit, which could be developed into a
regional ARFF training facility. The
campus is envisioned to include class-
rooms, meeting rooms, and field areas
for emergency training. The proximity
to the helicopter facilities could allow
it to support the public safety training
function as well.
Hotel/Conference Center - An area
south of Keahole Street and near the
future Ellison S. Onizuka Space Cen-
ter site is designated for a ho-
tel/conference center. Many airports
support hotels on-site in support of
flight crews and overnight stays for
passengers traveling early the next
day. The conference or meeting center
further supports the airport and hotel
functions.
Cultural Education Center - In
support of the modernization of the
passenger terminal, the Ellison S.
Onizuka Space Center must be relo-
cated from its current location be-
tween the north and south passenger
terminals. A location along the south
side of Keahole Street and mauka
(east) of Halalu Street that is closer to
Queen Kaahumanu Highway is the
preferred new site.
It is important to not only the Onizuka
family, but also the DOT-A, the citi-
zens of the West Coast, and all of Ha-
waii, that the Ellison S. Onizuka
Space Center maintains a place of
prominence and respect. While it
would no longer be situated within the
core of the terminal area for security
and functional reasons, the Space
Center would still anchor a spine
through the airport that ties the his-
toric aspects of Hawaiian culture with
air transportation and the future.
The Space Center will anchor an area
designated as a cultural education
center. This is envisioned as an area
that can host museums, displays, and
shops in a park-like setting that cap-
tures the Hawaiian sense of place by
showcasing the history and culture of
the is-land.
This area would extend to the airport
boundary with the Natural Energy
Laboratory of Hawaii Authority
(NELHA). The airport is already
planning to share technology and re-
sources with its neighbor, such as util-
izing deep sea water cooling for airport
buildings. Depending upon NELHA
plans for educational facilities near
5-24
the entrance to their facilities, there
may be an opportunity for the educa-
tional themes to be linked as well.
Mixed Use Commercial - Other
areas of property are designated for
uses that can further enhance revenue
in support of airport operations.
Mixed use commercial is planned
along the frontage of Queen Kaahu-
manu Highway with access from the
proposed Parallel Road. All would be
required to fit into the architectural
style reflective of the rest of the air-
port.
Other Revenue Support – There are
large tracts to the north that could
further support the revenue stream of
the airport. As depicted on Exhibit
5L, these include a single large tract
in the northeast corner of the property
and a tract north of the runway sys-
tem. Because of its location on the
approach to the runways, this tract is
recommended for a low profile use
that would be compatible with aircraft
noise levels of 60 to 70 DNL.
Airport Access and
Circulation System
Exhibit 5L also depicts the access
and circulation concept for the airport.
The current access is via Keahole
Street from Queen Kaahumanu High-
way. The future Road P alignment
offers opportunities not only to develop
an expandable new access point to the
highway, but also to connect to an ar-
terial roadway system as it develops
mauka (east) of the airport and Queen
Kaahumanu Highway. This new
access point can be developed first as a
signalized intersection, but could ul-
timately become a grade-separated in-
tersection as the main entrance to the
airport from all three directions.
A road system is planned to develop
makai (east) of Queen Kaahumanu
Highway in support of a limited access
plan. The Keahole Street intersection
and any other interim access points
that might be considered would be re-
stricted to right in-right out only after
the development of Road P.
Road P also provides better than a
mile separation from the current high-
way intersection at Kaiminani Drive.
Kaiminani Drive currently extends
only mauka from the highway, but
could be extended makai to provide
access for both NELHA and the air-
port. As depicted, this roadway would
become Road M on the airport and
would provide access along the south-
ern boundary and into the general
aviation area.
The interior access system as shown
provides the framework of arterials
and connectors to serve the airport
and its land use plan. Road P is
planned to become a boulevard-type
entrance into the airport. The road-
way would terminate at Pao`o Street
into the terminal loop road.
The current section of Pao`o Street be-
tween Road P and Keahole Street will
become part of the terminal loop sys-
tem. North and south of the terminal,
however, Pao`o Street will still provide
access just mauka (east) the north and
south flightlines. To the north, Pao`o
Street will continue to run by the en-
trance to the future cargo area, and
the new entrance route to the future
5-25
helicopter facilities. It can ultimately
be extended further north as needed to
serve future development of airport
properties. To the south, it will con-
tinue to extend mauka (east) the gen-
eral aviation area.
A proposed parallel road located clos-
est to the highway will ultimately re-
lieve Pao`o Street of the north-south
circulation. This road is planned to
ultimately run from its southern in-
tersection at Kaiminani Drive, north
across Keahole Street before curving
slightly west to an intersection with
Road P. The proposed road would
then continue north before turning
makai (west) to intersect with Pao`o
Street at the entrance to the air cargo
area.
Other north-south routes of shorter
lengths providing access will continue
to include U`u Street serving a portion
of the general aviation area, and Hala-
lu Street providing access through the
rental car area and south of Keahole
Street to the Road M extension.
The Kona Community Development
Plan (CDP) proposes a transit line
that links the airport to a system that
will run through the Kona Districts.
As a major transportation center for
the island, it is important for the air-
port to be included on this line. The
route that the line takes on the air-
port, however, will need to be coordi-
nated closely with DOT-A. The pre-
ferred routes would appear to be along
Road P, the terminal loop, Keahole
Street, and the proposed parallel road.
This would focus on providing access
to the core of the airport, including the
terminal, the hotel/convention center,
the Ellison S. Onizuka Space Center,
and the cultural education center.
DEMAND-BASED CAPITAL
NEEDS PLAN
With the airport development concept
established, this section identifies the
capital projects expected to be needed
within each planning horizon. The
overall cost of each project will be ex-
amined and presented in a demand-
based schedule. The scheduling is
based upon the key milestones for
each planning horizon established ear-
lier in the master plan and summa-
rized in Table 5B.
TABLE 5B
Aviation Demand Planning Horizons
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Base Year (2006) Short
Term
Intermediate
Term
Long
Term
Annual Passengers 3,033,212 3,472,000 3,819,000 4,721,000
Annual Air Cargo (Tons) 32,390 39,000 45,000 62,000
Based GA Aircraft 61 102 118 160
Annual Operations
Airline
Air Cargo
Other Air Taxi
GA Itinerant
GA Local
Military
37,436
4,372
9,116
18,340
54,650
19,304
39,800
4,700
15,500
31,000
89,000
30,000
41,400
5,100
18,000
36,000
101,000
30,000
45,800
6,100
24,000
48,000
134,000
30,000
Total Operations 143,218 210,000 231,500 287,900
5-26
Many of the development items in-
cluded in the recommended concept
will need to follow demand indicators.
For example, the plan anticipates the
growth in operations to require the
additional runway capacity. This is
premised, in part, upon the antic-
ipated growth of general aviation traf-
fic at the airport.
The DOT-A is attempting a request for
proposal (RFQ) for third party devel-
opment of general aviation hangar fa-
cilities on the airport. This is a de-
mand that is currently underserved,
and is likely to serve to increase gen-
eral aviation operations. If this occurs
as anticipated, the DOT-A will need to
move forward with airfield capacity
enhancements to relieve airfield de-
lays.
If the growth does not transpire as an-
ticipated, airfield capacity develop-
ment can and should be delayed. As a
result, the earliest capital expend-
itures should be undertaken as needed
which leads to a responsible use of
capital assets. Some development,
however, does not necessarily depend
on growth in demand, such as pave-
ment maintenance and projects re-
lated to safety. These types of projects
are associated with day-to-day opera-
tions and should continue to be moni-
tored and identified by airport man-
agement.
The cost estimates presented in this
chapter included costs for design, en-
gineering, construction inspection, and
program management. The capital
costs presented here should be viewed
only as estimates subject to further
refinement during design. Neverthe-
less, these estimates are considered
reasonable for planning purposes.
Cost estimates for each of the devel-
opment projects are listed in 2008 dol-
lars.
The following subsections and exhibits
depict the demand-based capital needs
plan for KOA. The next step in Chap-
ter Six – Financial Plan will be to
relate the needs to the funding sources
anticipated to be available. Sub-
sequently, the Financial Plan may
prioritize projects further based upon
funding capabilities. The following is
a discussion of projects in each plan-
ning horizon.
SHORT TERM PROJECTS
The short term planning horizon plac-
es its major emphasis on projects with
the highest priority. Terminal mod-
ernization is the key focus, but
projects to satisfy the currently under-
served general aviation demand are
also included, along with a new ARFF
station and a utilities master plan.
Total costs of short term projects pre-
sented on Exhibit 5M are estimated
at $140.7 million.
Airfield - Short term airfield im-
provements are limited to the expan-
sion of the terminal apron to the west.
The expansion essentially pushes Tax-
iway A 114 feet makai (west) where it
passes by the terminal. This is needed
in conjunction with the terminal mod-
ernization to maintain aircraft circula-
tion during construction and provide
adequate clearances for Group V air-
XX
X
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Lease Parcels
Short Term Development
Existing Facilities per Photograph
0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.
ATC BI 1,500’ATC BI 1,500’ATC BI 1,500’
Keahole St.
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
Hapu’upu’u St.
Ha
p
u
’
u
p
u
’
u
S
t
.
Pao‘o St. (Road N)Pao‘o St. (Road N)
Kupipi St.Kupipi St.
U‘U StreetU‘U Street
Kaiminani Dr.
Ka
i
m
i
n
a
n
i
D
r
.
1
21
14
11
13
8 16
12 15
9
20
1
2
2
6
5
4
7
3
19
17
1810
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
SHORT TERM PLANNING HORIZON
Passenger Terminal
General Aviation
Airfield Heliport Support
Terminal Apron Expansion West
Phase I Terminal Modernization/Expansion
Aircraft Wash Rack
Interim Commuter Air Terminal (CAT)
Interim CAT Parking/Drop-off
GA Auto Parking (Phase I)
Road M from Road N
$9,419,000
$94,772,000
$743,000
$3,240,000
$338,000
$122,000
$491,000
$631,000
$675,000
$605,000
$1,361,000
$431,000
$2,160,000
$1,285,000
$605,000
$1,748,000
$58,000
$3,645,000
$577,000
Heliport Area Site Preparation/Drainage
Extend Utilities to Heliport Site
Heliport Mauka Access Road (800 lf)
Emergency Service Road (20’ Wide)
Heliport Area Perimeter Fencing (5,800 lf with 3 gates)
Initial TLOF 1,000’ x 100’
Road N Extension 1,700’ North
Access Road East from Road N 800’
Phase I Helicopter Parking Apron (325’ x 332’)
Phase I Helicopter Taxiways (2 at 90’ x 20’)
Heliport Terminal (100’x 60’)
Phase I Auto Parking/Access (5,700 sy)
New ARFF Station
Utilities Master Plan
SHORT TERM HORIZON TOTAL
$17,288,000
$500,000
$140,694,000
DEMAND-BASED CAPITAL NEEDS STAGING - SHORT TERM (5 YEAR HORIZON)Exhibit 5M
06
M
P
0
6
-
5
M
-
3
/
2
3
/
1
0
VOR1,000’1,000’1,000’
5-27
craft upon completion of the moderni-
zation improvements.
Another short term airfield project is
included on the exhibit but not in the
table. The KATR planned makai of
Runway 17-35 is expected to be con-
structed and used solely by the De-
partment of Defense.
Phase I Terminal Modernization -
The staging of the terminal moderni-
zation was discussed earlier in the
chapter. The size and scope of the
program suggests that it will extend
beyond the first five years and into the
intermediate term planning horizon.
Initial projects expected in the short
term include baggage claim expansion
and upgrades, and other passenger
amenities such as upgraded and ex-
panded restrooms and concessions.
There is also a major project for up-
grading flight information displays
(FIDS) the public address system, as
well as the installation of fiber optic
cable throughout the terminal. In ad-
dition, the Ellison S. Onizuka Space
Cener will be relocated from the ter-
minal area to its new and permanent
location along Keahole Street.
General Aviation Area – The initial
projects in the general aviation area
are designed to address underserved
demand. The Road M project will be a
key component for the third party de-
velopment of the general aviation
areas. The development of these areas
is expected to start to meet the hangar
needs at the airport. An interim
commuter terminal is scheduled to be
developed to provide additional space
for the commuter airlines operating
out of the general aviation area. An
aircraft wash rack is planned at the
south end of the GA area. Additional
vehicle parking in the general aviation
area is also a key need to be met in the
short term.
Heliport – The capacity analysis in
Chapter 3 indicated the airport
would exceed its annual service vol-
ume (ASV) by the short term activity
horizon. The first project planned to
relieve capacity is the development of
the helicopter takeoff area (TLOF) and
associated heliport terminal facilities.
The initial TLOF is planned at 1,000
feet by 100 feet with capability to ex-
pand in the future. This will allow hel-
icopters to operate independently from
the Runway 17-35 environment, thus
providing some capacity relief. The
other projects are designed to estab-
lish a fully functioning and indepen-
dent helicopter facility.
Support – A new ARFF station is
scheduled for the short term to replace
the existing facility. The new ATCT is
also planned to be operational by the
end of the short term (2012). It is an-
ticipated to be developed and funded
solely by the FAA.
In addition, a utilities master plan is
programmed to address in detail the
utility needs for the airport’s develop-
ment.
INTERMEDIATE TERM
PROJECTS
As indicated earlier, the terminal
modernization program will likely ex-
tend into the intermediate term. Oth-
er intermediate term improvements
5-28
relate primarily to growth in demand.
These include the establishment of the
parallel general aviation runway, new
cargo facilities, and additional growth
in the general aviation area. Total
cost of the listed intermediate term
projects as depicted on Exhibit 5N is
$267.8 million.
Airfield – While the heliport will pro-
vide initial capacity relief for the air-
field, the parallel Runway 17R-35L is
programmed for the intermediate term
to provide additional operational ca-
pacity. The initial development is
planned at 5,500 feet across the exist-
ing runway from the general aviation
area. To accommodate the devel-
opment, the perimeter fence and ser-
vice road will need to be relocated ma-
kai (west) outside the object free area
of the parallel runway.
Taxiways extending mauka (east)
from the runway end will be developed
to provide the initial access for air-
craft. Taxiway C will need to be rea-
ligned then extended makai across
Runway 17-35 to access the south end
of the parallel runway. Taxiway G
will need to be extended makai across
the KATR to access the initial north
threshold of the parallel runway.
The partial development of parallel
Taxiway E is planned in the inter-
mediate term to provide additional
circulation capability as operations in-
crease above 214,000 annually. This
includes the section between Taxiways
H and D. The new partial parallel
taxiway will also permit the develop-
ment of another exit (Taxiway D) from
Runway 17-35. This exit will reduce
runway occupancy times as well as re-
duce taxi distances for larger passen-
ger and cargo aircraft that can’t turn
off by Taxiway G.
Phase II Terminal Modernization
– The second phase of the terminal
modernization will complete the ex-
pansion and modernization program
necessary to meet the airport’s needs
through the intermediate term plan-
ning horizon. Projects are expected to
include the consolidation of the ticket-
ing area, in-line bag screening and
agricultural inspection, and cen-
tralized TSA security screening. A
second level departure area for over-
seas flights will also be completed in
this phase.
To accommodate the ticketing area
improvements, the front of the ter-
minal will be moved mauka (east), and
will require a slight relocation of the
road in front of the terminal. The road
will also be widened at that time and
the terminal loop extended out to the
Pao`o Street alignment. This will al-
low the parking lot to be expanded and
reorganized to centralize the toll booth
plaza.
Air Cargo – Phase I of the new air
cargo facility is planned for the inter-
mediate term. The facility would be
developed to include approximately
60,000 square yards (540,000 square
feet) of ramp for aircraft and ground
equipment, a 60,000 square-foot cargo
building, and a 21,000 square-foot
joint agency inspection facility, as well
as sufficient truck and vehicle parking
through at least the intermediate term
planning horizon.
XX
X
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Lease Parcels
Intermediate Term Development
Existing Facilities per Photograph
0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.
ATC BI 1,500’ATC BI 1,500’ATC BI 1,500’
Pao‘o St. (Road N)Pao‘o St. (Road N)
Kupipi St.Kupipi St.
U‘U StreetU‘U Street
Taxiway G West of SAAF (35’ wide 75,000# DWL)
Taxiway D Upgrade and Parallel Taxiway E Segment
Parallel Taxiway E Between Taxiway G and Taxiway H
Parallel Taxiway E Between Taxiway C and D
Relocate West Perimeter Fence
Airfield Light Vault Upgrade
Relocate West Perimeter Service Road
Parallel Runway 17R-35L 5,500’ x 100’ (75,000# DWL)
MIRL Runway 17R-35L
Runway 17R-25L With Non-Precision Markings
Runway 17R-35L PAPI-4’s
Runway 17R REIL’s
Taxiway C Realignment
Taxiway C West to Parallel Runway (35’ wide 75,000# DWL)
$272,000
$4,212,000
$5,994,000
$6,232,000
$1,128,000
$675,000
$5,383,000
$16,706,000
$371,000
$81,000
$135,000
$108,000
$929,000
$888,000
Phase II Terminal Expansion
Terminal Frontage Road Relocation/Widening
Terminal Loop Road Relocation
Reconfigure Parking Lot Access/Circulation
Phase I Parking Expansion (400 spaces)
Parking Lot Toll Booth Plaza
Phase I Cargo Ramp with Taxiway Access (51,000 sy)
Phase I Apron/Taxiway Edge Lighting (1,900 lf)
Phase I Ramp Floodlighting
Phase I Ground Equipment Ramp (10,000 sy)
Phase I Cargo Building (60,000 sf)
Phase I Access Road (650 lf x 30’ wide)
Phase I Truck Loading and Vehicle Parking (300’ x 850’)
$133,328,000
$2,257,000
$1,411,000
$487,000
$2,268,000
$162,000
$9,983,000
$308,000
$338,000
$1,958,000
$17,820,000
$395,000
$4,303,000
Phase I Cargo Security Fencing (1,600 lf with two gates)
Phase I Cargo Area Utilities
Joint Agency Inspection Facility
Phase I South Apron Expansion (51,000 sy)
General Aviation Access from Road N
Halalu Street (North to Road P)
Halalu Street (Road P North/West to Road N)
Airport Administration Facility
Regional ARFF Facility
INTERMEDIATE TERM HORIZON TOTAL
$119,000
$270,000
$6,237,000
$5,164,000
$491,000
$1,458,000
$972,000
$10,000,000
$25,000,000
$267,843,000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
INTERMEDIATE TERM PLANNING HORIZON
Airfield Passenger Terminal
Air Cargo
General Aviation
Support
43
2
2
13
31
3220
3738
26
36
35
22
21
23
28
25
1918
17
16
6
15
8
1
5 7
7
9 10
1111 12
14
12
30
27
Keahole St.
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
DEMAND-BASED CAPITAL NEEDS STAGING - INTERMEDIATE TERM (5-10 YEAR HORIZON)Exhibit 5N
06
M
P
0
6
-
5
N
-
3
/
2
3
/
1
0
VOR1,000’1,000’1,000’
5-29
General Aviation – The general avi-
ation area is expected to continue to
develop hangars and other space to
accommodate aircraft and general
aviation business in response to de-
mand. To accommodate growing park-
ing needs for transient aircraft, a
51,000 square yard ramp expansion is
also planned for the intermediate
term.
Support – With the extended termi-
nal loop road, Pao`o Street will no
longer provide two-way access to Kea-
hole Street from the north. Halalu
Street is planned to be extended north
to the new cargo area to provide this
access. The extension will also serve
other airport-related uses along its
route, including ground transportation
expansion, aviation support areas, and
airport industrial uses. In addition, a
new regional ARFF training facility is
scheduled within the area designated
as the public safety training campus.
LONG TERM PROJECTS
Long term improvements are related
to extended growth in activity. These
projects should only be considered if
demand continues to grow as projected
past the intermediate planning mile-
stones as there is presently not
enough justification to be considered
earlier. Long term planning horizon
capital needs are also presented on
Exhibit 5P and are estimated at
$371.6 million.
Airfield – Long term airfield improve-
ments relate to improving efficiency,
circulation, and capacity. High speed
exits are planned for Taxiways G
(south flow) and H (north flow) to pro-
vide more efficient exit capability for
the majority of commercial and corpo-
rate jet operations. In addition, paral-
lel Taxiway E would be extended in
each direction to provide a full length
second parallel along the east side of
the airfield. This will be needed only
when it is evident that the amount of
activity along the east flight line re-
quires two-way circulation to reduce
taxiing delays and enhance safety.
As passenger and cargo traffic contin-
ues to grow, it will become more im-
portant to have back-up capability to
maintain operations should Runway
17-35 be shut down for maintenance,
disabled aircraft, or any other reason.
Extending the parallel runway up to
11,000 feet would allow it to serve over
90 percent of the airport’s operations.
As the mix of commercial aircraft
grows, it would also increase the ca-
pacity of the airfield.
With the extension of the parallel
runway, the completion of a full length
parallel taxiway system between the
runways is also planned for the long
term.
Long Range Terminal – As dis-
cussed earlier in the chapter, the long
range improvements in the terminal
area focus improvements to interna-
tional operations and additional ca-
pacity, particularly in baggage claim
and in gates. As activity grows
beyond the 3.8 million annual passen-
ger level, additional parking will be
required. The plan calls for additional
longer term parking as well as the ex-
tension of short term parking to the
5-30
north to serve the northward expan-
sion of the terminal.
Air Cargo – As demand dictates,
Phase II of the cargo development can
be undertaken. This has the capa-
bility to virtually double the capacity
of the air cargo facilities.
General Aviation – General aviation
will also continue to develop to the
south of the terminal in the long term.
Besides filling in additional hangar
space as needed, up to 40,000 square
yards of additional parking apron is
planned as well as additional auto
parking. With the ARFF and the
ATCT now relocated, a permanent
commuter terminal is planned in their
old location to be capable of inter-
facing with both the passenger ter-
minal and the general aviation area.
Heliport – When demand dictates the
need, the helicopter TLOF can be ex-
panded to 1,700 feet by 200 feet for
additional capacity. Additional park-
ing apron and auto parking can be de-
veloped as well.
Support – The development of Road P
as the primary terminal access is
planned for the long term. While it is
shown as an at grade intersection in
the table, it is ultimately planned to
have an interchange at Queen Kaa-
humanu highway. The timing of the
inter-change will be dependent upon
DOT-Highways and developments
mauka (east) of Queen Kaahumanu.
SUMMARY
In Hawaii, a sense of place is attri-
buted to the unique relationship be-
tween the community, the built envi-
ronment and the natural sur-
roundings. The Hawaiian culture
places a high value on respect for na-
ture and the landscape, and honoring
the people of the community. This is
part of the spirit of aloha.
Throughout the course of this master
plan, the spirit of aloha and maintain-
ing the Hawaiian sense of place re-
mained the touchstone for developing
future growth concepts at the airport
on all levels. These principles guided
the study’s approach to airport land
use by focusing on alternatives that
considered community business
growth and development along with
cultural sustainability and the impact
on the environment.
As the key transportation interface for
persons going to and from the island,
it is vital that the airport terminal
area also reflect a Hawaiian sense of
place. As the first place experienced
upon arrival, the airport should pre-
sent welcoming surroundings that fos-
ter ho`okipa (hospitality). It should
encourage interaction between the
kama`aina (those that have long lived
in Hawaii) and the malihini (new-
comers). It should embody the spirit
of aloha as an important value and a
way of life.
XX
X
TLOF 1,700’ x 200’
AIR CARGO
LEGEND
Airport Property Line
Lease Parcels
Long Term Development
Existing Facilities per Photograph
0 1200 2400
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’Runway 17-35 11,000’ x 150’
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.Queen Kaahumanu Hwy.
ATC BI 1,500’ATC BI 1,500’ATC BI 1,500’
Pao‘o St. (Road N)Pao‘o St. (Road N)
Kupipi St.Kupipi St.
Road P
Ro
a
d
P
9
54
6
26
2824
22
32
35
34
33
23
21 20
27
25
36
18
19
16
29
30
1
8
10
11
1514
13
12
32
77
17
Keahole St.
Ke
a
h
o
l
e
S
t
.
29
LONG TERM PLANNING HORIZON
Airfield Passenger Terminal General Aviation
Heliport
Support
Air Cargo
Parallel Taxiway E from Taxiway C South
Taxiway G High Speed Exit
Taxiway H High Speed Exit
Taxiway M
Taxiway N
Parallel Taxiway E North from Taxiway G
Taxiways H and D West
Parallel Taxiway F South from SAAF
Taxiway G West of SAAF Upgrade (full strength/width)
Taxiway C West to Parallel Runway Upgrade (full strength/width)
Parallel Runway 17R-35L Upgrade to Full Strength/Width
Parallel Runway 17R-35L 4,500’ Extension (include lighting & marking)
Runway 17R PAPI-4 & REIL Relocation
Taxiway M West to Parallel Runway
Taxiway N West to Parallel Runway
$4,562,000
$2,592,000
$2,592,000
$2,765,000
$2,765,000
$15,066,000
$4,234,000
$18,900,000
$1,094,000
$2,418,000
$7,425,000
$27,338,000
$34,000
$5,288,000
$4,562,000
Long Range Terminal Expansion
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Facility
Phase II Parking Expansion (400 spaces)
Short Term Parking North Expansion (240 spaces)
Phase II Cargo Ramp with Taxiway Access (44,000 sy)
Phase II Apron/Taxiway Edge Lighting (1,300 lf)
Phase II Ramp Floodlighting
Phase II Ground Equipment Ramp (8,500 sy)
Phase II Cargo Building (60,000 sf)
Phase II Access Road (650 lf x 40’ wide)
Phase II Truck Loading and Vehicle Parking (300’ x 850’)
Phase II cargo Area Utilities
Phase II Cargo Security Fencing (1,300 lf with two gates)
$160,728,000
$42,372,000
$2,268,000
$1,361,000
$8,613,000
$2,106,000
$338,000
$1,664,000
$17,820,000
$527,000
$4,303,000
$270,000
$97,000
Phase II South Apron Expansion (40,000 sy)
General Aviation Auto Parking (Phase II)
Commuter Terminal (20,000 sf)
Expanded TLOF to 1,700’ x 200’
Phase II Helicopter Parking Apron (195’ x 332’)
Phase II Helicopter Taxiways (2 at 90’ x 20’)
Phase II Auto Parking (4,700 sy)
Road P (At grade, boulevard design)
LONG TERM HORIZON TOTAL
CAPITAL NEEDS PROGRAM TOTAL
$4,050,000
$122,000
$11,340,000
$5,184,000
$1,049,000
$58,000
$476,000
$5,184,000
$371,565,000
$780,102,000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
DEMAND-BASED CAPITAL NEEDS STAGING - LONG TERM (10-20 YEAR HORIZON)Exhibit 5P
06
M
P
0
6
-
5
P
-
3
/
2
3
/
1
0
VOR1,000’1,000’1,000’
5-31
As a gathering place for persons
brought together by transportation
needs, the airport setting is a unique
opportunity to promote and celebrate
the cultural, historical, and ecological
amenities of the island. This should
include architecture that values open
space and natural air flow, native
landscaping, and views that exemplify
this sense of place.
The spirit of aloha has also permeated
this airport master plan process by in-
volving the community for sug-
gestions and support at each develop-
ment stage. It is important that the
community has an influence on the
future growth of the airport – with a
connection to the past and knowledge
of the customs and traditions, they can
help maintain a sense of place.
The Master Plan has strived to ad-
dress the goals established at the out-
set of the study as follows:
Provide a high level of service
to passengers while main-
taining a “sense of place.”
This has been the top priority of
the Master Plan. The passenger
terminal plan addresses the needs
for the passengers for today and
the long range, while maintaining
the Hawaiian sense of place
through its layout and archi-
tecture.
Stimulate and support island
and state economic devel-
opment.
This is reflected throughout the
plan from providing the flexibility
for passenger, cargo, and general
aviation activity to grow as de-
mand dictates, to enhance rev-
enues of the airport and providing
an employment center for the
community.
Enhance services for air cargo
operations.
This is reflected in the plans for
the north cargo area that will pro-
vide adequate space to meet the
growing cargo needs of the island.
These facilities also incorporate a
joint inspection facility for perform-
ing the agricultural inspection
functions of the HDOA and USDA.
Encourage international flights
at the airport.
The terminal plan provides the
flexibility to expand the inter-
national terminal and incorporate
the CBP facilities into the main
terminal in the future.
Accommodate existing and fu-
ture general aviation (in-
cluding corporate aviation)
customer needs.
Perhaps the most underserved
component of the airport, the plan
provides guidelines for the orderly
development of the general avi-
ation area to serve all aspects of
general aviation on the West Coast.
Maintain good relationships
with neighborhood com-
munities by minimizing en-
vironmental impacts such as
noise.
5-32
The airfield plan provides for addi-
tional capacity in a manner that
will actually reduce noise impacts
on neighboring communities. The
helicopter facilities will place activ-
ity farther north, away from new
developments south of the airport.
The parallel runway will also shift
some over-flights makai of their ex-
isting routes, farther from neigh-
borhood developments. As the plan
is implemented, the airport is in-
corporating design considerations
for sustainability and energy effi-
ciency.
The recommended master plan is de-
signed to assist the Hawaii Depart-
ment of Transportation and the FAA
in making decisions relative to future
development and growth at Kona In-
ternational Airport at Keahole. The
plan provides for development to satis-
fy expected airport needs over the next
20 years and beyond.
Flexibility will be a key to future de-
velopment since activity may not occur
exactly as forecast. The plan has con-
sidered demands that could be placed
upon the airport even beyond the
normal 20-year planning period, to en-
sure that the facility is capable of ac-
commodating a variety of cir-
cumstances. The recommended mas-
ter plan concept provides the DOT-A
with options to pursue in marketing
the assets of the airport for revenue
support and community development.
Following the general recommenda-
tions of the plan, the airport can main-
tain its long-term viability and con-
tinue to provide air transportation
services to the region.
In support of the Master Plan, an up-
dated airport layout plan (ALP) for
KOA has been prepared as well. A re-
duced-size copy of the ALP is included
in Appendix E. Once approved by
the FAA, eligible projects included on
this drawing can be considered for
federal funding. The next chapter will
discuss the financial plan in support of
the master plan concept. This will
consider the development costs, sche-
duling, and revenue sources for fund-
ing the development plan.
Chapter Six
FINANCIAL PLAN
6-1
Chapter Six
FINANCIAL PLAN
This chapter of the Master Plan report
describes the financial plan for
implementing the recommended master
plan concept for Kona International
Airport at Keahole (KOA) as described in
Chapter Five. It provides discussion of (1)
the 20-plus year capital needs program
(CNP), (2) the Financial Plan for the five
year capital improvement program (KOA
CIP) that identifies priority projects, by
year from 2008 to 2012, (3) the funding
sources available for airport
improvements, and (4) impact of the
Financial Plan on factors such as revenues
and expenses.
This chapter begins with a review of the
statewide financial structure.
FRAMEWORK OF CURRENT
AIRPORTS SYSTEM
FINANCIAL OPERATIONS
Under the provisions of the Hawaii State
Government Reorganization Act of 1959,
the State of Hawaii Department of
Transportation, Airports Division (DOT-A)
was established on July 1, 1961, to succeed
the Hawaii Aeronautics Commission.
DOT-A is one of three divisions within the
State's Department of Transportation, and
has jurisdiction over and control of all
State of Hawaii airports and air navigation
facilities, as well as general supervision of
aeronautics within the State. The Hawaii
Airports System is operated as an
enterprise fund of the State.
6-2
The Airports Division operates all 15
State airports as a single integrated
system for management and financial
purposes. As such, DOT-A establishes
policies, rules and regulations; ap-
proves contracts and expenditures;
and develops its annual operating and
capital budgets for the statewide sys-
tem. In addition, DOT-A is respon-
sible for certain strategic business ar-
rangements and other administrative
and managerial functions, such as ne-
gotiation of airline agreements, regu-
lation of aeronautical rates and
charges, compliance with grant assur-
ances, development of marketing and
development policies, and preparation
of long-range plans.
The financial operations of the Air-
ports System are governed by the fol-
lowing documents:
Hawaii Revised Statutes, as
amended, and as related to Air-
ports;
The Certificate of the Director
of Transportation of the State of
Hawaii, dated May 1, 1969, as
amended and supplemented
(the Certificate);
Agreements with the airlines
providing for use of the Airports
System and the payment of
terminal rentals, landing fees,
and certain other charges;
Concession agreements and
leases with other tenants lo-
cated on Airport (including
those associated with food and
beverage, merchandise, rental
cars, automobile parking,
ground transportation, and oth-
er services);
FAA approvals to collect Pas-
senger Facility Charges (PFC)
and use PFC revenues for Air-
port improvements for the 5
primary State airports;
Federal statutory and constitu-
tional provisions, including but
not limited to the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act,
the Anti-Head Tax Act of 1973,
the Airport and Airways Im-
provement Act of 1982, the In-
terstate Commerce Clause of
the United States Constitution,
the PFC Act of 1990, and Vision
100 – Century of Aviation Reau-
thorization Act of 2003 (Vision
100) as extended;
U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion policies mandated by the
FAA Authorization Act of 1994
related to airport rates and
charges, rules for resolving dis-
putes and revenue diversion;
Generally accepted accounting
principles;
Various policies adopted by the
State.
Certain of the governing documents
mentioned above, with most relevance
to this Master Plan project, are dis-
cussed in more detail below.
6-3
HAWAII REVISED
STATUTES (HRS)
As provided in Section 261-5(a), Ha-
waii Revised Statutes, Airports Divi-
sion (DOT-A) is required to generate
revenues sufficient to meet all of the
expenditures of the Statewide Airports
System. Hawaii’s airports are thus
developed, operated, and maintained
on a self-sustaining basis.
State Capital Budget and
Project Approval Process
Pursuant to Section 226-52, capital
expenditures are approved through
the capital improvement project ap-
propriations process. The appro-
priation of funds for major plans and
projects are prepared every Fiscal
Year in a statewide Capital Improve-
ment Program (CIP) for the ensuing 6
Fiscal Years, setting out the capital
projects that it proposes to undertake
during those 6 years. The CIP is re-
viewed with the State’s Department of
Transportation and Department of
Budget and Finance before being pre-
sented by the Department of Trans-
portation to the Governor. Following
the Governor’s review, the first 2-year
component of the 6-year program
(known as the Biennium Budget) is
submitted to the State Legislature for
approval. The Legislature reviews the
Biennium Budget and authorizes all
or a portion of the budget by project.
This authorization of a project (or
component of a project) includes iden-
tification of the “means of financing,”
that is, the sources of funds that will
be made available for the project. For
the Hawaii Airports System, four
sources of financing are used: Airports
System Revenue Bonds (ASR Bonds),
federal funds (from FAA and TSA),
PFC revenues, and special funds (in-
ternally generated funds from the op-
eration of the Airports System). The
Legislature’s appropriation of bond
funds for a project serves as authori-
zation for the State to issue those
bonds when required in the future.
It should be noted that the capital
projects in this financial analysis
for KOA reflect projects with ap-
propriations in the Biennium
Budget, and the approved 6-year
CIP. In addition, this analysis en-
compasses additional projects
proposed in the comprehensive
Capital Needs Program prepared
for the Airport’s Master Plan.
Those additional projects are to be
considered by the Airports Divi-
sion for future development based
on realization of demand, and
would need authorization and ap-
propriation by the Governor and
Legislature. As of the date of this
report, such authorizations and
appropriations have neither been
sought nor received. Any long-
term capital program is subject to
change based on changing de-
mand and circumstances.
THE CERTIFICATE
The Certificate requires that airline
rates and charges collected for the
Hawaii Airports System be estab-
lished each Fiscal Year to generate
Revenues that, together with the
proceeds of the Aviation Fuel Taxes
(currently two cents per gallon of avia-
6-4
tion fuel), will be sufficient to pay all
operating and maintenance expenses,
pay all indebtedness payable from
Revenues and Aviation Fuel Taxes,
and make deposits required to the
funds and accounts established in the
Certificate. Additionally, the State
pledges to establish sufficient rates,
rentals, fees and charges to yield Rev-
enues and Taxes at least equal to
125% of the Debt Service Require-
ments for said Fiscal Year. These
provisions are referred to collectively
as the Rate Covenant. Passenger Fa-
cility Charge (PFC) revenues are not
defined as part of Revenues for pur-
poses of calculating the Rate Covenant
unless they are specifically pledged for
that purpose.
AIRPORT-AIRLINE
LEASE AGREEMENT
In 1962, DOT-A entered into an air-
port-airline lease agreement with the
Signatory Airlines to provide those
airlines the nonexclusive right to use
Airports System facilities, equipment
improvements, and services in addi-
tion to occupying certain premises and
facilities. The Signatory Airlines op-
erated under the terms of the lease
agreement through June 30, 1994.
In June 1994, DOT-A and the Signato-
ry Airlines executed an agreement to
extend the airport-airline lease
agreement to June 30, 1997 (the
Three-Year Extension). Under the
Three-Year Extension, the Signatory
Airlines continued to operate under
the terms of the lease agreement with
certain modifications, including a cost-
center residual landing fee calculation,
appraisal-based terminal rental rates,
and a systemwide residual rate-
setting methodology in the form of an
Airports System Support Charge
(ASSC) calculated to recover any re-
maining residual costs of the Airports
System necessary to meet the re-
quirements of the Rate Covenant.
From July 1, 1997, through December
31, 2007, DOT-A and the Signatory
Airlines mutually agreed that the air-
lines would continue to operate under
the terms of the Three-Year Exten-
sion, which provided for an automatic
extension on a quarterly basis unless
either party provides 60 days written
notice of termination to the other par-
ty.
In October 2007, DOT-A and 30 air-
lines serving Hawaii executed the
First Amended Lease Extension
Agreement (the Amended Lease Ex-
tension), effective January 1, 2008.1
The Amended Lease Extension
amended the methodology for cal-
culating Signatory Airline rates and
charges by (1) retaining the cost-
center residual landing fee calculation,
(2) changing the calculation of termi-
nal rental rates for the five primary
airports in the Airports System from
appraisal-based to cost-center resid-
ual, with discounted Neighbor Island
terminal rental rates increasing by 5%
every year from 60% of full cost-
recovery rates in FY 2008 to 100% for
FY 2016 and beyond to make the
Neighbor Island airports increasingly
self-sufficient, and (3) retaining the
systemwide residual ASSC to recover
1 There are currently a total of 27 Signatory
Airlines – ATA and Aloha Airlines subse-
quently ceased service, and Island Air has
since terminated its signatory lease.
6-5
any remaining residual costs of the
Airports System necessary to meet the
requirements of the Rate Covenant.
Neighbor Islands include each of the
primary airports except Honolulu In-
ternational.
For purposes of this Master Plan, the
Airport-Airline Lease Agreement, the
Three-Year Extension, and the A-
mended Lease Extension are collec-
tively referred to as the Airline
Agreements.
OTHER AGREEMENTS
In addition, DOT-A has operating
agreements with other, nonsignatory
passenger airlines providing for the
use of the Airport and for the payment
of landing fees and other charges.
DOT-A has also entered into numer-
ous agreements with concessionaires
and other tenants for the operation of
concessions and other services at the
Airport, including car rentals and
ground transportation services.
AIRPORT CAPITAL
NEEDS PROGRAM
The recommended improvements are
grouped by planning horizon: short
term (FY2008 – FY2012), inter-
mediate term (FY2013 – FY2017), and
long term (FY2018-FY2030). The
short term planning horizon contains
projects of highest priority (collectively
referred to as the “Early Works”
projects), including but not limited to
those already identified in the state-
wide CIP, and those relating to meet-
ing safety design standards. As short
term improvements are completed,
DOT-A would begin programming the
intermediate term projects, and finally
the long term needs.
The development of the recommended
master plan concept is intended to fol-
low demand driven indicators. For
example, the plan anticipates the con-
struction of a parallel runway to ac-
commodate general aviation opera-
tions in the intermediate term. In-
creased air traffic will be the indicator
for the need of the runway and the
timing of the construction will depend
on meeting that demand. Some devel-
opment items, such as major mainten-
ance of existing facilities at the Air-
port are intended to meet FAA stan-
dards and would not be considered
demand driven.
Rough order-of-magnitude cost esti-
mates were prepared for the recom-
mended master plan concept projects
based on assumptions specific to the
islands. The project costs include al-
lowances for design, construction and
program management fees, and con-
tingencies. Capital costs presented
here are reasonable for planning pur-
poses and would require further re-
finement during the design phase of
implementation.
Table 6A presents a summary of es-
timated project costs (in 2008 dollars)
for the capital needs program (CNP) in
the planning period during which
those costs are proposed to occur. A
brief description of the projects was
included in the Demand-Based Capital
Needs Plan section of Chapter Five.
6-6
The 20-year capital needs program for
KOA focuses heavily on meeting FAA
design standards for safety, improving
overall airfield capacity, and providing
developable space for landside facili-
ties to accommodate forecasted growth
of based aircraft.
The 20-year investment total is ap-
proximately $745 million. Projects el-
igible for FAA grant assistance total
approximately $310 million. There-
fore, an estimated $435 million would
fall under other funding sources in-
cluding private financing and Airports
System Special Funds. It should be
noted that although a project is eligi-
ble for federal funding, there is no
guarantee that the project will receive
federal funding. Nationwide, AIP eli-
gible airport projects typically exceed
AIP funding availability by a wide
margin.
FINANCIAL PLAN
Financial projections were prepared to
emphasize projects to be implemented
over the short-term planning period.
The projections have been prepared
incorporating projects from (1) the
statewide capital improvement pro-
gram, (2) terminal and landside devel-
opment under the Recommended Mas-
ter Plan Concept, and (3) ongoing re-
newal and replacement and major
maintenance of the Airport. This sec-
tion presents a summary of those
project costs incorporated in the finan-
cial projections. An inflation assump-
tion of 2.5% per year has been added
to master plan cost estimates through
the anticipated year of project imple-
mentation.
For purposes of funding the Financial
Plan, it was assumed that the rate-
making formulas of the current Airline
Agreements will remain in effect
through the planning period.
Table 6B presents the projects in the
Financial Plan and their estimated
funding sources by year through the
planning horizon described in Section
2 of this report.
The actual timing of construction, or
implementation of the individual
projects included in the Financial Plan
are contingent on the receipt of all re-
quired environmental or other regula-
tory approvals. In addition, the avail-
ability of funds is based on (1) the ca-
pacity of funding within the statewide
CIP and (2) the amount of funds the
Airport could expect to receive from
these sources based on the eligibility
of such projects. It was also assumed
that DOT-A will be able to issue bonds
in accordance with the Certificate and
the Amended Lease Extension Agree-
ment as needed.
It should be noted that the level of
capital spending for KOA in the
short-term period (through 2012)
described herein would most likely
not be financially viable based on
the underlying economics of KOA
as a stand-alone airport. The level
of debt issuance needed to com-
plete all the projects likely could
not be supported by the revenues
that would be generated solely
from the operation of the Airport.
The 15-airport Hawaii Airports
System would need to support the
initial development as activity and
revenue opportunity grow at KOA.
TABLE 6A
Master Plan Capital Needs Plan
(in 2008 Dollars)secruoS gnidnuF elbigilEnalP sdeeN latipaC
Short Term Intermediate Long Term Total PFC AIP TSA
FY08 - FY12 FY13-FY17 FY18-FY30 FY08-30 Eligible Amount Eligible Amount Eligible Amount
Airfield
000,914,9tseW noisnapxE norpA lanimreT $ 6,232,000 - $ $ 15,651,000$15,651,000$ 14,868,450 - $ $
-stnemevorpmi E yawixaT - 53-71 yawnuR 5,994,000 4,562,000 10,556,000 10,556,000 10,028,200 -
-L53-R71 yawnuR lellaraP 18,289,000 47,065,000 65,354,000 65,354,000 62,086,300 -
- 272,000 19,994,000 20,266,000 20,266,000 19,252,700 -
-stnemevorpmI & snoitavoneR yawixaT 5,141,000 30,014,000 35,155,000 35,155,000 33,397,250 -
-gnithgiL dleifriA 675,000 - 675,000 675,000 641,250 -
-dleifriA rehtO 6,511,000 - 6,511,000 6,511,000 6,185,450 -
9,419,000$ 43,114,000$ 101,635,000$ 154,168,000$154,168,000$ 146,459,600 - $ $
Terminal Area
000,277,49noisnapxE lanimreT $ 133,328,000$ 203,100,000$ 431,200,000$301,840,000$ 142,296,000$ 2,120,400$
-noisnapxE toL gnikraP 6,585,000 3,629,000 10,214,000 - - -
94,772,000$ 139,913,000$ 206,729,000$ 441,414,000$301,840,000$ 142,296,000$ 2,120,400$
Parking & Roadway
Employee Parking Expansion -$ -$ -$ -$-$ -$ -$
Roadways - 2,430,000 5,184,000 7,614,000 7,614,000 7,233,300 -
-$ 2,430,000$ 5,184,000$ 7,614,000$7,614,000$ 7,233,300 - $ $
Cargo Area
-I esahP $ 41,731,000 - $ $ 41,731,000$-$ -$ -$
-II esahP - 35,738,000 35,738,000 - - -
-$ 41,731,000$ 35,738,000$ 77,469,000$-$ -$ -$
General Aviation
000,347kcaR hsaW tfarcriA - $ $ -$ 743,000$-$ -$ -$
000,875,3)TAC( lanimreT retummoC - 11,340,000 14,918,000 - - -
-noisnapxE norpA 5,164,000 4,050,000 9,214,000 - - -
000,221gnikraP otuA AG - 122,000 244,000 - - -
000,194sseccA yawdaoR 491,000 - 982,000 - - -
4,934,000$ 5,655,000$ 15,512,000$ 26,101,000$-$ -$ -$
Heliport
000,798,3noitaraperP etiS - $ $ -$ 3,897,000$-$ -$ -$
000,658,3sseccA yawdaoR - - 3,856,000 - - -
000,820,6I esahP - 5,184,000 11,212,000 - - -
-II esahP - 1,583,000 1,583,000 - - -
13,781,000 - $ $ 6,767,000$ 20,548,000$-$ -$ -$
Other
000,882,71noitallatsnI noitatS FFRA - $ $ -$ 17,288,000$-$ 16,423,600 - $$
--ytilicaF noitartsinimdA tropriA - -
17,788,000 $ $ -$ $-$ 16,423,600 - $ $
Capital Needs Program Total 140,694,000$ 267,843,000$ 371,565,000$ 780,102,000$ 463,622,000$ 312,412,500$ 2,120,400$
Utilities Master Plan $ $ - $$-500,000 500,000
Regional ARFF Training Facility $ $ 25,000,000
35,000,000
$
10,000,000
25,000,000
52,788,000
10,000,000$
$-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
Taxiways G & F West & South of KATR
TABLE 6B
Master Plan Short-Term Financial Plan (with Anticipated Funding Sources)
(in 2.5%/year Escalated Dollars)
Short Term drihTCFPlaicepSCFP
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 FY08 - FY12 AIP Pay-go Funds ASRB Bond TSA Party Total
Airfield
-tseW noisnapxE norpA lanimreT $ -$ -$ 9,895,837$ -$ 9,895,837$-$ -$ -$ 9,895,837$ -$ -$ -$ 9,895,837$
Runway 17-35 - Taxiway E improvements - - - - - -- - - - - -
-L53-R71 yawnuR lellaraP - - - - -- - - - - -
- - - - - -- - - - - -
Taxiway Renovations & Improvements - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
-gnithgiL dleifriA - - - - -- - -- - -
-dleifriA rehtO - - - - -- - -- - -
-$ -$ -$ 9,895,837$ -$ 9,895,837$-$ -$ -$ 9,895,837$ -$ -$ -$ 9,895,837$
Terminal Area
-noisnapxE lanimreT $ -$ 8,661,250$ 65,138,750$ 26,191,918$99,991,918$-$ 3,900,000$ 19,632,347$ 54,402,956$ 22,056,615 - $$ -$ 99,991,918$
-noisnapxE toL gnikraP - - - - -- - -- - -
-$ -$ 8,661,250$ 65,138,750$ 26,191,918$99,991,918$-$ 3,900,000$ 19,632,347$ 54,402,956$ 22,056,615 - $$ -$ 99,991,918$
Parking & Roadway
Employee Parking Expansion -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$-$ -$ - - $ $ -$ -$
Roadways - - - - - -- - - - - -
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$-$ -$ -- $ $ -$ -$
Cargo Area
-I esahP $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$-$
-II esahP - - - - --
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$-$ -$ -- $ $ -$ -$
General Aviation
000,347kcaR hsaW tfarcriA $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 743,000$-$ -$ - - $ $ 743,000$ 743,000$
000,875,3)TAC( lanimreT retummoC - - - - 3,578,000 - - - -- 3,578,000 3,578,000
-noisnapxE norpA - - - - -- - -- - -
-gnikraP otuA AG - 125,050 - - 125,050 - - -- 125,050 125,050
-sseccA yawdaoR - - - 528,753 528,753 - - - - 528,753 528,753
4,321,000$ -$ 125,050$ -$ 528,753$ 4,974,803$-$ -$ -- $ $ 4,974,803$ 4,974,803$
Heliport
-noitaraperP etiS $ -$ -$ -$ 4,196,643$ 4,196,643$-$ -$ - - $$ 4,196,643$ 4,196,643$
-sseccA yawdaoR - - - 4,152,490 4,152,490$- - - - 4,152,490$ 4,152,490$
-I esahP - - - 6,491,497 6,491,497$- - - - 6,491,497$ 6,491,497$
-II esahP - - - - -- - -- - -
-$ -$ -$ -$ 14,840,630$14,840,630$-$ -$ - - $ $ 14,840,630$ 14,840,630$
Other
-noitallatsnI noitatS FFRA $ -$ 17,720,200 - $ $ -$ 17,720,200$15,271,250 - $ $ 803,750$ 1,645,200$ -$ -$ -$ 17,720,200$
- - - - - - -
-$ -$ 17,720,200 - $$ -$ 18,245,512$15,271,250 - $ $ $ 1,645,200$ -$ -$ -$ 18,245,512$
Financial Plan Total 4,321,000$ -$ 26,506,500$ 75,559,899$ 41,561,301$147,948,700$ 15,271,250$ 3,900,000$ 20,961,409$ 65,943,993$ 22,056,615 - $ $ 19,815,433$ 147,948,700$
Utilities Master Plan 525,312 525,312 525,312 525,312
1,329,062
-
Taxiways G & F West & South of KATR
6-7
The capital program described
herein could be undertaken by the
State in a manner consistent with
the funding sources and amounts
noted in the next section below,
whilst maintaining the overall fi-
nancial viability of the Statewide
airport system. Proceeding in this
manner could, however, necessi-
tate the need to reduce capital
spending (and associated future
bond issuance) at other airports in
the system, so as to limit overall
bond issuance for the system at a
level equivalent to that described
in the draft Preliminary Official
Statement for the Series 2008
bonds, and as discussed with the
Bond Rating Agencies in Septem-
ber 2008.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTIONS
The Financial Plan was developed us-
ing information and assumptions that
provide a reasonable basis for analysis
at a level of detail appropriate for an
airport master plan. Some of the as-
sumptions used to develop project
funding and estimated costs may not
be realized, and unanticipated events
and circumstances may occur. There-
fore, the actual results will vary from
those projected, and such variations
could be material. This Financial
Plan is preliminary in nature and is
not intended to be used to support the
sale of bonds or to obtain any other
forms of financing. More detailed cost
estimates and financial analysis will
be required if and when DOT-A de-
cides to pursue the sale of bonds or to
obtain any other forms of financing.
Some projects included in the recom-
mended master plan concept will be
postponed or eliminated if forecast
aviation demand is not achieved, con-
struction costs rise significantly, or if
project funding is not available. Simi-
larly, projects may be undertaken ear-
lier if indicated demand dictates earli-
er implementation, and funding is
available.
SOURCES OF FUNDING
The major sources of funds that could
be applied to projects in the recom-
mended master plan concept are dis-
cussed below. The amount of funding
available from these sources will de-
pend primarily on (1) future levels of
aviation activity at KOA, (2) availabil-
ity of funds based on the statewide
CIP, (3) future PFC approvals and
grant authorizations, and (4) changes
resulting from the reauthorization of
federal funding programs.
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM GRANTS
FAA grants from the Airport Im-
provement Program (AIP) are funded
through the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund with revenues from federal avia-
tion user fees and taxes. Capital
projects that are eligible for funding
include those improvements related to
enhancing airport safety, capacity, se-
curity, and environmental concerns. In
general, AIP funds can be used for
most airfield capital improvements or
repairs except those for terminals,
hangars, and nonaviation develop-
ment. Any professional services that
6-8
are necessary for eligible projects -
such as planning, surveying, and de-
sign - are eligible as is runway, taxi-
way, and apron pavement mainten-
ance. Aviation demand at the airport
must justify the projects, which must
also meet Federal environmental and
procurement requirements. KOA is a
small-hub airport, and the AIP grants
cover up to 95% of eligible costs under
existing procedures (which may be
amended based on future AIP reau-
thorizations).
AIP primary entitlement grants
are apportioned by the FAA on the
number of passenger enplanements
(boardings) at an airport. Based on
the forecast described in chapter 2,
as a stand-alone airport, KOA is el-
igible to receive approximately $4.5
million per year from this funding
source.
AIP cargo entitlement grants are
provided to qualified cargo service
airports and share the 3.5 percent
of AIP apportionment made avail-
able to them for AIP eligible
projects. Cargo entitlement funds
are apportioned in the same pro-
portion as its proportion of landed
weight of cargo aircraft to the total
landed weight of cargo aircraft at
all qualifying airports. Based on
historical trends, it is assumed that
KOA will be eligible to receive ap-
proximately $200,000 per year
based on landed weight generated
at the airport.
AIP discretionary grants are selec-
tively distributed based on the
competitiveness of proposed pro-
jects within the FAA Western Re-
gion pursuant to the national prior-
ity system established by the FAA,
and designations by Congress.
Since the expiration of the Century of
Aviation Reauthorization Act (Vision
100) on September 30, 2007, the FAA
has continued to operate under a se-
ries of short term resolutions. On
September 30, 2008, President Bush
signed into law a short term extension
to March 6, 2009. The continuing res-
olution will fund the aviation program
at current levels for more than five
months, or until Congress passes the
fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill.
The next multi-year reauthorization
legislation has not yet been enacted.
For purposes of analysis, it is assumed
that the FAA multi-year programs
would provide funding similar to the
programs in the past. As noted earli-
er, on a nationwide basis AIP eligible
project costs typically exceed AIP
funding availability by a wide margin.
During the short term analysis, AIP
funds are assumed to be available to
fund approximately $15.3 million of
the project costs for the ARFF Station
Installation anticipated to occur in FY
2010. AIP funds are not assumed to
provide funding for any other projects
during this planning period.
DOT-A receives federal funding as a
statewide Airports System and dis-
tributes funds based on priority and at
the discretion of Airports System
management. The availability of AIP
funds during the intermediate and
long term planning periods are contin-
gent on the priority of the project in
the statewide CIP and the funding ca-
pacity of the federal program.
6-9
PASSENGER FACILITY
CHARGES (PFCs)
PFCs are approved by the FAA and
are collected by the airlines from qual-
ified enplaned passengers to fund eli-
gible projects. A PFC of up to $4.50
per eligible enplaned passenger can be
imposed by an airport operator.
Projects that are eligible for PFC fund-
ing are those that (1) preserve or en-
hance the capacity, safety, or security
of the air transportation system, (2)
reduce noise or mitigate noise effects,
or (3) furnish opportunities for en-
hanced competition between or among
air carriers. PFCs cannot be used for
commercial facilities such as restau-
rants and other concession space, ren-
tal car facilities, public parking facili-
ties, or construction of exclusively
leased space or facilities at airports.
The State has been authorized by the
FAA to impose a $4.50 PFC on eligible
passengers enplaned at KOA. The
State does not charge PFCs to: (1) In-
terisland passengers, or (2) Nonrev-
enue passengers, as similarly defined
and implemented at other U.S. Air-
ports.
DOT-A has collected $2.5 million in
PFC revenues at KOA through FY
2008. Approximately $3.9 million is
assumed to be made available on a
pay-as-you-go basis throughout the
short-term forecast period. In FY
2009 and beyond, it was assumed that
DOT-A would (a) submit PFC applica-
tions for Terminal Expansion projects,
and (b) issue PFC-supported bonds to
finance costs associated with the
project.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION (TSA)
GRANTS
After the terrorist attacks of Septem-
ber 11, 2001, Congress passed the
Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (ATSA), creating the Transporta-
tion Security Administration (TSA)
and mandating the implementation of
explosive detection systems (EDS) at
U.S. Airports.
For the airport to receive considera-
tion of TSA funding for the EDS Sys-
tem, the project design must be at
least 30% complete. Upon approval,
DOT-A must begin the project within
three years, and must complete con-
struction within six years from the
date of application submittal. Fund-
ing for the project would be provided
through (1) a negotiated TSA Other
Transaction Agreement (OTA) or (2) a
multi-year letter of intent (LOI).
Through 2004, TSA entered into mul-
ti-year LOIs with eight (8) airport op-
erators for in-line EDS at nine air-
ports, Atlanta, Boston, Dallas/Fort
Worth, Denver, Las Vegas, Los An-
geles/Ontario, Phoenix and Seattle.
The Office of Management and Budget
has since prevented issuance of addi-
tional LOIs but recently indicated two-
year LOIs may be entered into. Any
future OTA or LOI for EDS project(s)
at KOA would specify the agreed upon
cost-sharing for facility modifications
to accommodate optimal in-line EDS.
Project costs include planning and de-
sign.
In FY 2005, TSA provided DOT-A with
an OTA for up to $9.5 million in TSA
6-10
funding associated with the infra-
structure costs to accommodate in-line
EDS at the Lihue Airport on the is-
land of Kauai. In conjunction with the
expansion of the terminal, the Access
Control and Closed-Circuit Televisions
System at KOA are assumed for a
smaller amount of $500,000 in funding
from the TSA.
CUSTOMER FACILITY
CHARGES (CFCs)
In July 2008, the State Legislature
passed a bill (SB 2365-HD1) authoriz-
ing the Airports Division to establish
and collect a $1 CFC per transaction
day for travelers who rent cars at the
State’s primary airports.
The CFC was implemented beginning
September 1, 2008, for all rental car
transactions on airport. Moneys col-
lected through the CFC are to be de-
posited into a restricted fund that can
only be used to fund the construction
of new consolidated rental car facili-
ties and other improvements needed
for on-airport rental car operators and
associated operating costs.
The CFC is expected to be adjusted as
necessary to generate sufficient funds
to construct consolidated rental car
facilities or make other improvements
at certain airports including KOA.
DOT-A has begun preliminary discus-
sions with the rental car agencies on
what modifications are needed at
KOA. For purposes of analysis, no
Airports System Revenues are ex-
pected from this revenue source, and
no capital project costs have been es-
timated.
SPECIAL FUNDS (CASH)
In the past, DOT-A has used internal-
ly generated funds from Airport opera-
tions to fund projects in the Airport
System. Under the Certificate, inter-
nally generated funds are deposited in
the Revenue Fund at the end of each
Fiscal Year (after all other uses of
those funds) and can be used for any
lawful Airport System purpose.
It was assumed that the projected in-
ternally generated funds from the fu-
ture operations of KOA would be
available to fund certain portions of
the project costs. For purposes of fi-
nancing the KOA CIP, Special Funds
are assumed to pay the matching local
share of AIP eligible projects as well
as a portion of the costs associated
with the Terminal Expansion.
TENANT AND
THIRD-PARTY FUNDING
In recent months, DOT-A has begun
initiatives to fund capital costs at
KOA through tenant and third-party
funding. For purposes of this analysis,
capital costs associated with the fol-
lowing projects are assumed to be
funded through such initiatives:
General Aviation Land Develop-
ment. DOT-A could seek a Request
For Proposals (RFP) inviting sub-
missions of proposals for develop-
ment of corporate/general aviation
support facilities at KOA, includ-
ing, but not limited to, storage
hangars, maintenance facilities
and/or aircraft parking, and asso-
ciated infrastructure. For purposes
6-11
of this analysis, capital funding
provided by a third-party developer
was assumed as a result of this ef-
fort.
Cargo Redevelopment. Similarly,
DOT-A could seek interest from
third parties to fund capital costs
associated with the Cargo Redevel-
opment. For purposes of analysis,
it was assumed that DOT-A would
continue to receive land lease pay-
ments, included in nonairline ren-
tal revenues that are discussed lat-
er in this chapter, consistent with
current State policies and practic-
es.
Heliport touchdown and lift-off
area. DOT-A could seek interest
from third party developers to pro-
vide private funding to construct a
new heliport area.
Astronaut Ellison S. Onizuka
Space Center. The relocation of
the Ellison S. Onizuka Space Cen-
ter is an element of the terminal
expansion program. As a result,
DOT-A has entered into discus-
sions with the Onizuka Board to
construct a new space center on a
two-acre site located on the south
side of the airport access road. The
relocation of the facility (as neces-
sitated by the terminal expansion
project) could be funded, in part, by
PFC-supported bonds. Funding
through other means—such as spe-
cial grant funding provided by Boe-
ing, the Smithsonian, or NASA
could be considered for final build-
out costs.
REVENUE BONDS
The Airports System’s financial opera-
tions are governed by the provisions of
the 1969 Certificate, as described at
the beginning of this chapter. Under
the provisions of the Certificate, Air-
port Revenue Bonds are secured by
and payable from Project Revenues
(i.e., Revenues generated from the op-
erations of the Airports System in ag-
gregate, not any of the airports indi-
vidually) and other pledged Amounts
Available for Debt Service. In addi-
tion, PFC revenues can be used to off-
set the payment of Bond debt service
for eligible projects.
Any project costs not funded through
AIP or TSA grants, PFC revenues,
private financing or internally gener-
ated funds would be financed with the
proceeds from the issuance of Airports
System Revenue Bonds (ASRB).
The issuance of additional bonds is
limited to DOT-A’s ability to meet the
requirements of the Additional Bonds
Test and the Rate Covenant of the
Certificate, as described earlier. Bond
financing capacity is constrained by
these requirements and the intention
of DOT-A to meet desired airline pay-
ment levels. Bond financing capacity
and actual airport revenues and ex-
penses may influence project timing.
DEBT SERVICE
As reflected in Table 6B, Airport Ser-
vice Revenue Bonds may be issued by
DOT-A in the future to fund capital
6-12
costs associated with the short term
financial plan. Currently, the state-
wide CIP dated October 16, 2008 an-
ticipates a total of approximately $88
million in future bond sales (including
PFC-backed bonds) for the terminal
expansion projects, ARFF Training
Facility, and other KOA Termi-
nal/Airfield projects during the short
term. Estimated Debt Service Re-
quirements on the Bonds were based
on the following allowances and as-
sumptions:
30-year maturities (which is
consistent with past practices of
the State)
Assumed bond interest rates of
6%
Allowances for capitalized in-
terest, assuming 2-year capital-
ized interest periods
Funded Debt Service Reserve
Account
Allowances for costs of issuance
The statewide CIP does not anticipate
future bond sales for the Terminal
Apron West Expansion. The develop-
ment of this project would be demand-
driven as discussed previously. Imple-
mentation of the project would require
an additional $145 million in bond
sales. It is anticipated the incre-
mental debt service would result in
incremental annual debt service pay-
ments of over $10.5 million starting
FY 2015 for KOA. This could poten-
tially raise the KOA terminal rental
rate to over $80 per sq. ft., as well as
materially increase the landing fee for
the entire Hawaii Airports System.
Consistent with the Certificate, PFC
revenues may be used to reduce the
amount of Debt Service Requirements
funded from Net Revenues. Debt Ser-
vice Requirements on Outstanding
and Future bonds are allocated to Air-
port cost centers on the basis of the
project costs financed with such
Bonds.
OPERATING EXPENSES
DOT-A provides most of the mainte-
nance, operating functions, and utili-
ties at KOA, using a combination of
DOT-A staff and contract personnel.
Operating expenses include salaries
and wages, other personal services,
utilities, special and major main-
tenance expenses, materials and sup-
plies, the costs of equipment and mo-
tor vehicles purchased with cash, and
Airports Division and State admini-
strative charges. Direct operating ex-
penses are those expenses that can be
charged to one of the direct cost cen-
ters used for rate-setting purposes—
i.e., to the KOA Terminal Cost Center,
or to the system-wide Airfield Area
Cost Center. Indirect operating ex-
penses, including expenses associated
with administration, are allocated to
cost centers in proportion to the allo-
cation of direct operating expenses.
In FY 2008, KOA incurred approxi-
mately $15.2 million in operating costs
and an additional $144,111 for equip-
ment and motor vehicle capital costs.
Of this amount, $9.8 million was spent
6-13
on salaries and benefits, $2.3 million
for utility costs, $1.6 million on special
maintenance costs, and $1.5 on other
operating costs.
Figure 1 on Exhibit 6A presents pro-
jected annual Operating Expenses by
cost center for FY 2008 through FY
2012, FY 2017, and FY 2030. Based
on historical trends, operating ex-
penses for FY 2009 are expected to be
approximately 90% of the approved
budget for the year. Thereafter, it was
forecast that operating expenses will
increase by 2.5% per year as a result
of inflation, forecast activity levels,
planned facility expansions, and other
assumptions regarding Airports Sys-
tem operations. It was assumed that
the State will continue to assess a sur-
charge of 5% for central services ex-
penses on all receipts of DOT-A after
deducting any amounts pledged,
charged, or encumbered for the pay-
ment of Bonds in each Fiscal Year.
DOT-A continues to seek cost-saving
measures in daily operations. While
actual savings have not been consid-
ered in the analysis, the following in-
itiatives may reduce cost of operations
at KOA, and/or enable increased activ-
ity without increased operating ex-
penses:
Photovoltaic (PV) System.
Installation of a photovoltaic
system is planned over the
parking lot and the existing
cargo buildings to provide elec-
trical power to support the ex-
isting airport and proposed ex-
pansions.
Natural Energy Laboratory
of Hawaii Authority (NEL-
HA) Partnership. To reduce
operating expenses for electrical
and water discussions between
NELHA and the State are tak-
ing place. Some of the partner-
ship opportunities might in-
clude the following:
1. Deep Sea Water Cooling
(SWAC) (Sea Water Air
Conditioning)
2. Research and Development
Alternative Fuel Vehicles
for use at Hotel /
Conference Facilities and
Consolidated Car Rental –
Fleet Mix and Shuttle
Buses
3. Bio-Fuel Plant and Fueling
Station
4. Hawaii Electric Light
Company (HELCO)
Approved PV System
5. Roadway Circulation /
Frontage Road
6. Algae-Based Aviation Fuel
OPERATING REVENUES
Table 6C presents historical audited
operating revenues for KOA for FY
2005 through FY 2007 and unaudited
operating revenues for FY 2008.
6-14
TABLE 6C
Historical Revenues
Airport Master Plan
Kona International Airport at Keahole
Historical (a) Unaudited (b)
FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
AIRLINE RENTALS AND FEES
Passenger Airline Landing Fees
Less: Aviation Fuel Credit
Net Landing Fees
$2,592,244
(85,654)
$2,506,590
$2,772,600
(123,101)
$2,649,559
$2,818,594
(40,714)
$2,777,881
$2,782,874
(137,634)
$2,645,240
Terminal Rents
International Arrivals Building (IAB)
Airport Support Services Charge (ASSC) Total Airline Revenue (b) (a)
$796,586
346,820
41,055 $3,691,050
$773,819
345,732
43,658 $3,812,768
$775,716
294,334
39,005 $3,886,936
$1,618,454
325,664
47,406 $4,636,764
Enplaned Passengers (b)
Airline Cost Per Enplaned Passenger (a/b)
$1,481,368
$2.49
$1,476,414
$2.58
$1,573,799
$2.47
$1,564,292
$2.96
NON-AIRLINE REVENUE
Terminal Area Concessions Food and Beverage
News and Vending
Gift Shop/Apparel & Baggage
Lei Vendors Total Terminal Area Concessions
$181,228
44,021
410,236
34,097 $669,581
$231,134
51,420
896,985
37,869 $1,217,408
$238,386
76,745
868,875
34,643 $1,218,649
$663,653
76,762
738,544
30,673 $1,509,632
Other Concessions (Parking, Ground Transportation, etc.)
Parking
Rental Cars
Ground Transportation & Shuttle Other Terminal Concessions
Total Other Concessions
$806,023
6,081,747
151,650 (5,618,538)
$1,420,882
$901,614
5,990,804
171,492 191,599
$7,255,509
$999,672
6,358,589
168,639 186,729
$7,713,630
$1,086,282
6,115,605
183,252 184,073
$7,569,212
Other
Other Rentals
Miscellaneous Revenue
Operating Interest Income Total Other Rentals
$957,119
254,953
251,198 $1,463,269
$962,000
322,706
879,243 $2,163,949
$981,000
310,291
819,283 $2,110,574
$981,651
405,122
--- $1,386,773
Total Non-airline Revenue $3,553,732 $10,636,866 $11,042,853 $10,465,617
Total Airport Revenues $7,244,783 $14,449,634 $14,929,789 $15,102,381
(a) Source: Airport management records, August 2008
(b) Source: Airport unaudited financials, November 2008
AIRLINE REVENUES
Historically, airline revenues as a per-
centage of total revenues at the Air-
port have been about 31%. Industry
benchmarking suggests airline reve-
nues at similar sized airports closer to
42%. As shown on Figure 2 of Exhi-
bit 6A, airline revenues are antic-
ipated to increase as a result of the
new rate setting methodologies de-
fined in the First Amended Lease
Agreement for Signatory Airlines
which went into effect January 1,
2008.
In general, Airline terminal rental
rates and landing fees are calculated
as a function of forecast O&M ex-
penses, debt service, and certain non-
airline revenues anticipated for the
Terminal and Airfield cost centers. As
presented in Figure 3 of Exhibit 6A,
it is anticipated that Landing Fees
(which, as previously noted, are calcu-
lated on a Statewide basis for all five
primary airports) will grow in propor-
tion with costs allocated to the Airfield
Cost Center (a common cost center
across all 5 primary airports’ air-
fields), while terminal rents would be
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4
FIGURE 2
OPERATING EXPENSES AND REVENUES Exhibit 6A
06
M
P
0
6
-
6
A
-
1
2
/
1
0
/
0
8
6-15
limited to methodologies defined in
the First Amended Lease Agreement.
The methodologies for calculating Sig-
natory Airline rates are defined below:
Landing Fee Revenues
Under the terms of the Amended
Lease Extension, the Signatory Air-
lines pay landing fees per 1,000
pounds of certificated gross aircraft
landed weight to allow DOT-A to re-
cover certain operating, maintenance,
and capital costs of runways, tax-
iways, and other airfield facilities, af-
ter crediting nonsignatory landing fee
payments, PFC revenues used to pay
debt service, and any federal operating
grants. Nonsignatory airlines pay
landing fees as described in the Ha-
waii Administrative Rules (see below).
The overseas landing fees for the Sig-
natory Airlines are calculated for the
statewide Airports System according
to a residual rate-setting methodology.
Operators of interisland flights pay an
agreed-upon discounted rate that was
initially set at 36% of the overseas
landing fee in FY 2008, increasing 1%
each subsequent Fiscal Year until it
reaches 100% of the overseas rate
when the discount would be eliminat-
ed.
Terminal Rents
Under the terms of the Amended
Lease Extension, the Signatory Air-
lines pay the net requirement for the
Airport’s Terminal Cost Center, after
being credited for terminal concession
revenues, PFC revenues used to pay
debt service, and any federal operating
grants. Terminal rental rates are ad-
justed by multiplying the rates by 60%
in FY 2008, which increases 5% per
year until FY 2016, when the adjust-
ment would be eliminated.
In addition, separate rental rates ap-
ply for joint use areas, including (1)
holdrooms, (2) baggage systems and
(3) common use ticketing positions.
Charges for the international arrivals
area are also assessed for use of cus-
toms and immigration facilities.
Airports System
Support Charge Revenue
The ASSC is set to recover any resid-
ual costs of the Airports System and to
meet requirements of the Rate Cove-
nant. The overseas ASSC is set by di-
viding the Net ASSC Requirement
(difference between statewide ex-
penses and revenues less any applica-
ble credits) by total Airports System
landed weight. The interisland ASSC
rate is the product of the overseas
landing fee rate and the interisland
rate for the Fiscal Year (initially set at
36% of the overseas rate in FY 2008,
increasing 1% each subsequent Fiscal
Year until such time as it equals 100%
of the overseas rate).
Applicable ASSC credits for any Fiscal
Year include (1) PFC revenues to pay
debt service, (2) nonairline revenues,
(3) interest earned on operating funds,
(4) terminal rentals, (5) aeronautical
rentals, and (6) landing fee revenues.
When Airports System Revenues are
sufficient to recover Airports System
6-16
Costs, no ASSC is to be assessed on
overseas or interisland activity. Oth-
erwise, the overseas ASSC rate is to
be computed by dividing the Net ASSC
Requirement by total landed weight.
Forecast revenues are expected to re-
cover the costs of the Airports System
and no ASSC is forecast to be re-
quired.
Nonsignatory Airline Rates
and Charges Revenues
Nonsignatory airline fixed rates that
are established by H.A.R. Chapter 19-
16.1, were last adjusted in November,
2000, pursuant to the Administrative
Rules Process. DOT-A is in the
process of amending the methodology
contained in H.A.R. Chapter 19-16.1
such that nonsignatory airline rates
and charges would be 125% of Signa-
tory Airline rates and charges.
NONAIRLINE REVENUES
Ongoing efforts to maximize revenues
from other sources would reduce the
requirement imposed on the airlines,
given that terminal concession reve-
nues are netted against terminal costs
for purposes of the terminal rental cal-
culation. As presented in Figure 4 of
Exhibit 6A, revenues from sources
related to numbers of passengers, such
as terminal concessions, rental car
percentage fees, and parking reve-
nues, were forecast to change as a
function of forecast activity. Unless
noted otherwise, forecast revenues re-
flect 2.5% annual inflation.
Terminal Area Concessions
Various terminal concessionaires lease
terminal space at KOA. Under the
terms of the concession agreements,
concession fees payable to DOT-A are
the greater of a percentage of gross
sales or minimum annual guarantee
(MAG) that has been specified in each
concessions agreement. Unless noted
otherwise, forecast revenues are based
on a combination of: (1) forecasts of
enplaned passengers, (2) recent histor-
ical trends in the concession revenues
paid to DOT-A, (3) allowances for in-
flation of 2.5% per year, (4) the terms
and conditions of agreements with the
State, and (5) assumptions regarding
ongoing improvements.
In FY 2008, terminal area concession
revenues in excess of $1.5 million ac-
count for 12.4% of total nonairline
revenues. A brief description of the
revenue sources included in this cate-
gory is provided below.
RETAIL
The retail concession agreement in-
cludes retail concessions, such as (1)
gifts, apparel, and luggage; (2) pack-
aged foods; (3) sundries and toys; and
(4) jewelry and shells. In the Inter-
mediate planning period, construction
of a second level concourse will provide
opportunity for additional space for
retail concessions. It was assumed
that DOT-A will see an increase in the
average sale per enplaned passenger
of up to 15% upon 100% occupancy of
the new space. For forecasting pur-
6-17
poses, the new space is assumed to be
occupied in FY 2018.
FOOD AND BEVERAGE
Historically, food and beverage con-
cessions have accounted for approxi-
mately 3.1% of nonairline revenues.
In FY 2008, food and beverage reve-
nues increased significantly as a re-
sult of the re-bid concessions agree-
ment. Upon completion of con-
struction of the second level concourse,
and full occupancy of the new food and
beverage space, an increase of up to
25% on the average sale per enplaned
passenger can be expected. For pur-
poses of forecasting it is assumed this
will happen in FY 2018.
NEWS AND VENDING
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §102-
14 requires the news and vending ma-
chine services be contracted in an ef-
fort to provide economic opportunities
to persons with blind or visually im-
paired disabilities. Revenues to DOT-
A are based on a “tiered” rate struc-
ture ranging from 2% to 10%. In FY
2008, gross sales in excess of $1.7 mil-
lion resulted in revenues to the State
of approximately $77,000.
LEI STANDS
Two separate lei stands are located in
each of the terminal areas. DOT-A
collects approximately $35,000 a year
from the floral operations.
OTHER CONCESSIONS
Concession revenues received by DOT-
A in connection with parking, rental
car and ground transportation are ex-
pected to total $7.1 million, or 66% of
total Revenues in FY 2008. Details of
each revenue source and revenue fore-
cast assumptions are as follows:
PARKING
AMPCO System Parking operates the
public and employee automobile park-
ing facilities under a month-to-month
management contract at KOA. Under
this agreement, DOT-A retains all
rights to implement, among other
things, parking rate increases. Pro-
jected public parking revenues are
based on (1) historical annual trends
in parking revenues per enplaned pas-
senger, (2) moderate increases in the
parking rates beginning in FY 2009
and anticipated every 3 years follow-
ing, and (3) forecast numbers of pas-
sengers. It is expected that with the
completion of each parking expansion
project a 5% increase in parking reve-
nues can be anticipated. For forecast-
ing purposes, the increases are antic-
ipated in FY 2009 and FY 2020.
RENTAL CAR REVENUES
DOT-A collects rental car concession
revenues from on-Airport rental car
operations. The on-Airport rental car
companies operate under the terms of
competitively bid Concession Agree-
ments. In August, 2008, DOT-A ad-vertised for new bids increasing the
6-18
percentage fee for on-airport opera-
tions from 7.5% to 10%. Currently,
eight rental car companies are on-
Airport property.
Revenues identified in this category
are forecast to increase in proportion to (1) forecast increases in overseas
originating passengers, (2) 2.5% infla-
tion, and (3) percentage fees of 10%.
The annual percentage fee is subject
to a set minimum annual guarantee
specified in the agreement.
On September 1, 2008, DOT-A began
charging a customer facility charge
(CFC) at KOA. CFC moneys collected
through the rental car companies are
to be deposited into a restricted fund
that can only be used to fund construc-
tion of new consolidated rental car fa-cilities and other improvements
needed for on-airport rental car opera-
tors. No Airports System Revenues
are expected from this revenue source,
and no Airports System funds are an-
ticipated to be used for rental car capi-tal projects.
GROUND TRANSPORTATION
REVENUES
In FY 2008, ground transportation
revenues at the Airport represented
1.4% of nonairline revenues and 1.0%
of total Airport Revenues.
The components of ground trans-
portation revenues are discussed be-
low.
Motor Coach (Airport
Shuttle) Services
Under the terms of these contracts, the Airports Division receives 5% of
gross receipts. Forecast revenues are
anticipated to grow at 2.5% annually.
Taxicab Management
Taxi service is provided on-demand.
Forecast revenues are expected to
grow by 2.5% annually for inflation.
Other terminal concessions
In addition to the primary concession
agreements described above, off-
Airport rental car companies pay fees
according to the Hawaii Admini-
strative Rule. 19-20.1-56 under Sub-
chapter 9.
Other Rentals
Other rental revenues include reve-
nues from certain facility and ground
leases, as well as, utility costs that are
recovered from the respective tenants.
The details of this revenue source are
described below:
AERONAUTICAL RENTALS
Revenues from aeronautical rentals
are associated with ground rentals of
paved and unpaved property, and in-
clude ramp space and tie-downs that
are located adjacent to the cargo and
general aviation facilities. Aero-
nautical rentals also include facility
rents and utility reimbursements as-
sociated with the cargo facilities, the
commuter terminal and the general
aviation T-hangars.
6-19
NONAERONAUTICAL RENTALS
Revenues from nonaeronautical ren-
tals include revenues associated with
commercial tenants such as rental car
baseyard lots, the fixed base operator
(FBO) fueling facilities and other
commercial leases. The terms of these
leases range from 4 to 15 years for
concessionaires and up to 65 years for
other Airport users. Under the terms
of the agreements, rental increases
are adjusted in proportion with the
Consumer Price Index (CPI).
The CIP includes a substantial invest-
ment in tenant support facilities at the
Airport. For planning purposes, no
incremental revenues were considered
for these improvements that include
the cargo, general aviation and heli-
port projects.
Other Airport Revenues
Other revenues include (1) the sale of
certain utilities and other services, (2)
miscellaneous income recognized
through daily operations, and (3) in-
terest income.
SUMMARY
The financial plan for the Kona Inter-
national Airport Master Plan antic-
ipates that project costs would be
funded with a combination of federal
grants-in-aid, Transportation Security
Administrative funds, PFC revenues,
internally generated cash flow, and
future Bonds to be repaid in part from
Revenues of the Airports System and
in part from PFC revenues. In ad-
dition, a significant share of the capi-
tal costs is anticipated to be funded
through tenant and third party financ-
ing. Beyond the short-term period
through FY 2012, it is assumed that
DOT-A will continue to develop the
Airport as required to meet the needs
of increased passenger demand, con-
sistent with future funding sources
available to the State at the time of
project implementation. The financial
feasibility of future projects will be de-
termined by the provisions of existing
or future tenant agreements (includ-
ing Airlines), funding levels and par-
ticipation rates of federal grant-in-aid
programs, availability of PFC reve-
nues (pay-as-you-go and leveraged),
revenue bond capacity, and the ability
to generate discretionary cash flow
from Airport operations based on the
priority of the projects in relation to
the other 14 airports in the Statewide
CIP.
The financial projections were pre-
pared on the basis of available infor-
mation and assumptions as set forth
in this section. It is believed that such
information and assumptions provide
a reasonable basis for the projections
to the level of detail appropriate for an
airport master plan. Based on these
assumptions, the capital improvement
program could be financed in the fu-
ture by the State and result in key fi-
nancial indicators that are consistent
with the historical results of the
Statewide Airports System and indus-
try comparables. However, some of
the assumptions used to develop the
projections will not be realized and
unanticipated events and circum-
stances may occur. Therefore, the ac-
tual results may vary from those pro-
jected and such variations could be
material.
Appendix A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Glossary of Terms
Airport ConsultantsA - 1
A
ABOVE GROUND LEVEL: The elevation of a
point or surface above the ground.
ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE
(ASDA): See declared distances.
ADVISORY CIRCULAR: External publications
issued by the FAA consisting of nonregulatory
material providing for the recommendations relative
to a policy, guidance and information relative to a
specifi c aviation subject.
AIR CARRIER: An operator which: (1) performs at
least fi ve round trips per week between two or more
points and publishes fl ight schedules which specify
the times, days of the week, and places between which
such fl ights are performed; or (2) transports mail by
air pursuant to a current contract with the U.S. Postal
Service. Certifi ed in accordance with Federal Aviation
Regulation (FAR) Parts 121 and 127.
AIRCRAFT: A transportation vehicle that is used or
intended for use for fl ight.
AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY: A
grouping of aircraft based on 1.3 times the stall speed
in their landing confi guration at their maximum
certifi cated landing weight. The categories are as
follows:
• Category A: Speed less than 91 knots.
• Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than
121 knots.
• Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than
141 knots.
• Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than
166 knots.
• Category E: Speed greater than 166 knots.
AIRCRAFT OPERATION: The landing, takeoff,
or touch-and-go procedure by an aircraft on a
runway at an airport.
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AREA (AOA): A
restricted and secure area on the airport property designed
to protect all aspects related to aircraft operations.
AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS
ASSOCIATION: A private organization serving
the interests and needs of general aviation pilots and
aircraft owners.
AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIRE FIGHTING: A
facility located at an airport that provides emergency
vehicles, extinguishing agents, and personnel
responsible for minimizing the impacts of an aircraft
accident or incident.
AIRFIELD: The portion of an airport which contains
the facilities necessary for the operation of aircraft.
AIRLINE HUB: An airport at which an airline
concentrates a significant portion of its activity
and which often has a significant amount of
connecting traffic.
AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG): A grouping
of aircraft based upon wingspan. The groups are as
follows:
• Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet.
• Group II: 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet.
• Group III: 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet.
• Group IV: 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet.
• Group V: 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet.
• Group VI: 214 feet or greater.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY: A quasi-governmental
public organization responsible for setting the
policies governing the management and operation of
an airport or system of airports under its jurisdiction.
AIRPORT BEACON: A navigational aid located
at an airport which displays a rotating light beam to
identify whether an airport is lighted.
AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN:
The planning program used by the Federal Aviation
Administration to identify, prioritize, and distribute
funds for airport development and the needs of the
National Airspace System to meet specifi ed national
goals and objectives.
AIRPORT ELEVATION: The highest point on the
runway system at an airport expressed in feet above
mean sea level (MSL).
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: A
program authorized by the Airport and Airway
APPENDIX A
Glossary of Terms
Airport ConsultantsA - 2
Improvement Act of 1982 that provides funding for
airport planning and development.
AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING (ALD): The
drawing of the airport showing the layout of existing
and proposed airport facilities.
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP): A scaled drawing
of the existing and planned land and facilities necessary
for the operation and development of the airport.
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWING SET: A
set of technical drawings depicting the current and
future airport conditions. The individual sheets
comprising the set can vary with the complexities of
the airport, but the FAA-required drawings include
the Airport Layout Plan (sometimes referred to as the
Airport Layout Drawing (ALD), the Airport Airspace
Drawing, and the Inner Portion of the Approach
Surface Drawing, On-Airport Land Use Drawing,
and Property Map.
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN: The planner’s concept
of the long-term development of an airport.
AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY
SYSTEM: A system that provides automated alerts
and warnings of potential runway incursions or other
hazardous aircraft movement events.
AIRPORT OBSTRUCTION CHART: A scaled
drawing depicting the Federal Aviation Regulation
(FAR) Part 77 surfaces, a representation of objects
that penetrate these surfaces, runway, taxiway, and
ramp areas, navigational aids, buildings, roads and
other detail in the vicinity of an airport.
AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC): A coding
system used to relate airport design criteria to the
operational (Aircraft Approach Category) to the
physical characteristics (Airplane Design Group) of
the airplanes intended to operate at the airport.
AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP): The
latitude and longitude of the approximate center of
the airport.
AIRPORT SPONSOR: The entity that is legally
responsible for the management and operation of an
airport, including the fulfi llment of the requirements of
laws and regulations related thereto.
AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION
EQUIPMENT: A radar system that provides air
traffi c controllers with a visual representation of the
movement of aircraft and other vehicles on the ground
on the airfi eld at an airport.
AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR: The
primary radar located at an airport or in an air traffi c
control terminal area that receives a signal at an
antenna and transmits the signal to air traffi c control
display equipment defi ning the location of aircraft in
the air. The signal provides only the azimuth and range
of aircraft from the location of the antenna.
AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER
(ATCT): A central operations facility in the terminal air
traffi c control system, consisting of a tower, including
an associated instrument fl ight rule (IFR) room if
radar equipped, using air/ground communications
and/or radar, visual signaling and other devices to
provide safe and expeditious movement of terminal
air traffi c.
AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER:
A facility which provides en route air traffi c control
service to aircraft operating on an IFR fl ight plan within
controlled airspace over a large, multi-state region.
AIRSIDE: The portion of an airport that contains the
facilities necessary for the operation of aircraft.
AIRSPACE: The volume of space above the surface of
the ground that is provided for the operation of aircraft.
AIR TAXI: An air carrier certifi cated in accordance
with FAR Part 121 and FAR Part 135 and authorized
to provide, on demand, public transportation of
persons and property by aircraft. Generally operates
small aircraft “for hire” for specifi c trips.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: A service operated
by an appropriate organization for the purpose of
providing for the safe, orderly, and expeditious fl ow
of air traffi c.
AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER
(ARTCC): A facility established to provide air traffi c
control service to aircraft operating on an IFR fl ight
plan within controlled airspace and principally during
the en route phase of fl ight.
Glossary of Terms
Airport ConsultantsA - 3
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM COMMAND
CENTER: A facility operated by the FAA which is
responsible for the central fl ow control, the central
altitude reservation system, the airport reservation
position system, and the air traffi c service contingency
command for the air traffi c control system.
AIR TRAFFIC HUB: A categorization of
commercial service airports or group of commercial
service airports in a metropolitan or urban area based
upon the proportion of annual national enplanements
existing at the airport or airports. The categories are
large hub, medium hub, small hub, or non-hub. It forms
the basis for the apportionment of entitlement funds.
AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA: An organization consisting of the
principal U.S. airlines that represents the interests
of the airline industry on major aviation issues
before federal, state, and local government bodies.
It promotes air transportation safety by coordinating
industry and governmental safety programs and
it serves as a focal point for industry efforts to
standardize practices and enhance the effi ciency of
the air transportation system.
ALERT AREA: See special-use airspace.
ALTITUDE: The vertical distance measured in feet
above mean sea level.
ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACH (AIA):
An approach to an airport with the intent to land
by an aircraft in accordance with an IFR fl ight plan
when visibility is less than three miles and/or when the
ceiling is at or below the minimum initial approach altitude.
APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM (ALS):
An airport lighting facility which provides visual
guidance to landing aircraft by radiating light
beams by which the pilot aligns the aircraft with
the extended centerline of the runway on his fi nal
approach and landing.
APPROACH MINIMUMS: The altitude below
which an aircraft may not descend while on an IFR
approach unless the pilot has the runway in sight.
APPROACH SURFACE: An imaginary obstruction
limiting surface defi ned in FAR Part 77 which is
longitudinally centered on an extended runway
centerline and extends outward and upward from
the primary surface at each end of a runway at a
designated slope and distance based upon the type of
available or planned approach by aircraft to a runway.
APRON: A specifi ed portion of the airfi eld used for
passenger, cargo or freight loading and unloading,
aircraft parking, and the refueling, maintenance and
servicing of aircraft.
AREA NAVIGATION: The air navigation procedure
that provides the capability to establish and maintain
a fl ight path on an arbitrary course that remains within
the coverage area of navigational sources being used.
AUTOMATED TERMINAL INFORMATION
SERVICE (ATIS): The continuous broadcast of
recorded non-control information at towered airports.
Information typically includes wind speed, direction,
and runway in use.
AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVATION
SYSTEM (ASOS): A reporting system that provides
frequent airport ground surface weather observation data
through digitized voice broadcasts and printed reports.
AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVATION
STATION (AWOS): Equipment used to automatically
record weather conditions (i.e. cloud height, visibility,
wind speed and direction, temperature, dew point, etc.)
AUTOMATIC DIRECTION FINDER (ADF):
An aircraft radio navigation system which senses
and indicates the direction to a non-directional radio
beacon (NDB) ground transmitter.
AVIGATION EASEMENT: A contractual right
or a property interest in land over which a right of
unobstructed fl ight in the airspace is established.
AZIMUTH: Horizontal direction expressed as the
angular distance between true north and the direction
of a fi xed point (as the observer’s heading).
B
BASE LEG: A fl ight path at right angles to the landing
runway off its approach end. The base leg normally
extends from the downwind leg to the intersection of
the extended runway centerline. See “traffi c pattern.”
Glossary of Terms
Airport ConsultantsA - 4
BASED AIRCRAFT: The general aviation aircraft
that use a specifi c airport as a home base.
BEARING: The horizontal direction to or from any
point, usually measured clockwise from true north or
magnetic north.
BLAST FENCE: A barrier used to divert or dissipate
jet blast or propeller wash.
BLAST PAD: A prepared surface adjacent to the
end of a runway for the purpose of eliminating
the erosion of the ground surface by the wind
forces produced by airplanes at the initiation of
takeoff operations.
BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL): A line
which identifi es suitable building area locations on
the airport.
C
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: The planning
program used by the Federal Aviation Administration
to identify, prioritize, and distribute Airport
Improvement Program funds for airport development
and the needs of the National Airspace System to
meet specifi ed national goals and objectives.
CARGO SERVICE AIRPORT: An airport
served by aircraft providing air transportation
of property only, including mail, with an
annual aggregate landed weight of at least
100,000,000 pounds.
CATEGORY I: An Instrument Landing System
(ILS) that provides acceptable guidance information
to an aircraft from the coverage limits of the ILS to
the point at which the localizer course line intersects
the glide path at a decision height of 100 feet above
the horizontal plane containing the runway threshold.
CATEGORY II: An ILS that provides acceptable
guidance information to an aircraft from the coverage
limits of the ILS to the point at which the localizer
course line intersects the glide path at a decision height
of 50 feet above the horizontal plane containing the
runway threshold.
CATEGORY III: An ILS that provides acceptable
guidance information to a pilot from the coverage
limits of the ILS with no decision height specifi ed
above the horizontal plane containing the runway
threshold.
CEILING: The height above the ground surface to
the location of the lowest layer of clouds which is
reported as either broken or overcast.
CIRCLING APPROACH: A maneuver initiated
by the pilot to align the aircraft with the runway
for landing when fl ying a predetermined circling
instrument approach under IFR.
CLASS A AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.
CLASS B AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.
CLASS C AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.
CLASS D AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.
CLASS E AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.
CLASS G AIRSPACE: See Controlled Airspace.
CLEAR ZONE: See Runway Protection Zone.
COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORT: A public
airport providing scheduled passenger service that
enplanes at least 2,500 annual passengers.
Glossary of Terms
Airport ConsultantsA - 5
COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY:
A radio frequency identifi ed in the appropriate
aeronautical chart which is designated for the purpose of
transmitting airport advisory information and procedures
while operating to or from an uncontrolled airport.
COMPASS LOCATOR (LOM): A low power,
low/medium frequency radio-beacon installed in
conjunction with the instrument landing system at
one or two of the marker sites.
CONICAL SURFACE: An imaginary obstruction-
limiting surface defi ned in FAR Part 77 that extends
from the edge of the horizontal surface outward and
upward at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance
of 4,000 feet.
CONTROLLED AIRPORT: An airport that has an
operating airport traffi c control tower.
CONTROLLED AIRSPACE: Airspace of defi ned
dimensions within which air traffi c control services
are provided to instrument fl ight rules (IFR) and
visual fl ight rules (VFR) fl ights in accordance with
the airspace classifi cation. Controlled airspace in the
United States is designated as follows:
• CLASS A: Generally, the airspace from 18,000
feet mean sea level (MSL) up to but not including
fl ight level FL600. All persons must operate their
aircraft under IFR.
• CLASS B:
Generally, the airspace
from the surface to
10,000 feet MSL sur-
rounding the nation’s
busiest airports. The
confi guration of Class
B airspace is unique
to each airport, but
typically consists of two or more layers of air
space and is designed to contain all published in-
strument approach procedures to the airport. An
air traffi c control clearance is required for all air-
craft to operate in the area.
• CLASS C: Generally, the airspace from the surface
to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (charted
as MSL) surrounding those airports that have
an operational control tower and radar approach
control and are served by a qualifying number
of IFR operations or passenger enplanements.
Although individually tailored for each airport,
Class C airspace typically consists of a surface
area with a fi ve nautical mile (nm) radius and
an outer area with a 10 nautical mile radius that
extends from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the
airport elevation. Two-way radio communication
is required for all aircraft.
• CLASS D: Generally, that airspace from
the surface to 2,500 feet above the air port
elevation (charted as MSL) surrounding those
airports that have an operational control tower.
Class D airspace is individually tailored and
confi gured to encompass published instrument
approach procedure . Unless otherwise
authorized, all persons must establish two-way
radio communication.
• CLASS E: Generally, controlled airspace
that is not classifi ed as Class A, B, C, or D.
Class E airspace extends upward from either
the surface or a designated altitude to the
overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. When
designated as a surface area, the airspace will be
confi gured to contain all instrument procedures.
Class E airspace encompasses all Victor
Airways. Only aircraft following
instrument fl ight rules are
required to establish two-way radio communication
with air traffi c control.
• CLASS G: Generally, that airspace not classifi ed
as Class A, B, C, D, or E. Class G airspace is
uncontrolled for all aircraft. Class G airspace
extends from the surface to the overlying Class
E airspace.
CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: See special-use
airspace.
CROSSWIND: A wind that is not parallel to a runway
centerline or to the intended fl ight path of an aircraft.
CROSSWIND COMPONENT: The component of
wind that is at a right angle to the runway centerline
or the intended fl ight path of an aircraft.
CROSSWIND LEG: A fl ight path at right angles to the
landing runway off its upwind end. See “traffi c pattern.”
1N
M
3 NM
2 NM
Glossary of Terms
Airport ConsultantsA - 6
D
DECIBEL: A unit of noise representing a level
relative to a reference of a sound pressure 20 micro
newtons per square meter.
DECISION HEIGHT: The height above the end
of the runway surface at which a decision must be
made by a pilot during the ILS or Precision Approach
Radar approach to either continue the approach or to
execute a missed approach.
DECLARED DISTANCES: The distances declared
available for the airplane’s takeoff runway, takeoff
distance, accelerate-stop distance, and landing
distance requirements. The distances are:
• TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA):
The runway length declared available and suitable
for the ground run of an airplane taking off.
• TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA):
The TORA plus the length of any remaining
runway and/or clear way beyond the far end of
the TORA.
• ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE
AVAILABLE (ASDA): The runway plus stopway
length declared available for the acceleration and
deceleration of an aircraft aborting a takeoff.
• LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA):
The runway length declared available and suitable
for landing.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
The cabinet level federal government organization
consisting of modal operating agencies, such as
the Federal Aviation Administration, which was
established to promote the coordination of federal
transportation programs and to act as a focal point for
research and development efforts in transportation.
DISCRETIONARY FUNDS: Federal grant funds that
may be appropriated to an airport based upon designation
by the Secretary of Transportation or Congress to meet
a specifi ed national priority such as enhancing capacity,
safety, and security, or mitigating noise.
DISPLACED THRESHOLD: A threshold that is
located at a point on the runway other than the designated
beginning of the runway.
DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME):
Equipment (airborne and ground) used to measure, in
nautical miles, the slant range distance of an aircraft
from the DME navigational aid.
DNL: The 24-hour average sound level, in Aweighted
decibels, obtained after the addition of ten decibels
to sound levels for the periods between 10 p.m. and
7 a.m. as averaged over a span of one year. It is the
FAA standard metric for determining the cumulative
exposure of individuals to noise.
DOWNWIND LEG: A fl ight path parallel to the
landing runway in the direction opposite to landing. The
downwind leg normally extends between the crosswind
leg and the base leg. Also see “traffi c pattern.”
E
EASEMENT: The legal right of one party to use a
portion of the total rights in real estate owned by another
party. This may include the right of passage over, on, or
below the property; certain air rights above the property,
including view rights; and the rights to any specifi ed
form of development or activity, as well as any other
legal rights in the property that may be specifi ed in the
easement document.
ELEVATION: The vertical distance measured in feet
above mean sea level.
ENPLANED PASSENGERS: The total number
of revenue passengers boarding aircraft, including
originating, stop-over, and transfer passengers, in
scheduled and nonscheduled services.
ENPLANEMENT: The boarding of a passenger,
cargo, freight, or mail on an aircraft at an airport.
ENTITLEMENT: Federal funds for which a commercial
service airport may be eligible based upon its annual
passenger enplanements.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA): An
environmental analysis performed pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act to determine
whether an action would signifi cantly affect the
environment and thus require a more detailed
environmental impact statement.
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT: An assessment of the
current status of a party’s compliance with applicable
Glossary of Terms
Airport ConsultantsA - 7
environmental requirements of a party’s environmental
compliance policies, practices, and controls.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(EIS): A document required of federal agencies by the
National Environmental Policy Act for major projects
are legislative proposals affecting the environment. It
is a tool for decision-making describing the positive
and negative effects of a proposed action and citing
alternative actions.
ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE: A federal program
which guarantees air carrier service to selected small
cities by providing subsidies as needed to prevent
these cities from such service.
F
FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS: The
general and permanent rules established by the
executive departments and agencies of the Federal
Government for aviation, which are published in the
Federal Register. These are the aviation subset of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
FEDERAL INSPECTION SERVICES: The
provision of customs and immigration services
including passport inspection, inspection of baggage,
the collection of duties on certain imported items,
and the inspections for agricultural products, illegal
drugs, or other restricted items.
FINAL APPROACH: A fl ight path in the direction
of landing along the extended runway centerline. The
fi nal approach normally extends from the base leg to
the runway. See “traffi c pattern.”
FINAL APPROACH AND TAKEOFF AREA
(FATO). A defi ned area over which the fi nal phase
of the helicopter approach to a hover, or a landing is
completed and from which the takeoff is initiated.
FINAL APPROACH FIX: The designated point at
which the fi nal approach segment for an aircraft landing
on a runway begins for a non-precision approach.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
(FONSI): A public document prepared by a Federal
agency that presents the rationale why a proposed
action will not have a signifi cant effect on the
environment and for which an environmental impact
statement will not be prepared.
FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO): A provider of
services to users of an airport. Such services include,
but are not limited to, hangaring, fueling, fl ight
training, repair, and maintenance.
FLIGHT LEVEL: A designation for altitude within
controlled airspace.
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION: An operations
facility in the national fl ight advisory system which
utilizes data interchange facilities for the collection
and dissemination of Notices to Airmen, weather, and
administrative data and which provides pre-fl ight and
in-fl ight advisory services to pilots through air and
ground based communication facilities.
FRANGIBLE NAVAID: A navigational aid which
retains its structural integrity and stiffness up to
a designated maximum load, but on impact from a
greater load, breaks, distorts, or yields in such a
manner as to present the minimum hazard to aircraft.
G
GENERAL AVIATION: That portion of civil
aviation which encompasses all facets of aviation
except air carriers holding a certifi cate of convenience
and necessity, and large aircraft commercial operators.
GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT: An airport that
provides air service to only general aviation.
GLIDESLOPE (GS): Provides vertical guidance
for aircraft during approach and landing. The glideslope
consists of the following:
1.Electronic components emitting signals which
provide vertical guidance by reference to airborne
instruments during instrument approaches such
as ILS; or
2.Visual ground aids, such as VASI, which provide
vertical guidance for VFR approach or for the
visual portion of an instrument approach and
landing.
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS): A
system of 24 satellites used as reference points to
enable navigators equipped with GPS receivers to
determine their latitude, longitude, and altitude.
GROUND ACCESS: The transportation system on
and around the airport that provides access to and
Glossary of Terms
Airport ConsultantsA - 8
from the airport by ground transportation vehicles
for passengers, employees, cargo, freight, and
airport services.
H
HELIPAD: A designated area for the takeoff, landing,
and parking of helicopters.
HIGH INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The
highest classifi cation in terms of intensity or
brightness for lights designated for use in delineating
the sides of a runway.
HIGH-SPEED EXIT TAXIWAY: A long radius
taxiway designed to expedite aircraft turning off the
runway after landing (at speeds to 60 knots), thus
reducing runway occupancy time.
HORIZONTAL SURFACE: An imaginary
obstruction- limiting surface defi ned in FAR Part
77 that is specifi ed as a portion of a horizontal plane
surrounding a runway located 150 feet above the
established airport elevation. The specifi c horizontal
dimensions of this surface are a function of the types
of approaches existing or planned for the runway.
I
INITIAL APPROACH FIX: The designated point
at which the initial approach segment begins for an
instrument approach to a runway.
INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE: A
series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly
transfer of an aircraft under instrument fl ight
conditions from the beginning of the initial approach
to a landing, or to a point from which a landing may
be made visually.
INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR):
Procedures for the conduct of fl ight in weather
conditions below Visual Flight Rules weather
minimums. The term IFR is often also used to defi ne
weather conditions and the type of fl ight plan under
which an aircraft is operating.
INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS): A
precision instrument approach system which normally
consists of the following electronic components and
visual aids:
1. Localizer.
2. Glide Slope.
3. Outer Marker.
4. Middle Marker.
5. Approach Lights.
INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL
CONDITIONS: Meteorological conditions
expressed in terms of specifi c visibility and ceiling
conditions that are less than the minimums specifi ed
for visual meteorological conditions.
ITINERANT OPERATIONS: Operations by
aircraft that are not based at a specifi ed airport.
K
KNOTS: A unit of speed length used in navigation
that is equivalent to the number of nautical miles
traveled in one hour.
L
LANDSIDE: The portion of an airport that provides
the facilities necessary for the processing of passengers,
cargo, freight, and ground transportation vehicles.
LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE (LDA): See
declared distances.
LARGE AIRPLANE: An airplane that has a maximum
certifi ed takeoff weight in excess of 12,500 pounds.
LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM:
A differential GPS system that provides localized
measurement correction signals to the basic GPS
signals to improve navigational accuracy integrity,
continuity, and availability.
LOCAL OPERATIONS: Aircraft operations
performed by aircraft that are based at the airport and
that operate in the local traffi c pattern or within sight
of the airport, that are known to be departing for or
arriving from fl ights in local practice areas within a
prescribed distance from the airport, or that execute
simulated instrument approaches at the airport.
LOCAL TRAFFIC: Aircraft operating in the traffi c
pattern or within sight of the tower, or aircraft known
to be departing or arriving from the local practice
areas, or aircraft executing practice instrument
Glossary of Terms
Airport ConsultantsA - 9
approach procedures. Typically, this includes touch
and-go training operations.
LOCALIZER: The component of an ILS which
provides course guidance to the runway.
LOCALIZER TYPE DIRECTIONAL AID
(LDA): A facility of comparable utility and accuracy
to a localizer, but is not part of a complete ILS and is
not aligned with the runway.
LONG RANGE NAVIGATION SYSTEM
(LORAN): Long range navigation is an electronic
navigational aid which determines aircraft position
and speed by measuring the difference in the time
of reception of synchronized pulse signals from
two fi xed transmitters. Loran is used for en route
navigation.
LOW INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS: The lowest
clas- sifi cation in terms of intensity or brightness for
lights designated for use in delineating the sides of a
runway.
M
MEDIUM INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTS:
The middle classifi cation in terms of intensity or
brightness for lights designated for use in delineating
the sides of a runway.
MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM (MLS):
An instrument approach and landing system that
provides precision guidance in azimuth, elevation,
and distance measurement.
MILITARY OPERATIONS: Aircraft operations
that are performed in military aircraft.
MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA): See
special-use airspace
MILITARY TRAINING ROUTE: An air route
depicted on aeronautical charts for the conduct of
military fl ight training at speeds above 250 knots.
MISSED APPROACH COURSE (MAC): The
fl ight route to be followed if, after an instrument
approach, a landing is not affected, and occurring
normally:
1. When the aircraft has descended to the decision
height and has not established visual contact; or
2. When directed by air traffi c control to pull up or to go
around again.
MOVEMENT AREA: The runways, taxiways,
and other areas of an airport which are utilized for
taxiing/hover taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff, and landing
of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps and parking
areas. At those airports with a tower, air traffi c control
clearance is required for entry onto the movement area.
N
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM: The network
of air traffi c control facilities, air traffi c control areas,
and navigational facilities through the U.S.
NATIONAL PLAN OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT
SYSTEMS: The national airport system plan
developed by the Secretary of Transportation on
a biannual basis for the development of public use
airports to meet national air transportation needs.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
BOARD: A federal government organization
established to investigate and determine the probable
cause of transportation accidents, to recommend
equipment and procedures to enhance transportation
safety, and to review on appeal the suspension or
revocation of any certifi cates or licenses issued by the
Secretary of Transportation.
NAUTICAL MILE: A unit of length used in
navigation which is equivalent to the distance spanned
by one minute of arc in latitude, that is, 1,852 meters
or 6,076 feet. It is equivalent to approximately 1.15
statute mile.
NAVAID: A term used to describe any electrical or
visual air navigational aids, lights, signs, and associated
supporting equipment (i.e. PAPI, VASI, ILS, etc.)
NAVIGATIONAL AID: A facility used as, available
for use as, or designed for use as an aid to air
navigation.
NOISE CONTOUR: A continuous line on a map of
the airport vicinity connecting all points of the same
noise exposure level.
Glossary of Terms
Airport ConsultantsA - 10
NON-DIRECTIONAL BEACON (NDB): A beacon
transmitting nondirectional signals whereby the
pilot of an aircraft equipped with direction fi nding
equipment can determine his or her bearing to and
from the radio beacon and home on, or track to,
the station. When the radio beacon is installed in
conjunction with the Instrument Landing System
marker, it is normally called a Compass Locator.
NON-PRECISION APPROACH PROCEDURE:
A standard instrument approach procedure in which
no electronic glide slope is provided, such as VOR,
TACAN, NDB, or LOC.
NOTICE TO AIRMEN: A notice containing
information concerning the establishment, condition,
or change in any component of or hazard in the
National Airspace System, the
timely knowledge of which is considered essential to
personnel concerned with fl ight operations.
O
OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA): An area on the
ground centered on a runway, taxiway, or taxilane
centerline provided to enhance the safety of aircraft
operations by having the area free of objects, except
for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air
navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes.
OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ): The airspace
below 150 feet above the established airport elevation
and along the runway and extended runway centerline
that is required to be kept clear of all objects, except
for frangible visual NAVAIDs that need to be located
in the OFZ because of their function, in order to
provide clearance for aircraft landing or taking off
from the runway, and for missed approaches.
ONE-ENGINE INOPERABLE SURFACE: A
surface emanating from the runway end at a slope
ratio of 62.5:1. Air carrier airports are required to
maintain a technical drawing of this surface depicting
any object penetrations by January 1, 2010.
OPERATION: The take-off, landing, or touch-and-
go procedure by an aircraft on a runway at an airport.
OUTER MARKER (OM): An ILS navigation facility
in the terminal area navigation system located four to
seven miles from the runway edge on the extended
centerline, indicating to the pilot that he/she is passing
over the facility and can begin fi nal approach.
P
PILOT CONTROLLED LIGHTING: Runway
lighting systems at an airport that are controlled by
activating the microphone of a pilot on a specifi ed
radio frequency.
PRECISION APPROACH: A standard instrument
approach procedure which provides runway
alignment and glide slope (descent) information. It is
categorized as follows:
• CATEGORY I (CAT I): A precision approach
which provides for approaches with a decision
height of not less than 200 feet and visibility not
less than 1/2 mile or Runway Visual Range (RVR)
2400 (RVR 1800) with operative touchdown zone
and runway centerline lights.
• CATEGORY II (CAT II): A precision
approach which provides for approaches with
a decision height of not less than 100 feet and
visibility not less than 1200 feet RVR.
• CATEGORY III (CAT III): A precision approach
which provides for approaches with minima less
than Category II.
PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATOR
(PAPI): A lighting system providing visual
approach slope guidance to aircraft during a
landing approach. It is similar to a VASI but
provides a sharper transition between the colored
indicator lights.
PRECISION APPROACH RADAR: A radar
facility in the terminal air traffi c control system used
to detect and display with a high degree of accuracy
the direction, range, and elevation of an aircraft on the
fi nal approach to a runway.
PRECISION OBJECT FREE AREA (POFA): An
area centered on the extended runway centerline,
beginning at the runway threshold and extending
behind the runway threshold that is 200 feet long
by 800 feet wide. The POFA is a clearing standard
which requires the POFA to be kept clear of above
ground objects protruding above the runway safety
Glossary of Terms
Airport ConsultantsA - 11
RNAV: Area navigation - airborne equipment
which permits fl ights over determined tracks within
prescribed accuracy tolerances without the need to
overfl y ground-based navigation facilities. Used en
route and for approaches to an airport.
RUNWAY: A defi ned rectangular area on an airport
prepared for aircraft landing and takeoff. Runways
are normally numbered in relation to their magnetic
direction, rounded off to the nearest 10 degrees. For
example, a runway with a magnetic heading of 180
would be designated Runway 18. The runway heading
on the opposite end of the runway is 180 degrees
from that runway end. For example, the opposite
runway heading for Runway 18 would be Runway 36
(magnetic heading of 360). Aircraft can takeoff or land
from either end of a runway, depending upon wind
direction.
RUNWAY ALIGNMENT INDICATOR LIGHT:
A series of high intensity sequentially fl ashing
lights installed on the extended centerline of the
runway usually in conjunction with an approach
lighting system.
RUNWAY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS (REIL):
Two synchronized fl ashing lights, one on each side
of the runway threshold, which provide rapid and
positive identifi cation of the approach end of a
particular runway.
RUNWAY GRADIENT: The average slope, measured
in percent, between the two ends of a runway.
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ): An
area off the runway end to enhance the protection
of people and property on the ground. The RPZ is
trapezoidal in shape. Its dimensions are determined
by the aircraft approach speed and runway approach
type and minima.
RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA): A defi ned
surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable
for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the
event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from
the runway.
RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE (RVZ): An area
on the airport to be kept clear of permanent objects
so that there is an unobstructed line of- site from
any point fi ve feet above the runway centerline to
area edge elevation (except for frangible NAVAIDS).
The POFA applies to all new authorized instrument
approach procedures with less than 3/4 mile visibility.
PRIMARY AIRPORT: A commercial service airport
that enplanes at least 10,000 annual passengers.
PRIMARY SURFACE: An imaginary obstruction
limiting surface defi ned in FAR Part 77 that is
specifi ed as a rectangular surface longitudinally
centered about a runway. The specifi c dimensions of
this surface are a function of the types of approaches
existing or planned for the runway.
PROHIBITED AREA: See special-use airspace.
PVC: Poor visibility and ceiling. Used in determining
Annual Service Volume. PVC conditions exist when
the cloud ceiling is less than 500 feet and visibility is
less than one mile.
R
RADIAL: A navigational signal generated by a
Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range or
VORTAC station that is measured as an azimuth
from the station.
REGRESSION ANALYSIS: A statistical technique
that seeks to identify and quantify the relationships
between factors associated with a forecast.
REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUTLET
(RCO): An unstaffed transmitter receiver/facility
remotely controlled by air traffi c personnel.
RCOs serve fl ight service stations (FSSs). RCOs
were established to provide ground-to-ground
communications between air traffi c control specialists
and pilots at satellite airports for delivering en route
clearances, issuing departure authorizations, and
acknowledging instrument fl ight rules cancellations
or departure/landing times.
REMOTE TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER (RTR):
See remote communications outlet. RTRs serve
ARTCCs.
RELIEVER AIRPORT: An airport to serve general
aviation aircraft which might otherwise use a congested
air-carrier served airport.
RESTRICTED AREA: See special-use airspace.
Glossary of Terms
Airport ConsultantsA - 12
any point fi ve feet above an intersecting runway
centerline.
RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR): An
instrumentally derived value, in feet, representing the
horizontal distance a pilot can see down the runway
from the runway end.
S
SCOPE: The document that identifi es and defi nes the
tasks, emphasis, and level of effort associated with a
project or study.
SEGMENTED CIRCLE: A system of visual indicators
designed to provide traffi c pattern information at
airports without operating control towers.
SHOULDER: An area adjacent to the edge of paved
runways, taxiways, or aprons providing a transition
between the pavement and the adjacent surface;
support for aircraft running off the pavement;
enhanced drainage; and blast protection. The shoulder
does not necessarily need to be paved.
SLANT-RANGE DISTANCE: The straight line
distance between an aircraft and a point on the ground.
SMALL AIRPLANE: An airplane that has a maximum
certifi ed takeoff weight of up to 12,500 pounds.
SPECIAL-USE AIRSPACE: Airspace of defi ned
dimensions identifi ed by a surface area wherein
activities must be confi ned because of their nature
and/or wherein limitations may be imposed upon
aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities.
Special-use airspace classifi cations include:
• ALERT AREA: Airspace which may contain
a high volume of pilot training activities or an
unusual type of aerial activity, neither of which is
hazardous to aircraft.
• CONTROLLED FIRING AREA: Airspace
wherein activities are conducted under
conditions so controlled as to eliminate hazards to
nonparticipating aircraft and to ensure the safety of
persons or property on the ground.
• MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA):
Designated airspace with defi ned vertical and
lateral dimensions established outside Class A
airspace to separate/segregate certain military
activities from instrument fl ight rule (IFR) traffi c
and to identify for visual fl ight rule (VFR) traffi c
where these activities are conducted.
• PROHIBITED AREA: Designated airspace
within which the fl ight of aircraft is prohibited.
• RESTRICTED AREA: Airspace designated
under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 73,
within which the fl ight of aircraft, while not wholly
prohibited, is subject to restriction. Most restricted
areas are designated joint use. When not in use
by the using agency, IFR/VFR operations can be
authorized by the controlling air traffi c control
facility.
• WARNING AREA: Airspace which may contain
hazards to nonparticipating aircraft.
STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE
(SID): A preplanned coded air traffi c control IFR
departure routing, preprinted for pilot use in graphic
and textual form only.
STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE
PROCEDURES: A published standard fl ight
procedure to be utilized following takeoff to provide
a transition between the airport and the terminal area
or en route airspace.
STANDARD TERMINAL ARRIVAL ROUTE
(STAR): A preplanned coded air traffi c control IFR
arrival routing, preprinted for pilot use in graphic and
textual or textual form only.
STOP-AND-GO: A procedure wherein an aircraft
will land, make a complete stop on the runway, and
then commence a takeoff from that point. A stop-and-
go is recorded as two operations: one operation for
the landing and one operation for the takeoff.
STOPWAY: An area beyond the end of a takeoff
runway that is designed to support an aircraft during
an aborted takeoff without causing structural damage
to the aircraft. It is not to be used for takeoff, landing,
or taxiing by aircraft.
STRAIGHT-IN LANDING/APPROACH: A
landing made on a runway aligned within 30 degrees
Glossary of Terms
Airport ConsultantsA - 13
two operations: one operation for the landing and one
operation for the takeoff.
TOUCHDOWN: The point at which a landing
aircraft makes contact with the runway surface.
TOUCHDOWN AND LIFT-OFF AREA (TLOF):
A load bearing, generally paved area, normally
centered in the FATO, on which the helicopter lands
or takes off.
TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ): The fi rst 3,000 feet
of the runway beginning at the threshold.
TOUCHDOWN ZONE ELEVATION (TDZE):
The highest elevation in the touchdown zone.
TOUCHDOWN ZONE (TDZ) LIGHTING: Two
rows of transverse light bars located symmetrically
about the runway centerline normally at 100- foot
intervals. The basic system extends 3,000 feet along
the runway.
TRAFFIC PATTERN: The traffi c fl ow that is
prescribed for aircraft landing at or taking off from an
airport. The components of a typical traffi c pattern are
the upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind leg, base
leg, and fi nal approach.
U
UNCONTROLLED AIRPORT: An airport without
an air traffi c control tower at which the control of
Visual Flight Rules traffi c is not exercised.
UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE: Airspace within
which aircraft are not subject to air traffi c control.
UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION (UNICOM):
A nongovernment communication facility which
may provide airport information at certain airports.
Locations and frequencies of UNICOM’s are shown
on aeronautical charts and publications.
of the fi nal approach course following completion of
an instrument approach.
T
TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION (TACAN):
An ultrahigh frequency electronic air navigation
system which provides suitably-equipped aircraft a
continuous indication of bearing and distance to the
TACAN station.
TAKEOFF RUNWAY AVAILABLE (TORA):
See declared distances.
TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA):
See declared distances.
TAXILANE: The portion of the aircraft parking
area used for access between taxiways and aircraft
parking positions.
TAXIWAY: A defi ned path established for the taxiing
of aircraft from one part of an airport to another.
TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA (TSA): A defi ned
surface alongside the taxiway prepared or suitable
for reducing the risk of damage to an airplane
unintentionally departing the taxiway.
TERMINAL INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES:
Published fl ight procedures for conducting
instrument approaches to runways under instrument
meteorological conditions.
TERMINAL RADAR APPROACH CONTROL:
An element of the air traffi c control system responsible
for monitoring the en-route and terminal segment of
air traffi c in the airspace surrounding airports with
moderate to high levels of air traffi c.
TETRAHEDRON: A device used as a landing
direction indicator. The small end of the tetrahedron
points in the direction of landing.
THRESHOLD: The beginning of that portion of the
runway available for landing. In some instances the
landing threshold may be displaced.
TOUCH-AND-GO: An operation by an aircraft that
lands and departs on a runway without stopping or
exiting the runway. A touch-and go is recorded as
Glossary of Terms
Airport ConsultantsA - 14
UPWIND LEG: A fl ight
path parallel to the landing
runway in the direction
of landing. See “traffi c
pattern.”
V
VECTOR: A heading issued to an aircraft to provide
navigational guidance by radar.
VERY HIGH FREQUENCY/
OMNIDIRECTIONAL RANGE (VOR): A ground-
based electronic navigation aid transmitting very high
frequency navigation signals, 360 degrees in azimuth,
oriented from magnetic north. Used as the basis for
navigation in the national airspace system. The VOR
periodically identifi es itself by Morse Code and may
have an additional voice identifi cation feature.
VERY HIGH FREQUENCY OMNI-
DIRECTIONAL RANGE/ TACTICAL AIR
NAVIGATION (VORTAC): A navigation aid
providing VOR azimuth, TACAN azimuth, and
TACAN distance-measuring equipment (DME) at
one site.
VICTOR AIRWAY: A control area or portion thereof
established in the form of a corridor, the centerline of
which is defi ned by radio navigational aids.
VISUAL APPROACH: An approach wherein an
aircraft on an IFR fl ight plan, operating in VFR
conditions under the control of an air traffi c control
facility and having an air traffi c control authorization,
may proceed to the airport of destination in VFR
conditions.
VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDICATOR
(VASI): An airport lighting facility providing vertical
visual approach slope guidance to aircraft during
approach to landing by radiating a directional pattern
of high intensity red and white focused light beams
which indicate to the pilot that he is on path if he sees
red/white, above path if white/white, and below path
if red/red. Some airports serving large aircraft have
three-bar VASI’s which provide two visual guide
paths to the same runway.
VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR): Rules that
govern the procedures for conducting fl ight under
visual conditions. The term VFR is also used in the
United States to indicate weather conditions that are
equal to or greater than minimum VFR requirements.
In addition, it is used by pilots and controllers to
indicate type of fl ight plan.
VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS:
Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of
specifi c visibility and ceiling conditions which are
equal to or greater than the threshold values for
instrument meteorological conditions.
VOR: See “Very High Frequency Omnidirectional
Range Station.”
VORTAC: See “Very High Frequency Omnidirectional
Range Station/Tactical Air Navigation.”
W
WARNING AREA: See special-use airspace.
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM: An
enhancement of the Global Positioning System that
includes integrity broadcasts, differential corrections,
and additional ranging signals for the purpose of
providing the accuracy, integrity, availability, and
continuity required to support all phases of fl ight.
Airport ConsultantsA - 15
AC: advisory circular
ADF: automatic direction fi nder
ADG: airplane design group
AFSS: automated fl ight service station
AGL: above ground level
AIA: annual instrument approach
AIP: Airport Improvement Program
AIR-21: Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century
ALS: approach lighting system
ALSF-1: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach
lighting system with sequenced fl ashers
(CAT I confi guration)
ALSF-2: standard 2,400-foot high intensity approach
lighting system with sequenced fl ashers
(CAT II confi guration)
AOA: Aircraft Operation Area
APV: instrument approach procedure with vertical
guidance
ARC: airport reference code
ARFF: aircraft rescue and fi re fi ghting
ARP: airport reference point
ARTCC: air route traffi c control center
ASDA: accelerate-stop distance available
ASR: airport surveillance radar
ASOS: automated surface observation station
ATCT: airport traffi c control tower
ATIS: automated terminal information service
AVGAS: aviation gasoline - typically 100 low lead (100L)
AWOS: automated weather observation station
BRL: building restriction line
CFR: Code of Federal Regulation
CIP: capital improvement program
DME: distance measuring equipment
DNL: day-night noise level
DWL: runway weight bearing capacity of aircraft
with dual-wheel type landing gear
DTWL: runway weight bearing capacity of aircraft
with dual-tandem type landing gear
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
FAR: Federal Aviation Regulation
FBO: fi xed base operator
FY: fi scal year
GPS: global positioning system
GS: glide slope
HIRL: high intensity runway edge lighting
IFR: instrument fl ight rules (FAR Part 91)
ILS: instrument landing system
IM: inner marker
LDA: localizer type directional aid
LDA: landing distance available
LIRL: low intensity runway edge lighting
LMM: compass locator at ILS outer marker
LORAN: long range navigation
MALS: midium intensity approach lighting system
with indicator lights
Abbreviations
Abbreviations
Airport ConsultantsA - 16
MIRL: medium intensity runway edge lighting
MITL: medium intensity taxiway edge lighting
MLS: microwave landing system
MM: middle marker
MOA: military operations area
MSL: mean sea level
NAVAID: navigational aid
NDB: nondirectional radio beacon
NM: nautical mile (6,076.1 feet)
NPES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
NPIAS: National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
NPRM: notice of proposed rule making
ODALS: omnidirectional approach lighting system
OFA: object free area
OFZ: obstacle free zone
OM: outer marker
PAC: planning advisory committee
PAPI: precision approach path indicator
PFC: porous friction course
PFC: passenger facility charge
PCL: pilot-controlled lighting
PIW public information workshop
PLASI: pulsating visual approach slope indicator
POFA: precision object free area
PVASI: pulsating/steady visual approach slope indicator
PVC: poor visibility and ceiling
RCO: remote communications outlet
REIL: runway end identifi er lighting
RNAV: area navigation
RPZ: runway protection zone
RSA: runway safety area
RTR: remote transmitter/receiver
RVR: runway visibility range
RVZ: runway visibility zone
SALS: short approach lighting system
SASP: state aviation system plan
SEL: sound exposure level
SID: standard instrument departure
SM: statute mile (5,280 feet)
SRE: snow removal equipment
SSALF: simplifi ed short approach lighting system
with runway alignment indicator lights
STAR: standard terminal arrival route
SWL: runway weight bearing capacity for aircraft
with single-wheel tandem type landing gear
TACAN: tactical air navigational aid
TAF: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Terminal Area Forecast
TLOF: Touchdown and lift-off
TDZ: touchdown zone
TDZE: touchdown zone elevation
TODA: takeoff distance available
Abbreviations
Airport ConsultantsA - 17
TORA: takeoff runway available
TRACON: terminal radar approach control
VASI: visual approach slope indicator
VFR: visual fl ight rules (FAR Part 91)
VHF: very high frequency
VOR: very high frequency omni-directional range
VORTAC: VOR and TACAN collocated
Appendix B
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
B-1
Appendix B
ENVIRONMENTAL Master Plan
EVALUATION Kona International Airport at Keahole
A review of the potential environmental impacts associated with proposed airport
projects is an essential consideration in the airport master planning process. The
primary purpose of this evaluation is to review the planned improvement program
for Kona International Airport at Keahole (KOA) to determine whether the planned
actions could, individually or collectively, have the potential to significantly affect
the quality of the environment.
Construction of the improvements depicted on the Airport Layout Plan, developed
as part of this master plan, will require compliance with the National Environmen-
tal Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, to receive federal financial assistance.
For projects not categorically excluded under Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, compliance
with NEPA is generally satisfied through the preparation of an Environmental As-
sessment (EA). In instances where significant environmental impacts are expected,
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be required. Projects that normally
require an Environmental Assessment include helicopter facilities, land acquisition,
major runway strengthening or extension, the conversion of prime or unique farm-
land to non-agricultural use, any airport project that is not normally categorically
excluded that involves the dredging or filling of any waterway or wetland. Addition-
ally, any normally categorically excluded action involving extraordinary circum-
B-2
stances as determined by the FAA requires an Environmental Assessment. A list of
these actions is presented in Table B1.
TABLE B1
Normally Categorically Excluded Actions That
May Involve Extraordinary Circumstances
Airfield barriers
Airfield improvements
Aircraft parking areas
Roads
Runways
Storage areas
Airfield lighting
Cargo building
Conveying federally owned land
Deicing/anti-icing facility
Fill activity
General landscaping
Heliport at an existing airport
Low emission technology equipment
Non-radar facilities
Noise barriers
Noise compatibility programs
Non-U.S. waters
On-airport obstruction treatment
Ownership change by purchase or transfer
Parking areas
Passenger handling building
Radar installation
Releasing airport land
Relocation
Repair and maintenance
Replacement structures
Restrictions, aircraft access
Runway threshold
Security
Transfer land by long term lease
U.S. Waters in which categorically excluded
actions are proposed
Utility line construction, temporary
Wildlife Hazard Management Plan
implementation
Source: FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Instructions
for Airports
In addition to federal requirements regarding environmental documentation, the
State of Hawaii has adopted laws concerning the evaluation of a project’s impact on
the environment. Hawaii Revised Statutes require that an Environmental Assess-
ment must be prepared for any proposed action that triggers the EIS process.
There are nine types of actions which can trigger the environmental review process.
Airport development projects will be subject to the review process. The State of
Hawaii process is similar to the federal process and requires that all affected agen-
cies, individuals, and organizations are consulted. Like the federal process, there is
also a provision for an Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared when the
lead agency determines that the project will have a significant impact. It is recom-
mended that if state and federal environmental documentation is necessary, the
public consultation component of each document should be conducted at the same
time.
While this appendix to the master plan is not designed to satisfy the state or NEPA
requirements for a categorical exclusion, EA, or EIS, it is intended to supply a pre-
liminary review of environmental issues that would need to be analyzed in more de-
tail within the NEPA process. This evaluation considers all environmental
B-3
categories required for the NEPA process as outlined in FAA Order 1050.1E, Envi-
ronmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and FAA Order 5050.4B, National En-
vironmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions.
The following sections describe potential impacts to the environmental resources (as
outlined within Appendix A of FAA Order 1050.1E) as development at the airport is
undertaken. Exhibit 5A in Chapter Five depicts the proposed future development of
the airport. Further, Exhibit 5L depicts the ultimate land use plan for the airport
property.
AIR QUALITY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted air quality standards
that specify the maximum permissible near-term and long-term concentrations of
various air contaminants. Primary air quality standards are established at levels to
protect the public health from harm with an adequate margin of safety. Secondary
standards are set at levels necessary to protect the public health and welfare from
any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. All areas of the country are
required to demonstrate attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards (NAAQS). The federal air quality standards focus on limiting the quantity of
six criteria pollutants:
Ozone (O3)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Dioxide (SOx)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx)
Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
Lead (Pb)
The Hawaii Department of Health has adopted more stringent ambient air quality
standards than the federal standards. The standards for each pollutant are pre-
sented in Table B2. The Hawaii standards include an additional category, Hydro-
gen Sulfide (H2S). Hydrogen Sulphide is a by-product of geothermal energy produc-
tion processes used on the Hawaiian Islands.
Air contaminants can aggravate existing respiratory and cardiopulmonary diseases.
The standards establish the level of air quality which is necessary to protect the
public health and welfare including, among other things, effects on crops, vegeta-
tion, wildlife, visibility, and climate, as well as effects on materials, economic val-
ues, and on personal comfort and well-being.
Potentially significant air quality impacts associated with an FAA project or action
would occur if the project or action exceeds one or more of the NAAQS for any of the
time periods analyzed.
B-4
TABLE B2
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Hawaii Federal
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1-hour
8-hour
9 ppm
4.4 ppm
35 ppm
9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx)
Annual
0.04 ppm
0.053 ppm
Ozone (O3)
8-hour
0.08 ppm
0.08 ppm*
Lead (Pb) in micrograms
per cubic meter
1.5 μg/m3
1.5 μg/m3
Particulate Matter (PM10)
24-hour
Annual
150 μg/m3
50 μg/m3
150 μg/m3
-
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
24-hour
Annual
-
-
35 μg/m3
15 μg/m3
Sulfur Dioxide (SOx)
3-hour
24-hour
Annual
0.5 ppm
0.14 ppm
0.03 ppm
-
0.14 ppm
0.03 ppm
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
1-hour
0.025 μg/m3
-
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Hawaii Department of Health
μg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter of air
ppm – parts per million
* - effective 5/27/08
According to the EPA Green Book, published on March 12, 2008, Hawaii County is
in attainment for all criteria pollutants. In regards to state requirements, the Ha-
waii Department of Health has issued a notice that Hawaii County has recorded in-
creased levels of PM2.5 and SO2 on multiple days since April 1, 2008. Within the Ko-
na area, PM2.5 levels have exceeded the 24-hour threshold on four occasions as of
May 2, 2008.
Additional air quality analysis is needed to determine potential impacts to air quali-
ty that may result from implementation of the various planned development
projects at the airport, including demolition in preparation for airport improve-
ments, construction of new runway and apron pavement, and the helipad facility
north of the existing terminal. A number of projects planned at the airport could
have temporary air quality impacts during construction. Emissions from the opera-
tion of construction vehicles and fugitive dust from pavement removal are common
air pollutants during construction. However, with the use of best management
practices (BMPs) during construction, these air quality impacts can be significantly
lessened.
B-5
COMPATIBLE LAND USE AND NOISE
An airport’s compatibility with surrounding land uses is usually associated with the
extent of the airport’s noise impacts. Airport projects such as those needed to ac-
commodate fleet mix changes, an increase in operations at the airport, or air traffic
changes are examples of activities which can alter noise impacts and affect sur-
rounding land uses. Typically, if the noise analysis concludes that there is no sig-
nificant impact, a similar conclusion usually can be made with respect to compatible
land use. FAA Orders 1050.1E and 5050.4B define a significant noise impact as one
which would occur if proposed airport development would cause noise-sensitive
areas to experience an increase in noise of 1.5 DNL or more, at or above the 65 DNL
noise exposure level when compared to the no action alternative for the same time-
frame. The FAA’s Integrated Noise Model describes aircraft noise in the Yearly Day-
Night Average Sound Level (DNL). DNL accounts for the increased sensitivity to
noise at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and is the metric preferred by the FAA, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), among others, as an appropriate measure of cumulative noise
exposure.
Exhibit B1 depicts the long range contours for KOA. The noise exposure contours,
developed under the airport’s 2008 Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study, are based
on the planned ultimate runway configuration and long range aviation forecasts de-
veloped as part of this airport master plan. As indicated on the exhibit, the long
range 65 DNL noise contour would extend off airport property to the north and
south. As depicted on the exhibit, no noise-sensitive development, such as homes,
religious institutions, or schools, is currently located within this 65 DNL significant
noise impact area. Planned development within the vicinity of the airport includes
residential development south of the airport. An avigation easement has been is-
sued for the proposed development areas within the 60 DNL noise contour. Any
further development within the noise exposure contour areas is subject to the State
of Hawaii fair disclosure requirements which state that any residential property
that lies within the boundaries of the noise exposure are shown on the Part 150
noise exposure maps for any public airport and must require a fair disclosure notice.
Further information regarding the preparation of the noise exposure contours and
their impacts can be found in the KOA Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study.
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Construction impacts typically relate to the effects on specific impact categories,
such as air quality or noise, during construction. The use of best management prac-
tices (BMPs) during construction is typically a requirement of construction-related
permits such as a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) per-
mit. Use of these measures typically alleviates potential resource impacts.
B-6
Short-term construction-related noise impacts could occur with implementation of
the proposed project as there are scattered residences in the vicinity of the airport.
However, these impacts typically do not arise unless construction is being undertak-
en during early morning, evening, or nighttime hours. Furthermore, the proposed
projects will be undertaken on a demand basis and will not be constructed simulta-
neously.
Construction-related air quality impacts can be expected during airport improve-
ment projects. Air emissions related to construction activities will be short-term in
nature and will be included in the air emission inventory, if one is requested.
FARMLAND
Under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), federal agencies are directed to
identify and take into account the adverse effects of federal programs on the preser-
vation of farmland, to consider appropriate alternative actions which could lessen
adverse effects, and to assure that such federal programs are, to the extent practic-
able, compatible with state or local government programs and policies to protect
farmland. The FPPA guidelines apply to farmland classified as prime or unique, or
of state or local importance as determined by the appropriate government agency,
with concurrence by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Impacts under the FPPA will not occur as a result of the planned developments at
the airport. The State of Hawaii Land Study Bureau, Detailed Land Classification
Report for the Island of Hawaii indicates that the undeveloped portions of the air-
port are designated at Class E, which is very poor and least suited for agriculture.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, National Resources Con-
servation Service, the soils within the vicinity of the airport are classified as `a`a
lava flows (rLW) and pahoehoe lava flows (rLV), neither of which is considered sup-
porting, prime, or unique farmlands.
FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS
A number of acts and executive orders have been put into place to protect threat-
ened or endangered species and their habitat. Following is a brief description of
these various levels of protection:
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended, applies to federal
agency actions and sets forth requirements for consultation to determine if the
proposed action “may affect” a federally endangered or threatened species. If an
agency determines that an action “may affect” a federally protected species,
then Section 7(a)(2) requires each agency to consult with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as
06MP06-B1-12/10/08
Exhibit B1LONG RANGE NOISE EXPOSURECONTOURS WITH LAND USE
e N O R T H
n
QUEEN KAAHUMANU HWY
KAIMINANI DR
OTE
C R
D
PAOO ST
HULIKOA DR
LAUI ST
KEALAKEHE PKWY
PUKIAWE ST
KAKAHIAKA ST
KEAHOLE ST
KA N A L ANI S T
ALA KAPUA ST
KUPIPI ST
M
A
IA
U
S
T
H
O
NO
KO
HAU
ST
AULEPE ST
MAKAMAKA ST
O
L
O
W
A
L
U
S
T
K
AU
H
OL
A
ST
K A M A N U S T
ALLIED QUARRY RD
OLD DUMP ACCESS RD
KUPALOKE ST
MAHEU CIR
HAU NANI ST NUUANU PL
WAIPAHE ST
P a c i f i c O c e a n
60
65
7075
55
70
75
60
65 70
75
7075
County of Hawaii, Planning DepartmentGeographic Information System.Coffman Associates Analysis.
Source:
KATR
LEGEND
Airport Property
Ultimate Runways
Residential
Long Range Noise Exposure Contour,(65 to 75 DNL)
Long Range Noise Exposure Contour,(55 to 60 DNL)
Kona Auxiliary Training Runway (KATR)Schooln
Noise-Sensitive Instituitons
Non Noise-Sensitive Land Use
Water
Growth Risk Areas
0 3,500
Feet
B-7
appropriate, to ensure that any action the agency authorizes, funds, or carries
out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed en-
dangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modifica-
tion of critical habitat. If a species has been listed as a candidate species, Sec-
tion 7 (a)(4) states that each agency must confer with the FWS and/or NMFS.
The Sikes Act and various amendments authorize states to prepare statewide
wildlife conservation plans, and the Department of Defense (DOD) to prepare
similar plans, for resources under their jurisdiction. Airport improvement
projects should be checked for consistency with the State or DOD Wildlife Con-
servation Plans where such plans exist.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that agencies consult with the
state wildlife agencies and the Department of the Interior concerning the con-
servation of wildlife resources where the water of any stream or other water
body is proposed to be controlled or modified by a federal agency or any public or
private agency operating under a federal permit.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits private parties and federal
agencies in certain judicial circuits from intentionally taking a migratory bird,
their eggs, or nests. The MBTA prohibits activities which would harm migrato-
ry birds, their eggs, or nests unless the Secretary of the Interior authorizes such
activities under a special permit.
Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species, directs federal agencies to use rele-
vant programs and authorities to the extent practicable and subject to available
resources to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for restora-
tion of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been in-
vaded. The FAA is to identify proposed actions that may involve risks of intro-
ducing invasive species on native habitat and populations. “Introduction” is the
intentional or unintentional escape, release, dissemination, or placement of a
species into an ecosystem as a result of human activity. “Invasive species” are
alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environ-
mental harm or harm to human health.
According to FAA Order 1050.1E, a significant impact to listed threatened or en-
dangered species would occur when the FWS or NMFS determines that the pro-
posed action would likely jeopardize the continued existence of the species in ques-
tion or would result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for
the species. However, an action need not involve a threat to extinction to federally
listed species to result in a significant impact. Lesser impacts, including impacts on
non-listed species, could also constitute a significant impact.
B-8
As discussed in Chapter One, the State of Hawaii has the largest number of federal-
ly listed endangered and threatened species. A total of 394 species are listed for the
State of Hawaii, 294 of which are plants. Of the remaining 100 species, 26 are
known to be present on the Big Island. Table B3 lists the known threatened and
endangered animal species for Hawaii County. According to maps prepared by the
Hawaii Department of Fish and Wildlife, the airport environs are classified as an
area with low concentration of threatened and endangered plant species.
TABLE B3
Hawaii County Threatened and Endangered Animals
Species Status
Mammals
Bat, Hawaiian hoary; Ōpe`ape`a Endangered
Whale, humpback; Koholā Endangered
Hawaiian monk seal; Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua Endangered
Birds
Duck, Hawaiian; Koloa maoli Endangered
Goose, Hawaiian; Nēnē Endangered
Hawk, Hawaiian; `Io Endangered
Crow, Hawaiian; `Alalā Endangered
Coot, Hawaiian; `Alae ke`oke`o Endangered
Moorhen, Common; Hawaiian gallinule; `Alae `ula Endangered
Akia pōlā`au Endangered
Stilt, Black-necked; Hawaiian stilt; Ae`o Endangered
Palila Endangered
Ākepa, Hawai`i Endangered
Creeper, Hawai`i Endangered
Ō`ū Endangered
Petrel, Dark-rumped; Hawaiian Petrel; `Ua`u Endangered
Shearwater, Newell's Threatened
Reptiles
Turtle, Loggerhead sea; (incidental in Hawai`i) Threatened
Turtle, Green sea; Honu Threatened
Turtle, Leatherback sea; (incidental in Hawai`i) Endangered
Turtle, Hawksbill; `Ea Endangered
Turtle, Olive ridley sea; (incidental in Hawai`i) Threatened
Anthropods
Moth, Blackburn's sphinx Endangered
Picture-wing fly, Hawaii (Drosophila heteroneura) Endangered
Picture-wing fly, Hawaii (Drosophila mulli) Threatened
Picture-wing fly, Hawaii (Drosophila ochrobasis) Endangered
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Pacific Islands Endangered Species
As previously stated, land cover near the airport consists primarily of `a`a and pa-
hoehoe lava flows. The resulting vegetation is characterized as Lowland Vegetation
Community. The habitat is dominated by fountain grass, an alien African grass.
There is minimal vegetation found on the lava flows, especially along the western
B-9
and northern portions of the northeast side of the airport. This habitat is not iden-
tified as a critical habitat within the State of Hawaii.
According to the Final Environmental Assessment for Construction and Operation of
a C-17 Short Austere Airfield Within the State of Hawaii, October 2004, a faunal
survey was completed for the airport environs in December 1999 to determine if
habitat is present that would support the existence of any state or federally listed
endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate avian or mammalian species. The
survey indicated a lack of habitat for any federally listed species. During the field
survey, one mammalian species, an Indian mongoose was observed. This species is
not a federally listed species. Additionally, 14 avian species were observed, 13 of
which are alien species to the Hawaiian Islands. The Pacific Golden Plover, a na-
tive Hawaiian species, was observed, but is not a federally listed species. The Ha-
waiian Stilt, an endangered species, has been observed within the airport bounda-
ries, but was not observed during the 1999 field study. A field survey was con-
ducted by the United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services as part of
a Wildlife Hazard Assessment for KOA. Survey findings indicate the presence of
Hawaiian Stilts on and near the airport. During the field observations, which oc-
curred periodically between August 2000 and September 2001, there were three
Hawaiian Stilt sightings within the airport boundary. Over 200 sightings were
noted at the Cyanotech facility adjacent to the airport. Cyanotech has an artificial
breeding area for the Hawaiian Stilt which consists of a small pond constructed to
attract the birds. Additionally, a Hawaiian Stilt nest was observed approximately
200 feet from the runway. Due to wildlife hazard concerns, this nest was removed
with permission from the site.
The State of Hawaii has prepared a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
(CWCS) as its statewide wildlife conservation plan which identifies the State’s spe-
cies of greatest conservation need. Prior to proceeding with airport development
projects, the CWCS should be consulted to ensure consistency with the state’s con-
servation goals.
Prior to project implementation in previously undisturbed areas, including the
planned helipad facility north of the terminal complex and the planned parallel
runway, further coordination with the FWS and Hawaii Department of Fish and
Wildlife is required. It is likely that field surveys will be required to determine the
presence of listed species. Projects planned to occur in previously disturbed areas,
such as the planned apron expansion and the connecting taxiways, may not require
field surveys.
B-10
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, POLLUTION
PREVENTION, AND SOLID WASTE
The airport will need to continue to comply with a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which will ensure that pollution control
measures are in place at the airport. As development occurs at the airport, the
permit will need to be modified to reflect the additional impervious surfaces and
stormwater retention facilities. The addition and removal of impervious surfaces
may require modifications to this permit should drainage patterns be modified. Net
increases in impervious surfaces are minimized by the removal of old pavement.
The airport must comply with applicable pollution control statutes and require-
ments. Impacts may occur when changes to the quantity or type of solid waste gen-
erated, or type of disposal, differ greatly from existing conditions.
Solid waste disposal facilities, such as landfills, can cause a hazard to aircraft by
attracting wildlife and, most importantly, birds. A bird hazard exists if the landfill
is located approximately 5,000 feet from runways used by piston aircraft and 10,000
feet from runways used by turbojet aircraft. There are no landfills within the vicin-
ity of the airport.
As a result of increased operations at the airport, solid waste output may slightly
increase; however, these increases are not anticipated to be significant. No impacts
related to hazardous materials are anticipated as a result of the planned airport
improvements.
HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Determination of a project’s environmental impact to historic and cultural resources
is made under guidance in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966,
as amended, the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA) of 1974, the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990. In addition, the Antiquities Act
of 1906, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, and the American Indian Religious Freedom
Act of 1978 also protect historical, architectural, archaeological, and cultural re-
sources.
Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, requires federal agencies to take into
account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and determine if any
properties in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) are present in the area. In addition, it affords the Advisory Council on His-
toric Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. The historic preservation
review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by the
council.
B-11
The ARPA is triggered by the presence of archaeological resources on federal or In-
dian lands. The AHPA describes the process when consultation with resource agen-
cies indicates that there may be an impact on significant scientific, prehistoric, his-
toric, archaeological, or paleontological resources. The process provides for the
preparation of a professional resource survey of the area. Should the survey identi-
fy significant resources, the National Register process described above will be fol-
lowed. Should the survey be inconclusive, a determination is made whether it is
appropriate to provide a commitment to halt construction if resources are recovered,
in order for a qualified professional to evaluate their importance and provide for da-
ta recovery as necessary.
The NAGPRA is triggered by the possession of human remains or cultural items by
a federally funded repository or by the discovery of human remains or cultural
items on federal or tribal lands and provides for the inventory, protection, and re-
turn of cultural items to affiliated Native American Groups. The Act includes pro-
visions that, upon inadvertent discovery of remains, the action will cease in the area
where the remains were discovered and the appropriate agency will be notified.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 was the first general law providing protection for ar-
chaeological resources. It protects all historic and prehistoric sites on federal lands
and prohibits excavation or destruction of such antiquities without the permission
of the Secretary of the department having jurisdiction.
The Historic Sites Act of 1935 declares as national policy the preservation for public
use of historic sites, buildings, objects, and properties of national significance. It
gives the Secretary of the Interior authority to make historic surveys, to secure and
preserve data on historic sites, and to acquire and preserve archaeological and his-
toric sites. This Act also establishes the National Historic Landmarks program for
designating properties having exceptional value in commemorating or illustrating
the history of the United States.
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 requires consultation with Na-
tive American groups concerning proposed actions on sacred sites, on federal land,
or affecting access to sacred sites. It establishes federal policy to protect and pre-
serve for American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians their right to
free exercise of their religion. It allows these peoples to access sites, use and pos-
sess sacred objects, and freedom to worship through ceremonial and traditional
rites. The Act requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their actions on
religious sites and objects that are important to Native Americans regardless of the
eligibility for the NRHP. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments, and the Presidential Memorandum of April 29,
1994, Government to Government Relations with Native American Tribal Govern-
ments, outline the government-to-government consultation process between the fed-
eral agency and the potentially affected tribe.
B-12
A project would affect a property that is on or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP if it
has the potential to alter the characteristics of the property which make it eligible
for listing. Federal agencies can make one of three types of “effects findings” for an
action: “no properties affected,” “no adverse effect,” and “adverse effect.” The level
of finding depends upon how severely a project would alter the characteristics of a
property that make it eligible for the NRHP. Although the FAA works closely with
the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or the Tribal Historic Preserva-
tion Officer (THPO), the FAA is ultimately responsible for the effect decision, not
the SHPO or THPO.
The Section 106 consultation process includes consideration of alternatives to avoid
adverse effects on National Register listed or eligible properties, of mitigation
measures, and of accepting adverse effects. The FAA makes the final determination
on the level of effect, and advice from the SHPO/THPO may assist the FAA in mak-
ing that determination.
According to the November 2000 EA, archaeological surveys were conducted in
April 2000 for all of the airport environs to determine the presence of historical or
cultural sites. This survey was undertaken to validate prior findings, identify new
sites, and to collect information on traditional Hawaiian uses of the airport proper-
ty. During the survey, nine previously recorded sites were re-evaluated and it was
confirmed that these sites are not considered eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places.
As the planned projects include disturbance of land that was not included as part of
previous coordination, further coordination with the SHPO is required regarding
potential impacts to cultural or archaeological resources in these areas. It is antic-
ipated that a cultural resource survey will be requested as portions of the proposed
development areas have not been surveyed for cultural resources.
PUBLIC ACCESS SHORELINE HAWAII RIGHTS
This master plan provides for the development of facilities necessary to meet the
facility needs of existing users as well as the continued safety of both the traveling
public and airport tenants. It is expected that with continued development of the
airport, there will be an ongoing need to maintain public shoreline access rights.
The current provision of public shoreline access will continue to be provided in ac-
cordance with State Law. Concerns regarding future development will likely be ad-
dressed on a case-by-case basis as required. In the past, concerns have been raised
regarding limited access, potential impacts to archaeological and historical sites,
access to prime fishing grounds, loss of native plants, and potential impacts to aqui-
fers and seabeds.
B-13
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT: SECTION 4(f)
The Department of Transportation (DOT) Act, Section 4(f) provisions state that the
Secretary of Transportation will not approve any program or project that requires
the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and
waterfowl refuge or historic site of local, state, or national significance as deter-
mined by the officials trusted with the oversight of the subject property. Project ap-
proval may be granted if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of
such land, and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting
from the use.
A significant impact would occur when a proposed action involves more than a min-
imal physical use of a Section 4(f) property, or is deemed a “constructive use,” sub-
stantially impairing the Section 4(f) property where mitigation measures do not re-
duce or eliminate the impacts. Substantial impairment would occur when impacts
to Section 4(f) lands are sufficiently serious that the value of the site, in terms of its
prior significance and enjoyment, is substantially reduced or lost.
As discussed in Chapter One, a portion of the Mamalahoa Trail is located on airport
property. The Mamalohoa Trail was built by conscripted labor forces to transport
goods and food along the western side of the big island. A disconnected segment of
the Mamalahoa Trail was created during the initial construction of KOA. The re-
maining portion of the trail is located between the runway and parallel taxiway.
The master plan proposes to construct an additional parallel taxiway that would re-
quire further disturbance to the trail. Coordination with the SHPO and field inves-
tigation will be required to determine the significance of this site.
Additionally, there are several park sites within the vicinity of the airport, includ-
ing the Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historic Park, located 3.5 miles to the south;
the Makaulu-O`oma Mauka Tract Forest Reserve, located 5.5 miles to the east; and
Kekaha Kai State Park, located 2 miles to the north. As the planned airport im-
provements are intended to accommodate the existing airport users, impacts to
these resources are not anticipated.
LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL EFFECTS
Airport lighting is characterized as either airfield lighting (i.e., runway, taxiway,
approach and landing lights) or landside lighting (i.e., security lights, building inte-
rior lighting, parking lights, and signage). Generally, airport lighting does not re-
sult in significant impacts unless a high intensity strobe light, such as a Runway
End Identifier Light (REIL), would produce glare on any adjoining site, particularly
residential uses.
B-14
Visual impacts relate to the extent that the proposed development contrasts with
the existing environment and whether a jurisdictional agency considers this con-
trast objectionable. The visual sight of aircraft, aircraft contrails, or aircraft lights
at night, particularly at a distance that is not normally intrusive, should not be as-
sumed to constitute an adverse impact.
It is not anticipated that the planned airport development will result in significant
lighting or visual impacts. If the potential for lighting or visual impacts is deter-
mined to be associated with the planned development, consultation with local resi-
dents and the owners of light-sensitive sites may be needed to determine possible
alternatives to minimize these effects without risking aviation safety or efficiency.
Lighting at the airport will be shielded to reduce interaction both with the noctur-
nally flying dark-rumped petrel and Newell’s Shearwater as well as to reduce off-
airport lighting impacts.
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY SUPPLY
In instances of major proposed actions, power companies or other suppliers of ener-
gy will need to be contacted to determine if the proposed project demands can be
met by existing or planned facilities.
There are no existing powerlines near the airport that would need to be relocated as
a result of the planned development at the airport. On-site, the relocation of the
airport traffic control tower (ATCT) will require new duct banks to connect to the
remote transmitter/receiver (RTR), which will remain at its present site. The mas-
ter plan calls for the utility building currently located near the existing ATCT to be
relocated to a new site at the corner of Keahole Street and Pao`o Street.
The airport has been in discussions with the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii
Authority (NELHA) on the use of deep sea water air conditioning (SWAC) through a
heat exchanger that would be located on a site at the south end of the airport near
Road M and Pao`o Street. Additionally, the airport plans to implement a 1.0 mega-
watt photovoltaic solar energy system to sustain the airport’s current energy de-
mand with capability for additional phases to accommodate future increases in con-
sumption.
Increased use of energy and natural resources are anticipated as the operations at
the airport grow. None of the planned development projects outlined on the airport
layout plan are anticipated to result in significant increases in energy consumption.
The Master Plan recommends that a utility audit along with a utility master plan
be prepared for the airport.
B-15
SOCIOECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,
AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS
Socioeconomic impacts known to result from airport improvements are often asso-
ciated with relocation activities or other community disruptions, including altera-
tions to surface transportation patterns, division or disruption of existing communi-
ties, interferences with orderly planned development, or an appreciable change in
employment related to the project. Social impacts are generally evaluated based on
areas of acquisition and/or areas of significant project impact, such as areas encom-
passed by noise levels in excess of 65 DNL.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minori-
ty Populations and Low-Income Populations, and the accompanying Presidential
Memorandum, and Order DOT 5610.2, Environmental Justice, require the FAA to
provide for meaningful public involvement by minority and low-income populations,
as well as analysis that identifies and addresses potential impacts on these popula-
tions that may be disproportionately high and adverse.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks, federal agencies are directed to identify and assess
environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children.
These risks include those that are attributable to products or substances that a
child is likely to come in contact with or ingest, such as air, food, drinking water,
recreational waters, soil, or products they may be exposed to.
The thresholds of significance for this impact category are reached if the project
negatively affects a disproportionately high number of minority or low-income popu-
lations or if children would be exposed to a disproportionate number of health and
safety risks. Significant socioeconomic impacts would result if an extensive number
of residents need to be relocated and sufficient replacement housing is unavailable;
if extensive relocation of businesses is required and this relocation would create a
severe economic hardship for the affected communities; if disruptions of local traffic
patterns would substantially reduce the level of service of the roads serving the air-
port and the surrounding community; or if there would be a substantial loss in the
community tax base.
It is not anticipated that the proposed airport development projects would result in
significant impacts within this impact category. The airport is not located within
an area which would be considered an “environmental justice” area and the project
area does not have high percentages of populations that are considered below pover-
ty level or minority.
Potential risks to children from the development of the airport will be minimized
through the use of standard security measures such as fencing and locks on cabi-
nets or structures which contain hazardous materials.
B-16
WATER QUALITY
The Clean Water Act provides the authority to establish water quality standards,
control discharges, develop waste treatment management plans and practices, pre-
vent or minimize the loss of wetlands, and regulate other issues concerning water
quality. Water quality concerns related to airport development most often relate to
the potential for surface runoff and soil erosion, as well as the storage and handling
of fuel, petroleum products, solvents, etc.
According to the Water Quality Standards Map of the Island of Hawaii, coastal
nearshore waters within the airport environs are classified as “AA.” Further analy-
sis will likely be needed for large scale future projects to assess measures needed to
maintain the protection of these waters.
Water quality regulations and issuance of permits will normally identify any defi-
ciencies in the proposed development with regard to water quality or any additional
information necessary to make judgments on the significance of impacts. Difficul-
ties in obtaining needed permits for the project, such as National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) or Section 404 permits, typically indicate a po-
tential for significant water quality impacts.
With regard to construction activities, the airport and all applicable contractors will
need to obtain and comply with the requirements of the construction-related
NPDES General Permit and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prior to the
initiation of project construction activities.
WETLANDS
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates the discharge of dredged and/or
fill material into waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Wetlands are defined by Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, as those
areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to
support, and under normal circumstances does or would support, a prevalence of
vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil condi-
tions for growth and reproduction. Categories of wetlands include swamps,
marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, natural
ponds, estuarine areas, tidal overflows, and shallow lakes and ponds with emergent
vegetation. Wetlands exhibit three characteristics: hydrology, hydrophytes (plants
able to tolerate various degrees of flooding or frequent saturation), and poorly
drained soils.
As outlined within FAA Orders 1050.1E and 5050.4B, a significant impact to wet-
lands would occur when the proposed action causes any of the following:
B-17
The action would adversely affect the function of a wetland to protect the quality
or quantity of municipal water supplies, including sole source, potable water
aquifers.
The action would substantially alter the hydrology needed to sustain the func-
tions and values of the affected wetland or any wetlands to which it is connected.
The action would substantially reduce the affected wetland’s ability to retain
floodwaters or storm-associated runoff, thereby threatening public health, safety,
or welfare.
The action would adversely affect the maintenance of natural systems that sup-
port wildlife and fish habitat or economically important timber, food, or fiber re-
sources in the area or surrounding wetlands.
The action would be inconsistent with applicable state wetland strategies.
According to National Wetland Inventory Maps prepared by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, there are no wetlands within the vicinity of the airport. Dur-
ing a site survey completed in December 1999, a small anchialine wetland system
(approximately 58 feet by 62 feet), located at the southern end of the runway was
identified. Anchialine ponds exist in lava depressions near the ocean and are fed by
water table fluctuations. These ponds are not considered jurisdictional wetlands.
The airport is located in an area of previously disturbed soils. The planned devel-
opment at the airport does not involve disturbing the water table or areas in which
wetlands are located.
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
Coastal zones are those waters and their bordering areas in states along the coast-
lines of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico and the shorelines of
the Great Lakes. These zones include islands, beaches, transitional and intertidal
areas and salt marshes. Under most conditions, airport actions that would occur in
or would affect a coastal zone within a state having an approved coastal zone man-
agement program must comply with the requirements of the Coastal Zone Man-
agement Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended. The CZMA requires that direct federal
activities and development projects must be consistent with approved state coastal
programs to the maximum extent practicable.
The State of Hawaii has an approved Coastal Zone Management Program in accor-
dance with the provisions of the CZMA. The coastal areas identified within the
plan, identified as Special Management Areas (SMAs), receive additional scrutiny
when considering development proposals. All projects within the SMA must be con-
sistent with the Hawaii Coastal Management Zone program, including those in-
itiated by the government and will require a permit prior to construction. The en-
tire airport property is located within an SMA; therefore, any airport project consid-
B-18
ered “development” will require an SMA permit from the Hawaii County Planning
Department.
FLOODPLAINS
Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies, including the FAA, to take action
to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety,
health, and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values
served by floodplains. A floodplain is defined as the “lowland and relatively flat
areas adjoining inland and coastal waters…including at a minimum, that area sub-
ject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in a given year” (i.e., an area that
would be inundated by a 100-year flood).
A proposed project would be considered significant if it results in notable adverse
impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. Typical mitigation measures
for floodplain encroachments may include special flood-related design criteria, ele-
vating facilities above base flood level, locating nonconforming structures and facili-
ties out of the floodplain, or minimizing fill placed in floodplains.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insur-
ance Rate Map (FIRM) panel number 155166 0681C, airport facilities are not lo-
cated within a 100-year floodplain or floodway. A 100-year floodplain is located
west of the airport along the coast, but does not include any of the planned devel-
opment areas.
Appendix C
TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION CRITERIA
C-1
EXHIBIT C-1
Kona International Airport Master Plan
Terminal Area Development Alternatives
Development Concept Evaluation
EVALUATION CRITERIA Alternative 1 Expand Existing Alternative 2 New OST - North Alternative 3 New OST – South
PEOPLE
Environment for People
Architecture
Experience – Concepts Enhance Design Opportunity
Level of Service – User Convenience/Adequate Services
Stress Reduction – Intuitive, Simple, Clear Wayfinding
PLACE
Natural Environment
Context – Sustainable Approach
Climate – Responsive and Adequate
Resources – Efficient Site, Open Space, Minimize Stormwater
Recycle – Maintain Use or Optimize Adaptive Re-use of Facilities
Community Values
Culture – Responsive and Relative
Past – Addresses Current Shortfalls in Expectations
Present – Maintains Current Valued KOA Characteristics
Future – Aligns with Community Vision
PURPOSE
Function
Performance Efficiency – PAX Processing, Walking Distance, Vertical Movement,
Operations
Flexibility – Adaptable
Expandibility – Space Between and Beyond Functions to Grow
Facilities Program
Facility Requirements – Meets Projected
Passenger Processing – Timely, Meets Goals
Development Strategy
Implementation and Constructability – Reasonable Complexity Current Phase of Development Considers Future Phases – Grows
Into
Replace Function Before Removing Function – Avoid Temporary
Facilities
Airport Operations – Maintain Safe and Secure
Airfield – Requires Change in Configuration
Landside – Requires Change in Configuration
Cost
Finance
Initial Magnitude of Cost and Benefit – Bang for Buck/Value
Phased Program – Demand Based, Funding Based
Modernization – Existing Facilities Upgraded/Maintained
Operational – Optimizes
Maintenance – Optimizes
Revenue – Maximize Concessions/Improve Exposure
C-2
Exhibit C-2
Terminal Alternative Benefit Analysis
Alternatives 1/2/3 – Expand Existing
Short Term Cost $64,180,000
Advantages
Main Architectural
Character
1 Continues locally preferred ground loading and open air “Aloha Spirit.”
Flexibility for Future
Changes
2 The Short Term is the same for all three alternatives. Maintains flexibility to respond
to changing demands and financial capability in the future.
3 Allows common-use processing, check-in kiosks, etc. to be implemented when and if
the airlines desire them.
Optimize Current
Facilities
4 Onizuka Space Center need not move in the near term. Allows time for proper
program development, future needs determination, fund raising, site preparation,
design and construction.
Incremental Growth 5 Parking can be added as needed.
Demand Based 6 Allows minimal expenditure to address only the most critical needs: bag claim,
passenger security, bag screening, passenger shelter, etc.
7 No changes to the apron, t/w, roads and drives.
Disadvantages
Passenger Level of
Service
1 Defers improvements to concessions, displays, toilets, TSA offices, tenant spaces,
etc.
Maintenance Costs 2 Delays significant upgrades needed for building maintenance and systems.
Operational
Efficiency
3 Continues current 2 terminal functions; lack of airport operational flexibility.
Moving bag screening to existing bag make-up areas will result in cramped space;
duplications of equipment and staffing continues.
C-3
Exhibit C-3
Terminal Alternative Benefit Analysis
Alternative 1 – Expand Existing
Intermediate Term Cost $141,320,000
Advantages
Maintain Architectural
Character
1 Maintains present “Aloha Spirit” with courtyards, open air, shared by both interisland
and mainland passengers.
Passenger Level of Service 2 Provides second-level loading w/ bridges for mainland flights. Expand concessions,
toilets, airlines club rooms if desired. May use natural ventilation or AC.
3 When drives moves mauka this provides space for non-secure concessions expansion,
displays, waiting.
4 Provides space for more concessions, displays around courtyards; more seating for
interisland passengers.
Operational Efficiency 5 Interisland flights continue to ground load but flexibility to use loading bridges when
available.
6 Avoids split operation for airlines.
7 Unifies terminals into single operationally flexible complex.
8 Single central passenger screening with adequate queue area, TSA offices and exam
rooms and space for expansion in future as needed.
9 Centralizes bag make-up with single TSA screening operations. Efficient use of staff
and equipment.
10 Turn North Ticketing to face south – straight conveyor run to bag make-up; provides a
single ticketing court with flexibility to balance program requirements within space
available.
11 More convenient and clear location for USDA and HDOA.
Expandability 12 Space available under concourse for ramp operations.
13 Bag claim can expand as needed to meet demand.
Constructability 14 CBP can expand as needed, not required as a part of Intermediate Term.
Minimize Impacts 15 When terminal drives move mauka to edge of existing parking, the parking area is not
impacted – provides space for non-secure concessions expansion, displays, waiting.
16 No change to airside aircraft circulation or new paving.
Phased Program 17 This alternative can be achieved in stages as demand and financial capability dictate.
In most cases, expansion of one function need not impact adjacent functions.
Disadvantages
Passenger Level of Service 1 Arriving international passengers continue to walk across apron and use sprung
structure for CBP clearance until demand, financial capability or failure of existing
structure requires change.
Optimize Current Facilities 2 Requires relocation of the Onizuka Space Center.
Minimize Impacts 3 Requires major changes and upgrades to facilities, buildings and systems while they
remain in operation.
4 Careful phasing and staging of construction required to minimize public inconvenience
and coordinate operations during construction.
Costs 5 Tunnels required for bag conveyors from ticketing to bag make-up/TSA screening –
need to cut and cover through lava.
Long Term Cost $102,920,000
Advantages
Passenger Level of Service 1 Raised covered walkway to CBP for arriving international passengers improves security
and passenger convenience. Can be expanded in future for second level interisland
gates and international arrivals sterile gate.
Flexibility for Future Changes 2 Option remains to go to Alternative 2 or 3 throughout development of Alternative 1.
Minimize Impacts 3 Each area and function can be expanded to respond to demand without affecting other
areas.
4 New CBP facilities can be built while existing continues in full operation with no
operational conflicts.
5 Continue use of tour passenger assembly area and bus parking during and after
construction of new CBP.
6 No additional aircraft paving required. May relocate T/W A closer to runway if group V
Traffic frequency requires it.
Disadvantages
Minimize Impacts 1 Requires provision of new offices for Airport Management and staff before CBP can
expand into their current areas.
Alternative 1 Total Cost = $308,420,000
C-4
Exhibit C-4
Terminal Alternative Benefit Analysis
Alternative 2 – New North Terminal
Intermediate Term Cost $209,850,000
Advantages
Maintain Architectural
Character
1 Terminal can be designed to continue the atmosphere of Aloha, use natural
ventilation in some areas, planting, etc.
Passenger Level of
Service
2 Provides a new terminal with all amenities for mainland and international
passengers.
Flexibility 3 Interim international bag claim available for domestic use when not secured.
Optimize Current
Facilities
4 Onizuka Space Center need not be relocated in near term.
Disadvantages
Passenger Level of
Service 1 Interisland passengers gain only most pressing facilities and systems
improvements to prevent failures.
Flexibility 2 Will lose flexibility of interisland aircraft using bridged gates when available.
Operational Efficiency 3 Requires split interisland and overseas operations for some airlines.
Constructability 4 Some construction and infrastructure required in the lava field for roads, parking,
terminal, and apron.
Minimize Impacts 5 Temporary CBP facilities using existing Airport Management and staff facilities is
required as new terminal requires removal of existing “sprung structure.”
6 Requires construction of new offices for Airport Management and staff before
existing remodeled for temporary CBP use.
7 When T/W A is relocated to the west in this phase or Long Term responding to
Group V aircraft frequency, it will require extending T/W A beyond existing T/W
G and probable replacement of T/W G to the north.
Incremental Growth 8 Expensive first step as new terminal initial phase of development is extensive in
order to be operationally complete.
Demand Based 9 Existing terminal capacity without mainland overseas traffic is way in excess of
demand for only interisland passengers.
Long Term Cost $247,660,000
*Advantages and Disadvantages from Alternative 1 Intermediate Term apply to the phase
Advantages
Incremental Growth 1 New terminal can expand incrementally to respond to demand.
2 Expansion and upgrade to existing terminal facilities for interisland use per
Alternative 1, can be achieved incrementally as demand and financial capability
dictate.
Disadvantages
Constructability 1 Expansion to the north for terminal, concourse and apron will require
construction in the lava field.
2 Limited area available for construction of close in public parking.
Alternative 2 Total Cost = $521,690,000
C-5
Exhibit C-5
Terminal Alternative Benefit Analysis
Alternative 3 – New South Terminal
Intermediate Term Cost $201,740,000
Advantages
Maintain Architectural
Character
1 Terminal can be designed to continue the atmosphere of Aloha, use natural
vegetation in some areas, planting, etc.
Passenger Level of
Service
2 Provides a new terminal with all amenities for mainland and international
passengers.
Optimize Current
Facilities 3 Onizuka Space Center need not be relocated in near term.
4 Preliminary site development and some utilities are in place from current uses of
the site.
Disadvantages
Passenger Level of
Service
1 Interisland passengers gain only most pressing facilities and systems
improvements to prevent failures.
Flexibility 2 Will lose flexibility of interisland aircraft using bridges gates when available.
Operational Efficiency 3 Requires split interisland and overseas operations for some airlines.
Incremental Growth 4 Expensive first step as new terminal initial phase of development is extensive in
order to be operationally complete.
Demand Based 5 Existing terminal capacity without mainland overseas traffic is way in excess of
demand for only interisland passengers.
Minimize Impacts 6 Requires the relocation of the ATCT and ARFF and limited GA activity.
Long Term Cost $225,430,000
*Advantages and Disadvantages from Alternative 1 Intermediate Term apply to this phase
Advantages
Incremental Growth 1 New terminal can expand incrementally to respond to demand.
2 Expansion and upgrade to existing terminal facilities for interisland use per
Alternative 1, can be achieved incrementally as demand and financial capability
dictate.
Disadvantages
Constructability 1 Limited area available for construction of close in public parking.
Alternative 3 Total Cost = $491,350,000
Appendix D
AIRPORT AREA DEVELOPMENT
D-1
Appendix D
AIRPORT AREA DEVELOPMENT
The following is a brief summary of the land developments, both existing and
planned, for the area of North Kona in the vicinity of Kona International Airport at
Keahole, as prepared by PBR Hawaii Associates, Inc. Exhibit D1 is keyed to the
number preceding each description.
1) Hualālai Resort (8,851 acres)
Located on 8,851 acres on the Kohala Coast, the Hualālai Resort is a residential
planned residential/resort community. In 2007, MSD Development, owner of
Hualälai Resort purchased the neighboring 86 acre Kona Village Resorts.
Across Queen Kaahumanu Highway Hualālai Resorts is currently discussing
with Kamehameha Schools to develop 7,800 acres of land mauka of the existing
resort.
2) WB Kūki'o (957 acres)
Directly adjacent to the Hualälai Resort is the Kūki'o Beach Club. Kūki'o is a
planned residential community with an 18-hole golf course. Archaeological sites
and the historic Ala Kahakai Trail are integrated into the residential communi-
ty.
3) State of Hawaii (54,112 acres)
By far the State is the single largest landholder within the immediate area of
the Kona International Airport. While a majority of the lands are unencum-
bered and not in current active use by the state, there are several properties in
D-2
the immediate vicinity of the Kona International Airport that are actively uti-
lized.
a) Keahole Agricultural Park (179 acres)
This 179 acre agricultural park is subdivided into 34 individual lots where
tenants are allowed to grow various crops and other agricultural products.
The majority of existing tenants grow plumeria and other native plants for
the landscaping industry. Approximately half of all agricultural park tenants
have also built homes on their lots.
b) Honua'ula Forest Reserve (2,504 acres)
The Honua'ula Forest Reserve is located mauka of the Kona International
Airport. The forest reserve is home to many indigenous plants species such
as yohiya and koa. Cattle were finally removed from the reserve in 2003 to
prevent the further destruction of reserve lands. Replanting of koa and other
indigenous plants are currently underway.
c) Kekaha Kai (Kona Coast) State Park (1,154 acres)
Split in half by a parcel of land owned Bishop Estate, Kekaha Kai State Park
can be accessed from Queen Kaahumanu Highway via an unpaved road. The
southern portion, Mahaiula has a sandy beach while access to Maniniowali
(Kua Bay) is accessible via the ancient Ala Kahakai Trail.
d) West Hawaii Community College (500 acres)
The proposed 500 acre lot has been earmarked for a West Hawaii Community
College. Currently, students are allowed to work with the University of Ha-
waii Center: West Hawaii as a remote learning center. Students are current-
ly allowed to complete online coursework.
e) Old Kona Airport State Recreation Area (116 acres)
In 1970, the Old Kona Airport was shut down and converted into a state
park. The runway is converted into a parking lot for park users.
4) Huehue Ranch/Makalei Golf Course (1,647 acres)
Originally part of the Huÿehuÿe Ranch, the parcels were sold off with the inten-
tion of developing it into an agricultural subdivision with homes, a golf course,
cattle ranch, and equestrian facilities. Within the last fifteen years, the parcels
have changed ownership three times. In the mean time, Makalei Hawaii Corpo-
ration developed the existing Makalei Golf Course. In April 2008, under pres-
sure from difficult economic circumstances, Lynch Investments, the current
owner of the properties was forced to sell under foreclosure. Parcels were auc-
tioned May 15th, 2008.
1
2
15
15
28
3c
3c
33
30
3a
3d
21
11
7
12
26
25
13
22
10
23
27
31
18
18
18
329
8
6
16
5
4
4
3b
4
4
2
20
19
14
14
14
14
3e
31
31
24
17c
17c
17c
17b
17a
17a
15
15
2
1, Hualalai Resort
2, WB Kuki’o
3a, Keahole Agricultural Park
3b, Honua’ula Forest Reserve
3c, Kekaha Kai (Kona Coast) State Park
3d, West Hawaii Community College
3e, Old Kona Airport State Recreation Area
4, Hu’ehu’e Ranch / Makalei Golf Course
5, Makalei Estates
6, Lokahi Makai
7, N.E.L.H.A.
8, Kula Nei
9, Kaloko Heights
10, Kaloko Makai Project
11, ‘O’oma Beachside Village
12, The Shores at Kohanaiki
13, Kaloko-Honokohau National Park
14, Queen Lili’uokalani Trust
15, Kanehameha Schools / Bishop Estate
16, Palamanui (Hiluhilu Development)
17a, La’i’opua
17b, Honokohau
17c, Govt. State DHHL
18, Palani Ranch
19, Kona Kai Ola
20, HHFDC Keahuolu Affordable Housing
21, HELCO Keahole Power Plant
1, Hualalai Resort
2, WB Kuki’o
3a, Keahole Agricultural Park
3b, Honua’ula Forest Reserve
3c, Kekaha Kai (Kona Coast) State Park
3d, West Hawaii Community College
3e, Old Kona Airport State Recreation Area
4, Hu’ehu’e Ranch / Makalei Golf Course
5, Makalei Estates
6, Lokahi Makai
7, N.E.L.H.A.
8, Kula Nei
9, Kaloko Heights
10, Kaloko Makai Project
11, ‘O’oma Beachside Village
12, The Shores at Kohanaiki
13, Kaloko-Honokohau National Park
14, Queen Lili’uokalani Trust
15, Kanehameha Schools / Bishop Estate
16, Palamanui (Hiluhilu Development)
17a, La’i’opua
17b, Honokohau
17c, Govt. State DHHL
18, Palani Ranch
19, Kona Kai Ola
20, HHFDC Keahuolu Affordable Housing
21, HELCO Keahole Power Plant
22, Kaloko Industrial Park
23, West Hawaii Industrial Park
24, Kealakehe Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP)
25, Kohanaiki Business Park
26, Kaloko Land Company / Rutter Development Company
27, McClean Honokohau Properties / Mclean Quarry
28, West Hawaii Veterans Cemetery
29, U.S.C.G. Lighthouse - Keahole Point Light Station
30, U.S. Postal Service
31, Lanihau Partners
32, Kona View Estates
33, Kona International Airport at Keahole
22, Kaloko Industrial Park
23, West Hawaii Industrial Park
24, Kealakehe Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP)
25, Kohanaiki Business Park
26, Kaloko Land Company / Rutter Development Company
27, McClean Honokohau Properties / Mclean Quarry
28, West Hawaii Veterans Cemetery
29, U.S.C.G. Lighthouse - Keahole Point Light Station
30, U.S. Postal Service
31, Lanihau Partners
32, Kona View Estates
33, Kona International Airport at Keahole
Source: PBR Hawaii & Associates, INC.
Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only
Source: PBR Hawaii & Associates, INC.
Disclaimer: This graphic has been prepared for general planning purposes only
LEGEND
LEGEND (continued)
29
NorthNorth
8,0008,000
LINEAR SCALE (feet)LINEAR SCALE (feet)
4,0004,000
2,0002,000
1,0001,000
00
NORTH KONA REGIONAL MAP Exhibit D1
06
M
P
0
6
-
D
1
-
1
/
2
8
/
0
9
D-3
5) Makalei Estates (246 acres)
Makalei Estates is a 246 acre residential housing west of the Huehue Ranch
property. Each individual lot is approximately three acres. All 77 lots are zoned
Ag-3.
6) Lokahi Makai (126 acres)
Lokahi Makai is a planned 191 unit residential community located on the makai
portion of Kona Palisades. All newly built homes are in process of being con-
structed.
7) Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA)/Hawaii Ocean
Science Technology (HOST) (548 acres)
NELHA/HOST serves as a science technology park that focuses on research,
education, and commercial activities that support sustainable industry develop-
ment which makes use of deep seawater resources. Currently, there are over
approximately thirty tenants on NELHA/HOST land. In addition to various re-
search institutions such as the University of California at Santa Cruz, Universi-
ty of Hawaii Infrasound Laboratory of Hawaii, and Oceanic Institute, private
operations such as Big Island Abalone and Searider Seahorse Farms are some of
the unique tenants at NELHA. Three tenants utilize the park’s deep seawater
pumps to collect water rich with minerals which are then bottled for consump-
tion. Combined, NELHA tenants generate between $30-40 million in annual in
revenue and provide jobs for over two hundred people.
8) Kula Nei (128 acres)
In 2006, the Shopoff Group proposed to the State to develop approximately 270
residential units with up to 220 single family home units. In addition to these
homes, the development will include a 2.5 acre community park, community
trails and all related infrastructure necessary for the community. The proposed
homes would serve the primary housing market.
9) Kaloko Heights (394 acres)
Stanford Carr Development purchased the lands in 2005 to begin construction
of a 1,500 unit master planned community. Homes are projected to be mod-
erately priced.
10) Kaloko Makai Project (1,144 acres)
Originally purchased by the TSA Corporation in the 1980’s Kaloko Makai was
then purchased by the MID Corporation in 1997. Through a partnership with
Stanford Carr Development (SCD), the existing parcels of land are proposed to
be converted into a mixed-used planned community with 5,000 units of single-
family and multiple-family homes. In addition to the residential units, recrea-
tional facilities, trails and space set aside for schools are also planned to be in-
corporated into the master plan. Current plans also call for preservation of the
existing native dry land forest.
D-4
11) 'O'oma Beachside Village (303 acres)
'O'oma Beachside Village is a planned community south of the Kona Interna-
tional Airport along the Kohala Coast. In addition to building residential homes,
developers also plan to incorporate a mixed-use village center, a smaller private
beach club with mixed-use facilities, community parks, shoreline park with a
public canoe hale, and pathways for beach access. With this “live-work-play”
model of development, the proposed 'O'oma Beachside Village project aims to mi-
tigate additional traffic congestion on the Queen Kaahumanu Highway by creat-
ing homes, jobs, and recreational activities all in one area.
12) The Shores at Kohanaiki (442 acres)
The Shores at Kohanaiki is a 500-unit golf course community under development
by Kennedy Wilson and Rutter Development. Existing shoreline, anchialine
ponds, and historic areas on site are proposed to be preserved. Housing will be
set back at least 400 feet from the shoreline. In addition to a golf course and
clubhouse, tennis courts, and workout facilities will also be incorporated into the
design. A shoreline park is proposed, with parking, an 8,000 square foot beach
facility, with snack bar, restrooms and showers.
13) Kaloko- Honokōkua National Park 1,160)
The 1,160 acre Kaloko-Honokōkua National Park stretches along the Kohala
Coast. In addition to being home to a vast array of native Hawaiian birds, the
park also preserved the Kaloko Fishpond, a native Hawaiian rock structure
which fostered their ability to live off the land in a sustainable manner.
14) Queen Lili'uokalani Trust (3,517 acres)
In 1909, Queen Lili'uokalani bequeathed her personal fortune toward the crea-
tion of a trust for orphan children. From this initial generous gift the Queen Li-
li'uokalani Trust was created. Funds generated from trust lands provide re-
sources promote the healthy growth of children through fostering strong family
relations and stable home environments within the community. Trust lands in
the Kona area include the Makalapua Center which includes cinemas and a Ma-
cy’s Department Store, Queen Lili'uokalani Children’s Center, and Kona Indus-
trial Sub-division.
15) Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate (22,120 acres)
Kamehameha Schools is the largest private landowner in the state of Hawaii.
Kamehameha Schools is a private, charitable, perpetual trust dedicated to the
education of Hawaiian children and youth. Established in her will of 1883, the
Kamehameha Schools is a legacy of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, great-
granddaughter and last direct royal descendant of King Kamehameha the Great.
Income generated from numerous investments, and residential, commercial, and
resort leases, fund the schools’ maintenance and educational services. Unen-
cumbered lands owned by KSBE are designated as unique resource lands for
probable educational/cultural program expansion.
D-5
16) Pālamanui (Hiluhilu Development) (725 acres)
Pālamanui is a master planned community, which will include single and mul-
tiple-family residential units, University residential facilities, health facilities,
research and development facilities, mixed commercial development, a small
hotel, archaeological preserves, cave and lava tube preserves, a dry forest pre-
serve, passive and active parks, open space and parking areas. Pālamanui will
provide the infrastructure facilities to support the Pālamanui Development.
17) Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) (1,407 acres)
DHHL’s mission is to manage effectively the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust and
to develop and deliver lands to native Hawaiians. DHHL manages 1,400 acres
in the Kona area.
a) Lai'opua
The Lai'opua homestead lands lay north of Kailua-Kona. Lai'opua itself is
comprised of three areas; Honokohau, Keahole, and the Villages of Lai'opua.
The Villages of Lai'opua is a master planned community with fourteen dif-
ferent villages, single and multi-family residential units, recreational facili-
ties, community facilities, neighborhood/commercial complexes, several
parks, and several archaeological preserve sites.
b) Honokohau
Though part of the Lai'opua homestead, the 200 acre Honokohau parcel is
currently being developed by Jacoby Development Company to coincide with
their Kona Kai Ola Project near Honokohau Boat Harbor. The project will
include developing an 800 slip marina with mixed-use commercial village
and residential housing. Income generated from the lease will go towards
the funding of more homes for homestead applicants.
c) Other lands (482 acres)
Other DHHL lands nearby the Kona International Airport are currently
zoned for residential and industrial use.
18) Palani Ranch (2,521 acres)
With constant growth of the Kona area changing the landscape of the Kohala
Coast, Palani Ranch has begun the process of repositioning their role in the
community. Lands in the mauka region will be primarily reserved for pastoral
usage. Lands closer to Māmalahoa Highway have been identified as areas that
have the potential to be transformed into commercial, residential, and farm lot
subdivisions. In the southern portion of the Palani Ranch parcels is the Hua-
lälai Academy, a private school for grades K-12.
19) Kona Kai Ola (330 acres)
Kona Kai Ola is a proposed mixed-use commercial project that strives to protect
natural resources in the Kealakehe ahupua'a. Through planned development,
D-6
Kona Kai Ola will eventually connect Kailua Village, Kona International Air-
port, and the ahupuaÿa. The construction goals focus on minimizing the impact
associated with development on the surrounding environment. Development
will take place in various phases over fifteen years. Phase 1 of construction is
expected to begin in 2008.
20) Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC) Kea-
huolu Affordable Housing (272 acres)
The HHFDC was created in 2006 to increase the availability of affordable hous-
ing within the State of Hawaii. Funding for master plans and EIS were re-
ceived in 2006. In July 2007, HHFDC received title of ownership for the Kea-
huolu parcel.
21) HELCO Keahole Power Plant (15 acres)
The Keahole Power Plant is located mauka of the Kona International Airport
and immediately adjacent to Department of Agriculture Keahole Agriculture
Park farm lots. Keahole’s MW output represents 24 percent of HELCO’s island-
wide production capacity. The plant’s current capacity of 65.3 MW helps serve
the Big Island’s 76,000 customers.
22) Kaloko Industrial Park (215 acres)
Kaloko Industrial Park is host to many small commercial enterprises. Average
lot size is approximately 2.9 acres. The largest parcel tenants in the area are
Costco Wholesale and Home Depot.
23) West Hawaii Industrial Park (326 acres)
Situated mauka of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, the West Hawaii Industri-
al Park is currently a quarry site. However, the site is currently classified as a
conversation zone. In order for the site to be converted into an industrial zone,
re-zoning will be necessary.
24) Kealakehe Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) (53 acres)
The Kealakehe WWTP is managed by the County of Hawaii. Coverage for the
WWTP is for North and South Kona. Projected flow is average design flow for
this facility is 7.82 million gallons per day (MGD). Currently, approximately
6.21 MGD of raw sewage is currently processed at Kealakehe.
25) Kohanaiki Business Park (62 acres)
Kohanaiki Business Park is divided into two different phases. There are approx-
imately 44 lots that are one acre in size. Existing businesses at the park in-
clude; crematory services, trucking, and other light industrial and commercial
operations.
D-7
26) Kaloko Land Company/Rutter Development Company (93 acres)
Rutter Development, the owner of Kaloko Land Company is also responsible for
the development of The Shores of Kohanaiki, an adjacent 500 home golf-course
community along the Kona Coast. There are no plans for the current 93 acre
Kaloko Land Company Parcel.
27) McClean Honokōkua Properties/McClean Quarry (146 acres)
Auto body, warehousing, and construction operations are some of the various
commercial and light industrial tenants. A fully operational quarry is located in
the mauka portion of the parcel. Based on 2004 license re-application testimo-
nies, the existing quarry is operating at 50 percent capacity.
28) West Hawaii Veterans Cemetery (62 acres)
Located mauka of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway and south of Hualālai
Resort, the West Hawaii Veterans Cemetery is managed by the Office of Veteran
Affairs.
29) U.S.C.G. Lighthouse-Keahole Point Light Station (11 acres)
The USCG Lighthouse at Keahole Point is the western-most lighthouse on the
island of Hawaiÿi.
30) U.S. Postal Service (4 acres)
The existing facility assists in the delivery and distribution of out/in-going mail
to the Big Island.
31) Lanihau Partners (423 acres)
Lying adjacent to the Villages of Lai'opua, consideration was made to develop-
ing a residential community on the largest parcel (394 acres) along Kealakehe
Parkway. Currently no decision has been made to move ahead with any further
development on Lanihau Partners Land.
32) Kona View Estates (293 acres)
Kona View Estates is a planned community that allows residents to enjoy an
agricultural environment while being close in proximity to Kona. Currently,
the whole 293 acres is not developed. Phase I of Kona View Estates incorpo-
rates 29 one acre units. Phase I is lies makai of Māmalahoa Highway. Phase II
of Kona View Estates is going through a planning and design phase.
33) Kona International Airport
The Kona International Airport (KOA) is the primary airport hub of West Ha-
waiÿi. 2006 DBEDT tourism statistics indicate over 1.3 million visitors arrived
in the Kona region. Recent State Legislature appropriations earmarked over
$17 million in upgrades and terminal construction.
O:\JOB19\1939.07 DOT-Kona Master Plan-Noise Compatibility\Draft Narrative\Kona Airport Update_Adjacent
Lands.doc
Appendix E
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWINGS
Airport Consultants
www.coffmanassociates.com
KOBER
HANSSEN
MITCHELL
ARCHITECTS
JACOBSCONSULTANCY