San Francisco Seeks Smooth if Delayed Launch of New Airport Terminal

Building a $1.25-billion international terminal around the nation’s most delay-plagued airport less than three miles from the San Andreas fault presented a unique set of challenges.

Now comes another one: opening it.

Anyone doubting the difficulty should scan the archives of trade magazines such as Aviation Week and Space Technology using the keywords Kuala Lumpur, Milan, Oslo, Hong Kong and Denver.

“Those are well-known disasters,” says Jason Yuen, who chairs the project’s advisory board.

From canceled flights and spoiled cargo to systemwide computer breakdowns and a luggage-eating baggage system, problems at those new airports vexed travelers and cost millions.

San Francisco’s $2.4-billion airport expansion--which, besides the nation’s biggest international terminal, includes two parking garages, a light rail system, rental and cargo facilities and road work--is the largest public works project in city history. The new terminal stands on 267 steel dishes, allowing it to roll--and remain intact and operational--during an earthquake.

The start-up may rattle the place more than any shifts in the Earth’s plates.

Gliding through glitch-free is impossible, but Yuen says airport officials hope to steer around the worst turbulence, in part by not rushing things. They decided last week to postpone the scheduled Sept. 26 opening for up to 90 days.

That should avoid depending on still-unreliable systems that could misdirect luggage and botch gate assignments. Plus, fire alarm testing and certification are behind schedule.

The airport still plans to start landing charter planes at the new terminal on Aug. 30 to test the 24 gates, gradually directing more and more flights to the new terminal.

The transition could confuse travelers, who will need to determine whether they need the old or new terminal, which fits like a horseshoe around the existing airport.

The delay also means 16 restaurants and 25 shops won’t open until late this year, costing vendors who counted on a September opening. And travelers will be without creature comforts during a delay; passengers will have to find their way to the old terminal to get a cup of coffee.

Still, delaying the opening is the right move, says airport spokesman Ron Wilson. “The bottom line is that we felt the risk was too great to open a building whose systems aren’t ready.”

Airports are among the priciest projects governments undertake, and politicians rely on them to boost the image of their city or country.

When they falter, losses ripple through the economy.

Start-up problems were so bad at Oslo’s Gardermoen that Braathens, Norway’s largest airline, publicly blamed its 1998 losses on the airport. Failures at Hong Kong’s Chek Lap Kok airport dropped the city’s annual gross domestic product by 0.35 percent, or $500 million.

“I will say that Denver and Hong Kong are in the back of our minds all the time,” Wilson says.

The $4-billion Denver International Airport opened 16 months late because it couldn’t get its state-of-the-art baggage system to work. During a test three weeks before the airport’s scheduled opening, TV cameras rolled as carts careened off tracks and suitcases were ripped open. Not long after that, the opening was delayed for the third time.

That fiasco is one reason Yuen sticks to this tenet: Install only systems that have been proven elsewhere. Airport planners might be tempted to impress their peers with cutting-edge technology, but customers just want the place to work, he says.

“Don’t be the guinea pig,” Yuen said.

All of San Francisco’s major systems are working in other airports, he added.