Capital Investment Plan 2009 - Heathrow Airport

Decision: Site: Commences:
10 / 2007 01 / 2010 07 / 2010 Continuous
Refer to appendix C for programme information detail.
Assumptions:
The following points cover the significant delivery assumptions related to this project;
• A refurbishment programme only with no change to shell and core
• Finishes constrained to the HAL design palette and the standard desk product
established in Terminal 5 to be utilised
• Only passenger facing areas are to be refurbished
• The facility must remain operational throughout construction
• There can be no reduction in the number of functional immigration desks
throughout construction.
Note: Assumptions stated here are to aid understanding and are not necessarily exhaustive.
Operational Issues
Financial Revenue and Operational Cost (Opex) Impact:
Revenue / Opex Revenue (+) /
Commentary:
Cost Area: Cost (-) Impact
per Annum:
Cleaning £0.005M Uplift for glazed finishes & increased numbers of desks
Impact on User Charges: Not included in CIP 2009 Publication
Estimated Per Passenger Cost Impact:
Commentary:
None.
Note: Impact on User Charge is subject to a number of complex variables and regulatory decisions and therefore information is
indicative only.
Assumptions:
The following points cover the significant operational assumptions related to this project;
• The project is a refurbishment of existing facilities
• BAA will provide a facility within which UKBA can meet their revised and improved Service
Level Agreements however there is no commitment from UKBA to uplift immigration staff
accordingly
Areas of Disagreement
The following points cover any significant areas of disagreement between BAA and the
Airline Community regarding this project.
• UKBA are displeased with the ‘standard’ double/ staggered desk arrangement due
to the associated increase in passenger walk time from the queue to the desk. This
desk arrangement is essential to meet requirements for desk numbers and thus to
meet Service Level Agreements. It is understood by all parties that such an
arrangement must be adopted in order to fit the required desk numbers into a
constrained infrastructure. It should be noted that this issue will decline as the
Automated Clearance System is implemented in the future.
• The UKBA desire for the ‘watch-house’ facility to be refurbished however this space
is out of scope and is not a passenger-facing area.
Note: Any disagreement noted must be read in the context of the airline engagement status shown above.
Internal File Name: 0903XX-CIP 2009 Main Document-V71-IG 106