MCK Mainports 2040 Final Report

Mainports 2040
Input for exploration phase long-term vision Mainports
Final report, June 2009

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited This material is partly based on information that has not been generated by McKinsey & Company, and has not been subject to our independent verification. While we believe this information to be reliable and adequately comprehensive, we do not represent that it is in all respects accurate or complete.
Legal Disclaimer
McKinsey & Company has been supporting the Dutch Ministry of Transport (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat or VenW) to help VenW gain insight in the environment in which Dutch mainports have to strategically position themselves. To this end, this report presents (i) different scenarios and key issues for the mainports (ii) perspectives on the current position of the Dutch Mainports, and (iii) the main opportunities and threats for the Mainports. The preliminary comments contained in this report are based in part on data generated during several discussions with executives of VenW and, and on publicly available information, but has not been subject to detailed verification by McKinsey & Company. The scenarios outlined in this report should not be taken for most likely scenarios and the issues listed should be interpreted as possible actions for VenW independent consideration, not as constituting any policy or other recommendation for action. McKinsey & Company does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the underlying assumptions in this report although we believe them to be adequate for the purpose of discussion. There is no implied warranty that these assumptions will come to pass. In the event that this report or the information herein becomes available to a third party other than VenW, such party is hereby notified that this analysis was undertaken by McKinsey & Company for VenW and is being made available to the third party for information purposes only. The third party should conduct its own investigation and analysis of the matters set forth herein. McKinsey & Company makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information in this report or any other written or oral communication transmitted or made available to the third party and expressly disclaims any and all liabilities based on such information or on omissions there from. Finally, this document is highly confidential. No part of it may be circulated, quoted or reproduced for distribution outside the VenW organization without prior written approval from McKinsey & Company
McKinsey & Company | 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Key messages

The two mainports create important direct and indirect value for the Dutch economy, even if they are of limited importance in stimulating the growth of upcoming sectors like tourism and the creative industry Economic interdependences between the mainports are limited and unlikely to be a key success factor for the individual mainports, thereby limiting the need for a joint strategy. There are, however, areas of mutual interest that warrant a coordinated approach Schiphol could grow in volumes by a factor 1 to 7 towards 2040, mainly depending on developments after 2020 (developments until 2020 outlined in recent policy papers, such as the Luchtvaartnota). Growth beyond a level of 2.5-3x current volumes is likely to require major infrastructural works with relocation being the most extreme variant. Strategic choices need to be made on the basis of ambition level, no-regret moves that apply to all scenarios, and belief in the likelihood of specific scenarios. Questions that need to be addressed are, for instance:
What is the impact on The Dutch Economy, if Schiphol would become an airport with good European connections but limited direct intercontinental connections? What is the economic impact (direct and indirect) if Schiphol would become one of the 3 primary European intercontinental mega-hubs, considering Schiphol would grow with a factor 5-7 of todays volume? What are no-regret moves that are optimal in all scenarios, such as enlarging the catchment area through better hinterland connections and adaptive policy making to optimize flexibility around scenario-dependent moves?
A balanced choice needs to be made about which volumes of container cargo Rotterdam wants to attract and how these will be transported to the hinterland
Rotterdam could grow current throughput volume by a factor 1 to 2.5 until 2040, depending on which long-term CPB growth scenario will unfold. This growth would primarily be driven by container cargo Port capacity plans seem sufficient to accommodate growth as liquid bulk, which consumes most port capacity, is expected to grow maximum with a factor 1.5x versus current throughput. However, this could require targeted policies to optimize the use of available space and assume no wild swing factor that would trigger a bigger volume increase, such as the rise of alternative fuels Accommodating container volume growth would require large infrastructural investments to avoid major congestion issues in the hinterland, unless the modal split significantly changes thereby lowering the share of road traffic There might be a need to set priorities between expanding capacity versus policies to make optimal use of current infrastructure. Questions that therefore need to be addressed are, for instance:
Which cargo flows have the highest value-add and least negative externalities in the Netherlands? What are the best policy instruments to primarily attract high value-add flows and enforce an optimal modal split?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter 1: Role of the mainports in the economy

The Netherlands is a small, open economy heavily dependent on foreign trade. Having logistical hubs and a strong infrastructure is a prerequisite for sustaining this position in the future. In this chapter, we assert that the two mainports create significant value-add for the Dutch economy, even if they are of limited importance in stimulating the growth of upcoming sectors like tourism and the creative industry
Direct value-add is estimated at ~ 1% of GDP for Schiphol and ~ 2% of GDP for the Port of Rotterdam. Direct value add is defined as the GDP contribution of companies directly related to the mainports key transport and business functions Indirect value-add is estimated at ~2% of GDP for Schiphol and ~1% of GDP for the Port of Rotterdam the GDP. One element of indirect value-add is the role of mainports in attracting business to the Netherlands
Both mainports play a role in attracting business functions that rely on strong transport connections
Examples for Schiphol are European headquarters or training centers, for which easy transportation of people
is a key success factor
Examples for Rotterdam are European distribution centers, which depend on efficient, low-cost cargo
transportation infrastructure
Both mainports are of limited importance for attracting companies and activities not directly involved in either mainports key functions
Sectors that merely use the mainports, only require a basic level of connectivity and will not choose the
Netherlands as a location on the basis of its superior logistical hub function. Other factors, such as proximity to clients, availability and cost of talent, and the tax climate, are more important location decision criteria
The role of the Mainports in supporting the growth of upcoming sectors such as the creative sector and
tourism seems limited
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter 2: Interdependence between the mainports

The existence of two major mainports in such close proximity is, within Europe, a feature unique to the Netherlands. The question remains whether the two mainports owe their position to the existence of the other. If so, how could this interdependence be exploited and stimulated for the benefit of the Netherlands? In this chapter, we assert that economic interdependences between the mainports are limited and unlikely to be a key success factor for the individual mainports, thereby limiting the need for a joint strategy. There are, however, areas of mutual interest that warrant a coordinated approach
Direct economic interdependence between Schiphol and Port of Rotterdam is limited
Primary interdependence comes from companies that are linked to Port of Rotterdam for their cargo flows and also use Schiphol to transport personnel and business relations. However, the spin-off effect on Schiphol is relatively small, contributing less than 1% of total business passengers Secondary interdependence comes from companies that use both Rotterdam and Schiphol for cargo transportation. Even though these companies benefit from access to two nearby major logistical hubs, this is not a key location decision factor, as all competing ports have a major airport within hours by truck
Areas of mutual interest exist for which a coordinated approach could benefit both mainports and the overall economy:
Although hinterland routes for the mainports differ by nature, easing congestion on one could have a positive spill-over effect for the other e.g., dedicated rail freight routes would benefit Rotterdam directly, while it would ease congestion of the passenger rail network, benefiting Schiphol Focused investments to improve the Dutch logistics talent pool, knowledge development and innovation could help both mainports to maintain their competitive positions. Logistics knowledge build-up through research and innovation is likely to have a beneficiary spill-over effect of knowledge for both mainports Government and related organizations involved in strategy and policy making for the mainports can learn from each other, which could result in better informed decisions at lower costs ***
As interdependence is limited, strategic choices for each mainport are discussed independent of the other
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter 3: Strategic choices for Schiphol (1/3)

Schiphol could grow in volumes by a factor 1 to 7 towards 2040, depending on which long-term growth and airport industry structure scenario will unfold. Growth beyond a level of 2.5-3x current volumes is likely to require major infrastructural works with relocation being the most extreme variant. Given the high level of uncertainty surrounding these scenarios, strategic choices need to be made on the basis of ambition level, no-regret moves that apply to all scenarios, and belief in the likelihood of specific scenarios
Schiphol could grow in volumes by a factor of 1-7 towards 2040, depending on scenarios for passenger volumes and airline and airport industry structure developments
Air passenger volume growth is the key factor for determining future capacity constraints. Potential cargo volume growth is less of a factor as belly capacity free-rides on passenger flight movements and demand growth and full-freighters make up for only 4% of today's Schiphol flight movements. Air passenger volume growth will be driven by 5 demand factors towards 2040: real economic growth, degree of continued globalization, relative cost of flying, access to destinations, and availability of alternatives to flying. Depending on how the combination of these 5 demand drivers plays out, European air passenger volumes could grow by between 1 and 5% per annum, resulting in 1.4-5 times today's volumes by 2040
High growth scenario (up to 5 times today's volume): Continued economic globalization and a further reduction in
real cost of flying results in high leisure and business demand growth, in line with pre-crisis estimates of ~5% p.a.
Moderate growth scenario (up to 2.7 times today's volume): Slowdown of economic globalization, combined with
an increase of the real cost of flying, results in moderate leisure and business demand growth of ~3% p.a.
Low growth scenario (up to 1.4 times today's volume): A stop to further economic globalization, combined with a
steep increase in the real cost of flying due to high fuel cost, results in low demand growth of ~1% p.a.
The European airport industry structure primarily depends on the degree of airline consolidation and airport capacity constraints. Depending on the development of these key factors, the following 3 scenarios could unfold:
Schiphol is no longer a major hub (1-3.5 times today's volume): EU airline sector has consolidated into 3 major
players. Each carrier has concentrated its intercontinental hub activities in one mega-hub , facilitated by a stepchange in airport capacity. Schiphol is not one of these 3 hubs and has become a large 2nd tier airport, with specialized intercontinental routes and a large European network
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Schiphol is still a major hub (1.4-5 times today's volume): EU airline sector has not consolidated much further. The
current airport landscape is still in tact, and all airports have grown at the same pace as far as capacity constraints allowed them to. Schiphol has maintained its current position as one of the 5+ major European hubs
Schiphol is a mega-hub (1.9-7 times today's volume): EU airline sector has consolidated into 3 major players.
Each carrier has concentrated its intercontinental hub activities in one mega-hub, facilitated by a step-change in airport capacity. Schiphol has become one of these mega-hubs, with daily connections to more than 100 intercontinental destinations. Paris has been degraded to a large 2nd tier airport
The scenario that unfolds will determine whether major infrastructural investments are necessary
A growth factor up to ~2.5-3 times current volumes can possibly be accommodated at Schiphols current location, assuming selective policies, technological advances and/or less restrictive noise and environmental regulation. Measures to handle this growth include:
Overflow to regional airports: Transfer non-hub dependent traffic, especially LCC and charters, to overflow
airports such as Eindhoven and Lelystad
Optimize current use of infrastructure within safety limits and legal constraints, e.g., shorten take-off/landing
intervals; redefine noise restrictions; optimize the slot allocation and queuing system; increase pax/plane
Replace feeder flights with high-speed rail: This would reduce the burden on capacity from feeder flights (e.g.,
Brussels, Copenhagen), although potential impact may be small given the limited number of nearby feeder flights
Expand infrastructure at current location: Extend Schiphol with extra runways at the current location
A growth factor beyond 2.5-3 times current volumes is likely to require major infrastructural works, relocation being the most extreme of these. Two options for relocation are a dual hub system and a full relocation:
For a dual hub, the connection time between the two terminals should ideally be less than 5-10 minutes;
otherwise, the hub function will be undermined and transfer passengers will choose alternative routes
An airport at sea has been found to be technologically and environmentally possible. Being a first mover could
make Schiphol the largest European intercontinental hub, transforming the Netherlands into Europe's logistical centre of gravity for passenger transportation. However, there are questions around the cost-benefit trade-off
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Given the high level of uncertainty surrounding these scenarios, strategic choices need to be made on the basis of ambition level, no-regret moves that apply to all scenarios, and belief in the likelihood of the various scenarios. As the lead time of these types of projects spans several decades, procedures should be started as soon as possible if the ambition for Schiphol is a growth factor beyond 2.5-3 times current volumes
Define the ambition level regarding the role Schiphol should ideally play within the different scenarios that could unfold. Questions that would need to be addressed are, for instance:
What is the impact on the Dutch economy, if Schiphol would become an airport with good European connections but limited direct intercontinental connections? What is the economic impact (direct and indirect) if Schiphol would become one of the 3 primary European intercontinental mega-hubs, considering Schiphol would grow with a factor 5-7 of todays volume?
Define no-regret moves that are optimal in all scenarios, such as enlarging the catchment area through better hinterland connections, optimizing airside access, adapting policy making to optimize flexibility around scenariodependent strategic moves Define optimal actions per scenario, depending on the ambition level:
Carrier / alliance strategy: Which carrier / alliance should be given priority? Could a multi-carrier strategy be optimal in some scenarios? What should be done with non-alliance traffic on the hub? Strategic moves: How should Schiphol expand in the long run? Should it be relocated now, in the future or never?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter 4: Strategic choices for Port of Rotterdam (1/2)

Rotterdam is the largest port of Europe due to its naturally favorable location: an easy-to-access deep sea port with a strong hinterland link over the river Rhine to the Ruhr area, combined with a relatively large port area. Rotterdam is by far the largest bulk port and the number one container port, but faces strong competition for the latter from Antwerp and Hamburg for the northern European hinterland. A balanced choice needs to be made about the volumes of container cargo that Rotterdam wants to attract and how these will be transported to the hinterland
Rotterdam could grow current throughput volume by 1-2.6 times until 2040, depending on which long-term growth scenario will unfold. Containers and new liquid bulks are likely to account for the majority of this growth. Trade growth up to 2040 will be driven by 7 key volume drivers: real economic growth, delta factor cost between developing and OECD countries, fragmentation of supply chains, degree of globalization, cost of energy, level of recycling and depletion of raw materials, and the rise of new (liquid) commodities. Three scenarios could unfold:
High growth scenario: Continued globalization, further specialization of supply chains and rise of cheap alternative energies and new liquid fuels drive growth of containers to ~6 times and bulk to 1.5 times today's volumes. It remains doubtful whether a container growth of ~6 times is realistic, as this would imply a tremendous growth in consumption of physical goods per capita Medium growth scenario: Moderate economic growth, a continued difference in factor costs and expensive fuel drive growth of containers to ~3 times and bulk to 1.3 times today's volumes Low growth scenario: Low economic growth, high transport and energy costs and a no further globalization limit growth of containers to ~1.5 times, while bulk volumes decline to 0.7 times today's volumes
The scenario that unfolds will determine whether optimized use of currently planned infrastructure is sufficient, or if a step-change in infrastructural investments is required to avoid major congestion
Container growth: In all volume growth scenarios, planned storage and terminal capacity seem to be sufficient, but hinterland road capacity constraints need to be resolved
The 2nd Maasvlakte provides enough room for storage and terminal capacity in all scenarios Both barge and rail have sufficient capacity to handle 3-7 times the current volume, given that the terminals in
the port can digest the volumes for loading and unloading of both modalities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter 4: Strategic choices for Port of Rotterdam (2/2)

Current road capacity is constrained during rush hours. Measures to improve road congestion can help
accommodate container growth of up to 5 times todays volumes:
- Divert all non-domestic trucked containers to other modalities - Set up a dedicated barged freight corridor to the north of the Netherlands - Construct intermodal barge and train hubs in the Dutch Hinterland - Expand the road network around Rotterdam with, e.g., extra lanes on the A15, A20 and A59 - Increase rail capacity, e.g., by building a 2nd Betuwe route and other dedicated rail freight lines
Bulk growth: In a high growth scenario, planned terminal and hinterland capacity seem to be sufficient, but a step-change in infrastructure would be necessary to secure sufficient storage capacity
Barging and piping to the hinterland have enough capacity to accommodate even the high growth scenario For growth of up to 1.3 times current volumes, Rotterdam has little free space to accommodate potential liquid
bulk growth. Measures for freeing up capacity using current available space (incl. 2nd Maasvlakte) may include:
- Reducing strategic oil storage in the port by relocating storage to other locations, potentially abroad - Relocating dry bulk storage (especially ores and coals for foreign countries) to locations outside the port - Relocating liquid bulk storage capacity to the port of Amsterdam
Beyond 1.3 times current volumes, drastic measures seem necessary to accommodate growth. This might
include constructing a 3rd Maasvlakte
In the face of these capacity constraints, The Netherlands needs to make a balanced choice between volume growth accommodation and policies to attract cargo flows that add most value to the Dutch economy. In order to make this decision, several questions need to be answered:
Which cargo flows have the highest value-add and least negative externalities in the Netherlands? What are the best policy instruments to primarily attract high value-add flows and enforce optimal modal split?
Contents
Role of the Mainports for the economy Interdependence between the Mainports? Strategic choices Schiphol Strategic choices Port of Rotterdam Appendix - Beantwoording offerte vragen
Both mainports are of similar relevance to the Dutch economy

Economic value add of mainports, billion1
Estimate of value add Schiphol 2002, SEO (2006) estimates Net value add (gross value add adjusted for depreciation) Direct - aviation only Direct - other sectors1 Total direct Transport & communication Professional services Distribution Construction Other sectors Total incl indirect effect
3 1 4 2 2 1
EXTERNAL ESTIMATES
Key functions Direct related businesses Indirect effect % of Dutch economy6
Estimate of value add Port of Rotterdam 2006, Port area Rotterdam Rijnmond Gross value add Transport modes3 Services for transport
3 2 2 7 4 1 0 12 5 17
<1%
~1%
Handing and storage Direct value add - transport related Industry4 Wholesale Public and private services
~1%
1 3 12
~3%
Total direct value add including business location Indirect value add economic multiplier effect5 Total including indirect effect
~2%
~3%
1 2 3 4 5 6
GDP contribution total Limited number of studies on value-add available, the numbers on this page are based on two recent reports from well known institutions Dutch port sector Other Schiphol located but non-aviation activities, such as: distribution, other transport and financial services estimated at ~6% Includes the transport modes: road, rail, barge and pipeline Includes the sectors: foodstuff, petroleum, chemicals, metals, vehicles and electricity production Multiplier effect of 1.5 direct value add assumed Schiphol estimates are net value add and therefore compared with Dutch Nett Domestic Product in 2002, estimated at 396 bln by CBS; Port of Rotterdam estimates are gross value add and therefore compared with Dutch Gross Domestic Product in 2006, estimated at 540 bln McKinsey & Company | 11
SOURCE: SEO, Economische Effecten Schiphol, 2006; Port statistics 2006; Havenmonitor 2006; CBS; McKinsey analysis
Many businesses interact with the mainports, but close proximity to a mainport is not necessarily a key location decision factor NOT EXHAUSTIVE
which clearly economically benefit from being close to one or both mainports
Sectors and functions
which interact with the mainports in some way
for which access to one of the mainports is a key success factor
Sectors
High Tech Universities and innovation Production Creative industry Shared Services Center Call Center R&D Center Marketing and Sales
Agriculture Energy Professional services Training centers European HQ Production/Assem blage
Business functions
Wholesale Maritime cluster Petroleum Repair Centers Training centers European Distribution
SOURCE: Rankings from World Bank Doing Business; McKinsey analysis
BUSINESS FUNCTIONS
The mainports play a role in attracting business functions requiring physical transportation of people or goods
Elements of investment climate Corporate Availability Labor Bureaucracy Ease of taxes & costs of flexibility access to skilled labor key market European distribution Marketing and Sales European HQ Training center Production/ Assemblage R&D Center Call Center Shared Services Center Repair Center Costs of doing business Living climate Access to port Access to airport
Very important Important Not important
Languages spoken
SOURCE: Rankings from World Bank Doing Business; Cushman & Wakefield; IMD; OECD; EIA; World Economic Forum; IMDB World competiveness; McKinsey analysis
Importance of element for business activity
BUSINESS FUNCTIONS
The Netherlands have not attracted many Asian businesses

Non-HQ significant facilities1 of 1802 Asian companies with internationalization potential3
Denmark: 2 Service Center UK: 24 Marketing Production Finance Subsidiary HR R&D Service Center Media Distribution Belgium: 2 Subsidiary Production France: 2 R&D Production Switzerland: 2 R&D Production x1 x1
Malta Greece
No HQ 1-5 HQs >5 HQs
x2
NL: 3 Germany: 12 x5 x5 x3 x3 x2 x2 x2 x1 x1 R&D Service Center Subsidiary x1 x1 x1

Norway Sweden Finland
Production R&D Marketing Subsidiary Poland: 2
x6 x3 x2 x1
Denmark
Marketing
U.K. Germany Belgium Luxembourg Czech Austria Slovenia Croatia Monaco Portugal Spain Sardinia Albania Corsica Italy Montenegro Bosnia Serbia Poland
x1 x1
Production Hungary: 3
Slovakia
x1 x1
France Switzerland
R&D Marketing Subsidiary

Macedonia
x1 x1 x1
Hungary
Romani a
x1 x1
Bulgaria
Italy: 2 Production
x2
1 All the facilities excluding HQ, sales and branch offices 2 Data not available for 29 of the 180 companies 3 Companies shortlisted on the basis multiple criteria viz. size, internationalization potential etc. SOURCE: Company websites and reports; McKinsey analysis
Other 9 facilities scattered across the Europe in 9 different countries
BUSINESS FUNCTIONS
For Asian companies transport and accessibility is less important then other location decision criteria
Key location factors for Asian companies
ILLUSTRATIVE
CEO Awareness of the country Personal recommendation Visa & work-permits Closeness to market Proof of concept Direct personal contacts with the country Image of the country Tax advantages International Talent pool Market size Part of EU Transport and accessibility
Relative importance
SOURCE: Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce
BUSINESS FUNCTIONS
The top 3 factors for location decision are access to market, availability and cost of qualified labor and tax climate
Ernst & Young - European Headquarters Perception of EHQ location factors % of total weight Cushman & Wakefield - European Cities monitor 2007 Essential factors for locating a business % of respondents (n=500), 2007 Qualified staff Client proximity Quality of telecom Transport Infrastructure Cost of staff Languages spoken 25 Climate of taxes/ financial incentives 62 58 55 52 36 29 27 Ministry of Economics Affairs Quickscan 2006 Key location factors 1 Headquarters Multilingual personnel Proximity to international airports Corporate tax rates 2 R&D Availability of qualified personnel International proximity 3 Distribution & logistics Corporate tax rates International proximity/centrality Quality of labor 4 Production & manufacturing Availability of skilled labor Real labor costs International centrality/proximity
Client proximity Transport/accessibility Quality & availability of labor Corporate taxes Centrality Airport proximity Other
9 7 6
23 15 15
Top 3 elements of investment climate: Market proximity Availability & cost of talent Tax climate
SOURCE: Ernst & Young (2005); Cushman & Wakefield (2008); Ministry of Economic Affairs (2006); Buck Consultants International (2006); McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 16
SECTORS
Six industry clusters have been identified as key future growth areas in which The Netherlands should invest
Economische sleutelgebieden
ILLUSTRATIVE Detailed further1
Renewable energy Windparks Rotterdam / biofuels Distribution / Logistics Rotterdam Amsterdam Schiphol High Tech Zuid-vleugel (maritime) Eindhoven
Food Wageningen Westland
Creative Industries Amsterdam-Utrecht Eindhoven
Chemicals Maastricht Eindhoven Arnhem Rotterdam

1 Creative industries and renewable energy are potential future high growth sectors for which the interdependence with the Mainports is least well known SOURCE: Berenschot 2008; Innovatieplatform; McKinsey analysis
SECTORS - CREATIVE INDUSTRIES
Creative business services is the fastest growing segments within the broader creative industry
Creative industry Arts Characteristics Subsectors Contribution Employment in Dutch growth for 2004-07 1 employment Percent 30,322 57,894 36,317 4.2 2.9 9.9
Rarely driving economic

innovation Very high share of subsidies in total revenues
Visual arts Performing arts Festivals, events

expositions etc.
Media and publishing
Occasionally innovative Partially share of
Film Television & radio subsidies in total revenues Literature & books Journalism Digital media
14,641 14,089 41,588 3,154 n/a
(2.9) 10.2 (11.4) 6.0 n/a
Creative business services
Nearly always innovative Design Small share of subsidies Architecture Advertising in total revenues Fashion
13,299 59,213 33,739 9,011
58.8 14.8 11.2 24.0
1 Based on data by CBS, measured in 2007 FTEs on SBI93 codes 2 No Dutch employment data available SOURCE: Broek, Wils and De Kleijn, 2008; Stam, Marlet and De Jong, 2008 McKinsey & Company | 18
SECTORS - CREATIVE INDUSTRIES
The success and relative size of a regions creative industry is currently not correlated with intercontinental network quality
Creative employment of total employment Indexed, Milan = 100 Milan Budapest Helsinki Barcelona Dublin Leipzig Amsterdam Munich Sofia Poznan Birmingham Riga Toulouse
43 43 43 2 3 50 57 57 57 0 0 7 38 64 79 1 68 86 93 93 9 15 100 4 19
Number of long haul destinations1

46
1 Long-haul defined as a flight lasting at least 6 hours. Schedule for 12 month period ending March 2009 analyzed SOURCE: Florida, R. (2004), Europe in the Creative Age; Slideshare (2009) - Musterd, S. (2008), Creative Industries in Europees en regionaal perspectief, OAG; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 19
SECTORS - RENEWABLE ENERGY: ETHANOL
Ethanol could make up for more than 5% of liquid bulk throughput and storage capacity for the Port of Rotterdam by 2020
Ethanol demand worldwide, billion gallon, 2020
Trade flows of ethanol EU-27
Bioethanol
Breakdown of ethanol demand Percent 100% = 59,7 bln gallon Europe NA

3,6
4.3 billion gallon shipped to Europe equals ~16 mln m3 Currently Rotterdam is the biggest biofuel port in Europe Assuming Rotterdam attracts 80% of the intercontinental traded biofuels, ~5% of all liquids in the port could be biofuels by 2020
Local use 89
11 Traded ethanol
0,7
2,1
Brazil
Africa
Assumptions ethanol Same subsidies as today Crude oil price 70 USD / bbl Tariffs - same as today Brazil to NA: US$ 0.58/gallon Brazil to EU: US$ 0.91/gallon Logistics - same as today Inland freights + maritime freights Brazil to NA: US$ 0.16/gallon Brazil to EU: US$ 0.21/gallon
Energetic value of Bio-ethanol is 35 - 40% lower per liter than most oil based fuels If bio-fuels volumes would grow significantly up to 2040, this could cause problems with storage capacity in the port
SOURCE: McKinsey land use and biomass model 2020
SECTORS - RENEWABLE ENERGY: CCS
CCS could address almost half of European CO2 emissions from fuel combustion and industrial processes
Total emissions1 100% = 4.2 GtCO2, 2007 CCS addressable emissions 100% = 2 GtCO2, 2007
100
Power: gas
Not adressable by CCS
53
Power: coal 52 Predominantly large, stationary sources
16 6
1
Power: oil Power: other Cement Iron & Steel3 Refineries
9 8 8
Addressable by CCS
47
2007
1 IEA estimates of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion and industrial processes in 2007. Does not include miscellaneous small CO2 emitters and nonCO2 emissions such as methane (e.g. forestry, farming, etc.) 2 Not including biomass, oil sands, paper mills, ammonia, ethanol, ethylene, hydrogen, and other industries 3 Includes metal ores processing SOURCE: EEA GHG Emission Trends and Projections 2007; IEA World Energy Outlook 2007; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 21
SECTORS - RENEWABLE ENERGY: CCS
CCS expected to be economically viable as of 2020, if sufficient funding for pilot projects becomes available
/tonne CO2 90
85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Economic gap
Demonstration phase: Not economically viable in itself
Es ti m ate dc
os to fC
CS
Carbon price forecast*
Commercial phase: Cost of CCS likely to approach the range of the future carbon price
Demonstration phase (2015)
Early commercial phase (2020+)
Mature commercial phase (2030+)
1 Carbon price for 2015 from 2008-15 estimates from Deutsche Bank, New Carbon Finance, Soc Gen, UBS, Point Carbon, assumed constant afterwards SOURCE: Reuters; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 22
SECTORS - TOURISM
Schiphol position as a major intercontinental hub is unlikely to be a key vacation destination decision factor
CASE EXAMPLE
Price argument: flying to Schiphol is cheaper
Ticket price from Tokyo to Round trip via Schiphol, Amsterdam Helsinki Oslo Stockholm +4% 1,250 1,300 1,299 1,301 1,345 Price differential of ~4% will not make people choose for The Netherlands as tourist destination instead of a city with a 2nd tier airport
Tourists visiting The Netherlands instead of another European city because of Schiphol as a large hub Convenience: it is easier to fly to The Netherlands
Milan
Travel time from Tokyo to Hours, Airport to Airport1 Amsterdam Helsinki Oslo Stockholm Milan 11,8 10,3 13,7 12,4 12,4 +5%
Travel time differential on a intercontinental trip only ~1.5 hours on a 12 hour trip, thus also not likely to be a key final tourist destination decision factor
1 Oslo and Stockholm are one stop connections via Schiphol, others are direct flights SOURCE: Destination Holland, NBTC (Nov 2006); AF-KLM website; OAG, McKinsey analysis
SECTORS - TOURISM
Intercontinental tourists do not seem to visit The Netherlands to benefit from Schiphol as easy access point into Europe
Total tourism spend in The Netherlands by residents from 2005, mln UK Germany Belgium France Italy Spain Scandinavia Other Europe Total Europe US Japan Other intercontinental Total 874 628 192 139 100 135 159 346 2,573 279 55 639 3,546 Most popular combinations with a visit to The Netherlands 2005, mln USA Germany France Belgium UK Ireland Japan Italy UK Belgium Germany France Other intercontinental guests Germany France Belgium UK Italy
More then 70% of foreign tourism spending in The Netherlands comes from residents of European countries Intercontinental guests(<30% of spending) tend to combine a visit to the Netherlands with countries that also have good intercontinental connections Therefore, these tourists do not seem to visit The Netherlands because of Schiphol
SOURCE: Destinatie Holland - de buitenlandse toerist nader bekeken, NBTC; McKinsey analysis
Contents
Some sectors use both Schiphol and Rotterdam for transportation of cargo and/or people
Flow Business clusters using one or both mainports1 Agriculture2 Petroleum High Tech Wholesale Professional services Maritime cluster3 Schiphol Pax Perishables Express High value products Rotterdam Dry bulk
BASED ON KIM REPORT QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT

High use of flow Medium use of flow no use of flow
Liquid bulk Containerized products
Only High Tech and Wholesale have limited over-lap in Cargo flows Many business clusters use Schiphol for pax and Rotterdam for cargo, suggesting economic spin-offs exist
1 Business clusters as defined by KiM that extensively use one or both of the mainports 2 Export mostly flowers, import grain, fruit and vegetables 3 Shipbuilding, offshore, and maritime construction SOURCE: KiM: Synergie tussen de Mainports?; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 26
Some direct economic spin-off exists between the two mainports
Schiphol benefits from pax generated by Rotterdam
An estimated 130k-500k Pax are generated by companies directly linked to the Port of Rotterdam Lets assume 80% of these Pax will fly through Schiphol Even then, with a total annual business volume of ~17.5 million pax, this equals to 0.6-2 % of total Schiphol business passengers, less than 1% of Schiphol pax volume
Rotterdam benefits from the need for kerosene by Schiphol
Schiphol requires approximate 600 mln liters of kerosene each year This kerosene is transported from the Port of Rotterdam to Schiphol by barge and pipeline Schiphol demand for kerosene equals ~1.1% of the total annual oil products throughput , which equals ~0.3% of annual liquid bulk throughput of the port of Rotterdam
SOURCE: Port of Rotterdam, Schiphol, Airport Emission Control; McKinsey analysis
Port of Rotterdam generates less then 1% of Schiphol business passengers

Pax Generated by direct port related companies Pax Generated by indirect port related companies
BACK-UP INDICATIVE
Pax Generated by employees of port related companies
80.500 employees directly working the port Due to local nature of work, 5-10% is expected to travel by air Average annual travel by air per person 2-10 60.400 employees indirectly working the port Due to service orientated nature of work, 10-20 % is expected to travel by air Average annual travel by air per person 2-10 Approx 2.500 companies connected to Port of Rotterdam On average an estimated 20-50 customers visit these companies Approx 2.500 companies Connected to Port of Rotterdam On average 20-50 (technical) consultants flying in on a yearly basis Estimated maximum of 80% of total Pax generated to fly from Schiphol Rotterdam Airport expected to accommodate at the remaining (i.e., minimum 20%)
Total Pax generated by Rotterdam
Pax generated by customers visiting companies Pax generated by consultants helping companies
Pax Generated by Port of Rotterdam for Schiphol
% of Pax generated by Rotterdam that uses Schiphol
Total business related PAX generated by Port of Rotterdam and flying on Schiphol: 0.1-0.4 mln
SOURCE: McKinsey analysis
Having an airport close to a major port is not a unique feature within the western European port sector
Most large ports have a major airports nearby
Port Airport
ILLUSTRATIVE
which makes the proximity of Schiphol to Rotterdam not unique
All large NW European ports have a International air passenger hub within hours of driving distance All ports have International air cargo hubs within hours of driving distance All ports have small local airports, convenient for flying e.g. technical staff in and out
Despite not having an international airport, Hamburg has been able to attract Chinese business through creation of a Chinese community
Pillars of the Chinese-German community Hamburg has a welcoming attitude towards Chinese people Chinese healthcare practitioners are supported There is a large number of Chinese organizations There are good distribution facilities Examples
CASE EXAMPLE
All official documents and websites are translated into Chinese The country leads in education of Chinese medicine There are Chinese sector associations (e.g., law, IT, food, culture) Port of Hamburg is the largest Chinese distribution centre of Europe
Relationships Business Research Politics
Sector conferences of Chinese and German businesses Most active student exchange program between Europe and China Shanghai is twin city of Hamburg Ex-chancellors and the Chinese prime minister are involved in establishing relationships between politicians
Culture There are cultural events for the Chinese community in Hamburg There are large cultural events to educate Hamburg about the Chinese culture
Many Chinese cultural associations 3-day city event that involves high-profile Chinese and German politicians / CEOs Hamburg is Chinas leading investment hub 400 Chinese companies in Hamburg Port of Hamburg is the most important trading partner of China, processing 25% of the Chinese export to Europe Chinese expats consider Germany the most attractive country to settle after the US
SOURCE: Press search; McKinsey analysis
Although there is limited direct economic interdependence between the mainports, there are areas of mutual interest
Impact on Mainports Advantages of combined approach
Solid hinterland connections will help

Hinterland connections1
Although hinterland routes for both mainports differ by nature, easing congestion on one, could have a positive spill-over effect for the other e.g., dedicated rail freight routes would benefit Rotterdam directly, while it would decongest the passenger rail network, benefitting Schiphol
secure and extent Schiphol O&D catchment area Low congestion on hinterland connections is necessary for Rotterdam to continue its growth, especially in containers
Talent pool, knowledge and innovation
Competitive position of Schiphol as a hub

highly depends on quality and service of its labor force Rotterdam's competitive position is partly due to its relatively high skilled labor force and resulting high quality of service and regulations
Focus on education of labor force in

logistics could benefit both mainports in maintaining their competitive positions Logistical knowledge build-up trough research and innovation is likely have a beneficiary spill-over effect of knowledge for both mainports involved in strategy and policymaking for both mainports can learn from each other, which can result in better informed decisions at lower costs
Mainports benefit from sound policies

Strategy and policy making
Government and related organizations
1 In practice, both mainports are also competing for funds, as public funds to invest in infrastructure are limited 2 Quantitative ambition commission van Laarhoven (Innovation program logistics and supply chains): increase value add from ~ 3-10 bln by 2020 SOURCE: Expert interviews; DGLM interviews; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 31
Contents
Schiphol currently in first league of European intercontinental airports

12 month period ending March 2009
Number of longhaul destinations1 CDG FRA LHR AMS LGW MXP MAD FCO MAN MUC BRU ZRH DUS ORY HEL LIS DUB VIE CPH ARN ATH BCN GVA PRG LYS MRS WAW BUD
44 41 41 41 38 35 30 27 21 19 17 15 15 12 11 9 9 6 6 6 6 5 4 98 97 85 68 68 61 28 96 51 35 48 32 41 19 34 20 23 23 17 18 13 9 8 6 4 3 2 5 3
Weekly long-haul seat capacity offered, outbound seats 000 234 215 408 153
Average daily frequency of flights2 by destination New York 11.8 6.7 26.0 6.8 2.0 3.6 4.6 6.5 4.0 1.9 4.9 4.8 1.5 2.5 0.9 1.9 4.8 0.9 1.8 2.2 2.2 3.3 2.4 0.9 0.4 0 1.4 1.0 2.0
0 0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hong Kong 3.2 2.4 10.2
Tokyo 4.9 3.0 4.7 2.0

0 1.0 0 1.4 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.8 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
"First league"
"Second league"
Three "leagues" of airports can be identified in long-haul offering Schiphol currently in top league
"Third league" (examples)
1 Flights lasting more than 6 hours included 2 Weekly number of connections divided by seven SOURCE: Back Aviation Solutions OAG database; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 33
Small home market is a potential threat for Schiphol attractiveness as a hub location, however relatively good score on other key factors
(Intercontinental) hub key success factors Evaluation of major EU hubs vs key success factors Schiphol Large home market, .i.e. high O&D volume Strong infrastructure and sufficient expansion options1 Favorable location (center of, e.g., continent) Other (e.g., weather, quality,) Frankfurt London (LHR) Paris
EXPERT OPINION
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Schiphol and Frankfurt are well positioned to serve as

major EU hub and have strong infrastructure, small home market is primary weakness London, although it has a strong home market, suffers from bad weather, sub-optimal geographical location and congested infrastructure Paris has a strong home market, good location, good weather, but is a question mark due to its bad infrastructure
1 Includes hinterland connectivity (landzijdige bereikbaarheid), Airport infrastructure as well as airside connectivity (luchtzijdige bereikbaarheid) SOURCE: Expert interviews; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 34
Within the top-league, Schiphol has least long-haul destinations and is relatively dependent on transfer passengers
Airport breadth and depth 12 month period ending March 2009 Frequency1 Daily average Passenger composition Million, 2007 Transfer FRA 55 O&D 100% = 53
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
3th league
2nd league
1st league
45
LHR AMS 41
59
46
AMS
CDG FRA
LHR
35
65
68
CDG
32
68
57
20
40
60
80
100
Long-haul destinations2 Number

1 Number of annual flights divided by 365 2 Flights lasting more than 6 hours included SOURCE: OAG; UK CAA; McKinsey analysis
LGW
13
87
35
Schiphol physically has most room for infrastructure expansion

Hectare of available land for expansion within a 20x20 km area around the airport
Capacity for runways
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Capacity for businesses
Dubai Amsterdam Madrid London Stansted Paris CDG Rome Frankfurt London Gatwick Munchen Helsinki Barcelona London LHR Brussels Milan Malpensa Copenhagen Vienna Weeze Koln Liege Istanbul Luxemburg Zurich Paris - Charleroi Dusseldorf Manchester
1 Not taking the effect of noise and other restrictions on actual capacity into account
Within Europe, Schiphol has most room for business expansion Schiphol also has most room for runway expansion1 However, actual expansion potential dependent on restrictive policies, such as noise restrictions
SOURCE: Internationale benchmark capaciteit luchthavens, Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid; McKinsey analysis
Schiphol is relatively constrained in its airside access, but easily accessible by land
Together with Heathrow, Schiphol is very constrained on the airside access of the airport Usage of landing and take-off slots within legal constrains, 2007 Schiphol is 2nd best airport with regard to ease of access by land after Frankfurt Ground access, 2003 Journey time to city centre by train minutes 100% = 705
29 4
Available slots Used slots
Frequency of train connection Per hour
# of parking spaces
Paris (CDG)
77%
23
15,970
Frankfurt
90
10 539
10
4-6
36,500
London (LHR)
97
489
16
18,220
Schiphol
97
450
#1 10
#1
#2
29,900
London (LGW)
89
11 291
30
27,000
SOURCE: Internationale benchmark capaciteit luchthavens, KiM; Airport capacity profiles, IATA; McKinsey analysis
Schiphol profits from being in a highly accessible location for transporting air cargo in to Europe, with fierce competition however
European Trucking Accessibility Map Based on time travel matrix1 Top 10 European Airfreight Airports Million metric tons, 2007 1 Paris (CDG) 2 Frankfurt
10
2.1 2.1 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4
3 Schiphol 4 London (LHR) 5 Luxembourg 6 Brussels
3 6 8 7 5 2 1
7 Cologne 8 Liege 9 Milan (MXP) 10 Copenhagen

Low accessibility High accessibility
1 The travel time matrix and resulting accessibility indicator for trucks, i.e. for good transport, can be interpreted from the perspective of producers on (potential) markets as the answer to the question which location has the highest market potential 2 Top ten share of total volume transported is 64% SOURCE: ACI; IRPUD; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 38
While Schiphol is a large cargo airport, relatively air cargo is less important than passenger for understanding future capacity constraints
Amsterdams position as a major cargo airport seems secure due to its size Air cargo throughput, 2007 1000x tons Frankfurt / Main Paris De Gaulle Schiphol London Heathrow Luxembourg Brussels Cologne / Bonn Liege Milan Malpensa Copenhagen Istanbul Madrid East Midlands Zurich Munich London Stansted Vienna London Gatwick Manchester Milan Orio al Serio 2,074 2,053 1,610 1,314 856 738 705 490 471 396 333 322 275 265 251 207 192 171 166 134
0 1 8 35
but Liege took off during that last 10 years Freight activity, 1000x tons
164 208
270 273 327
374 382
326
406
490
1994 95
96
97
98
99 2000 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
Pax flights are significantly larger in volume to than full freight Percent of total number of flight movements, 2006 Full LCC Freighter Major carriers Schiphol
20
76
100%
As full freighters account for only 4% of all Schiphol flight movements, the remainder of this chapter focuses on passenger demand
SOURCE: Sowaer website; ACI; Helder Kiezen, keuzes helder maken; McKinsey analysis
There are 5 key drivers of air passenger volume growth towards 2040
Description of trend Change in trend?
High Low
Impact of driver Past Future
1 Real economic growth
Real GDP growth is the key driver of air travel demand: more business means more travel and more GDP per capita means more leisure demand Globalization increases the need for business travel to meet with overseas business relationships Global social networks and VFR1 trips increase Decreasing cost of flying (in real terms) has been a key driver of traffic growth, especially leisure demand Increased offering of number of destinations and frequency Trip time decreased Land travel: train, car Communication: video conferencing, virtual meetings
Future economic growth uncertain, but will still be a key driver of air travel demand growth, question is at what multiplier? Globalization may continue, but may also flatten out as a response to current economic crisis Key question mark is cost of (alternative) fuels and climate taxes There is a physical limit to improvement of access and marginal utility of increasing frequency declines High speed rail will play an important role on intra EU traffic Virtual meetings impact on business travel is a question mark
2 Continued globalization
3 Cost of flying
4 Access to destinations
5 Alternatives to flying
1 Visits to Friends and Relatives SOURCE: Expert interviews; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 40
1 Economic growth has been the key driver of global passenger volumes
Correlation between yoy change in real GDP and global passenger numbers, 1971-2007
BACK-UP
Normal GDP-air travel growth correlation Economic shocks
Year on year change in global airline passengers carried, %

15.00% y = 2.0562x - 0.0166 R2 = 0.536 10.00%
2004 recovery
1974, 75 stock crash, oil 1973 stock crash, oil
5.00%
1982, Year on recession year change 0.00% in global real GDP -3.00% -2.00% -1.00% 0.00% %
-5.00%
Historically, there is a reasonably high correlation (R of 0.70) between changes in real GDP and passenger numbers However, during shocks to the economic system this relationship is broken
1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00%
Expectation given GDP change, 2009
1991, Gulf War
2002 (post9/11)
Observed YTD, 2009

-10.00%
SOURCE: Worldbank World Development Indicators; ICAO; McKinsey analysis
2 Globalization is an important underlying driver of air passenger volume

ILLUSTRATIVE
Explanation
Evidence
Increasing business links between

Air travel to do business
Number of seats (mln seats per annum both

ways combined) offered on flights between China,HK and EU increased by 10% p.a. +10%
5 6 6 6 8 9 11 11 12
China and Europe Value of FDI of European countries in China increased with an ~18% CAGR between 2000 and 2005* Airline capacity offered between China and Europe also increased substantially
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
International labour movement
A high number of Indian people are

currently employed in Dubai working eg in the hospitality industry and in construction This has also led to substantial increase in air flows between Dubai and India
Number of offered seats on Emirates flights

from Dubai to India increased from 306 thousand in 2000 to 1.8 million in 2008 At the same time, the number of destinations in India served by Emirates increased from 4 to 10
1 Austria, Czech Rep, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland. Portugal, Switzerland, UK taken as sample for Europe SOURCE: SOURCE: Innovata schedules via APGdat, OECD; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 42
3 Cost of flying decreased significantly

Passenger yield1 European carriers2, constant, USD cents / RPK
17,5 17,0 16,5 16,0 15,5 15,0 14,5 14,0 13,5 13,0 12,5 12,0 11,5 11,0 10,5 10,0 1994
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
-26%
1 yield = passenger revenue / revenue pax km 2 Association of European Airlines members only, system wide traffic SOURCE: AEA; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 43
3 Leisure demand is most sensitive to price changes

Number Number of of studies estimates 2 16
SYNTHESIS OF 21 PREVIOUS STUDIES
Market segment Long-haul international business Long-haul international leisure Long-haul domestic business Long-haul domestic leisure Short-haul business
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
Rationale
Paid for by company;

no substitutes
49
One part of trip spend

but no need to travel
26
Paid for but has some

land substitutes
One part of trip spend

but no need to travel
16
Paid for but has many

land substitutes
Short-haul leisure
16 Elasticity More Less
Opportunistic pricedriven booking
SOURCE: Air travel demand elasticities - Concepts, issues and measurement, Gillen, Morrison & Rietveld (2002)
3 At consistent high fuel prices airlines may change their behavior, reducing frequencies in order to increase load factor
Percentage of total operating costs for an average stage-length
100 100 100 100 As fuel costs increase, airlines may change their behavior
Fixed cost1
60
55
51
48
In a fixed cost environment,

20 airlines were prepared to discount seats heavily to contribute to their fixed cost base
Other variable cost2 Fuel cost
26 14 50
24 21 80
22
27 110
32 140
With variable costs above

50%, airlines may be prepared to reduce frequencies and only fly when the aircraft has adequate yield
Price of jet fuel $/bbl

The industry break-even oil price is around ~$95/bbl, at which point variable costs are ~45% of revenue
1 i.e., in the near term, cost is not affected by the load factor or the number of frequencies flown 2 Most variable cost (including fuel) varies mainly according to the number of frequencies flown rather than the load factor SOURCE: Airline industry fuel model; annual reports; Airline Business; press searches; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 45
4 Ease of access to far-away destinations increased over time

Kangaroo route in 1947
CASE EXAMPLE
55 hours needed to fly the route, excluding stopovers 6 stopovers, including two overnighters: LondonTripoli-Cairo-Karachi-Calcutta-Singapore-DarwinSydney Lockheed Constellation flying the route, carrying 29 passengers Average Australian needed to work 130 weeks to buy a return ticket
Kangaroo route now
21.8 hours needed to fly the route One stopover (e.g., in Bangkok, Singapore, Hong Kong) B747-400, B777, A380 flying the route* carrying between 224-525 passengers Average Australian needs to work 2 weeks to buy a return ticket
SOURCE: OAG; press articles; McKinsey analysis
5 High speed rail is a substitute for short-haul flights

Market shares, percent
Airplane Eurostar
Market share on Paris-London Route 100

36
Market share on Brussels-London Route 100 100 100 100

35
100
31
100
29
100
28
52
44
39
64
69
71
72 48 56
61
65
2003
2004
2005
2006
2003
2004
2005
2006
SOURCE: UK CAA; Press Research; McKinsey analysis
Long-term scenarios are formulated as combinations of these 5 factors

Positive
G ec lob on al om re a ic l gr ow C o gl n th ob tin u al e iz d at io n C os to ff ly in A g c de ce st ss in t at o io ns A l t to er fly na in tiv g es
Negative
... Growth
CAGR, %
Global scenario
Description of scenario and impact on air travel demand Impact on air travel demand
Economic scenario
High growth
~5%
Continued economic globalization resulting in high economic growth and further supply chain specialization Further reduction in real cost of flying, driven by technological advances and plenty available alternative energy at reasonable cost Stable economic globalization resulting in moderate economic growth and stable supply chain specialization Real cost of flying flattens out, driven by and high cost of fuel and limited technological advances
High leisure demand growth due to low ticket and global social and business networks High business demand growth due to high economic growth and continued economic globalization Moderate leisure demand growth Moderate business demand growth
Moderate growth
~3%
Low growth
~1%
De-globalization resulting in low economic growth and reversed supply chain specialization Real cost of flying flattens out, driven by and high cost of fuel and limited technological advances
Low leisure and intercontinental business demand growth Moderate intra-Europe business demand growth
SOURCE: Expert interviews; Workshop discussions; McKinsey analysis
Volume growth under these scenarios could vary from 1-5% p.a.
Scenario summary description Global scenario 2007 volumes RPK, trillion From EU to EU NA ASIA ROW Total 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.8 Growth assumption CAGR, %
3.5 4.7 5.7 5.0
Boeing growth rate forecasts Assumptions vs Boeing forecasts
CAGR, %
2040 volumes RPK, trillion
High growth

~5%
Continued economic globalization Further reduction in real cost of flying High leisure demand growth High business demand growth
2.0 1.9 2.4

>4x
2.0 8.2
Moderate growth
~3%
Stable economic globalization Real cost of flying flattens out Moderate leisure and business demand growth
EU NA ASIA ROW Total
0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.8
2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5
1.2 1.1 1.4 1.2 ~3x 4.9
Low growth
~1%
Stop to further globalization Real cost of flying flattens out Low leisure and intercontinental business demand growth Moderate intra-Europe business demand growth
EU NA ASIA ROW Total
0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.8
1.5 1.0 1.0 1.5
1.0 0.6 0.5 0.6 <2x 2.8

SOURCE: Boeing; workshop discussions; expert interviews; McKinsey analysis
Pre-crisis market forecasts support the high growth scenario of 5% growth per annum
RPK, trillions, 2000-2027
Global passenger growth
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
BACK-UP Actuals
CAGR 07-27 Boeing Airline Monitor Airbus 5.0 4.8 4.6
Market forecasters see continued strong growth in global pax The Boeing detailed growth rate forecasts for EU traffic are used as proxy for the High Growth Scenario
2000 2007 European passenger growth1

5 4 3 2 1 0 2000
2027
EU-EU EU-NA EU-ASIA EU-RoW 2007 2027
3.5 4.7 5.7 5.0
1 Based on Boeing detailed traffic outlook per region SOURCE: Boeing, Airbus, Global Insight; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 50
Airline consolidation and airport capacity constraints are key determinants of what the EU airport industry will look like in 2040
Description of trend Impact on EU airport sector
EXPERT OPINIONS
High Low
Importance
Carrier consolidation
Airlines are consolidating to increase scale economies
In a low growth scenario with airport overcapacity, airlines with multiple hubs in close proximity might rationalize the hub function In a high growth scenario without a step change in capacity by 1 or more of the 1st tier EU airports, growth will defer to 2nd tier airports and hub consolidation will not occur EU hubs maybe bypassed on increasing number of routes when these carriers get equipment that can economically make these alternative connections Large economic equipment increases shift towards mega hub consolidation Specialized long-haul equipment enables carriers to bypass large hubs Pure LCCs do not compete with mainline carriers for traffic on key routes between large cities
Airport capacity constraints
Currently all major European airports are facing serious capacity constraints
Competing nonEU hubs/carriers
Large ME carriers (e.g. Emirates) with a favorable geographic hub location compete for traffic
Specialized airplanes
Larger equipment (A380) for trunk routes and specialize smaller equipment for longhaul direct connections make more combinations possible The market has seen an inflow of LCC and point-to-point players, flying directly between peripheral cities and even creating completely new routes
Rise of LCC
1 depending on degree of airline consolidation, which is a driving factor SOURCE: DGLM interviews; Expert interviews; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 51
Key question is to what extend hubs will consolidate into mega hubs and what the role of Schiphol could be under such a scenario
Scenario name A Schiphol not a hub anymore 3 large EU hubs Scenario need to believes
EU airline sector has consolidated into 3 major players Each carrier has concentrated its intercontinental hub activities into one large mega hub, facilitated by a step-change in capacity by these airports Schiphol is not one of these 3 hubs, and has become a large 2nd tier airport, with specialized intercontinental routes and a large European network
B Schiphol still a hub >5 large EU hubs Size of Schiphol
EU airline sector has not consolidated much further OR airline consolidation has not resulted in hub consolidation due to airport capacity constraints Current airport landscape still in tact, all airports have grown at the same pace as far as capacity constraints allowed them to. Schiphol has maintained its current position as one of the 5+ major European hubs.
C Schiphol grows into a mega hub 3 large EU hubs
EU airline sector has consolidated into 3 major players Each carrier has concentrated its intercontinental hub activities into one mega hub, facilitated by a step-change in capacity by these airports Schiphol has become a large mega hub with daily connections to more then 100 intercontinental destinations
SOURCE: Expert interviews; DGLM interviews; workshop discussions; McKinsey analysis
Schiphol passenger volume could be 1-7x current volumes by 2040

Schiphol 2040 passenger volume growth scenarios, indexed, volumes 2007 = 1
A Schiphol not a hub anymore 3 large EU hubs1 B Schiphol still a C Schiphol grows hub into a mega hub 5 large EU hubs1 3 large EU hubs1 10.0x 5.0x ~5% 1.3x 3.5x 5.0x 7.0x 5.0x 5.0x 5.0x
ESTIMATES
Transfer O&D Total Can growth be accommodated at current location? Yes Uncertain No
High growth
5.3x Moderate growth ~3% 0.7x 2.7x 2.7x 2.7x 2.7x 2.7x 3.7x
Assumptions: Today ~40% of passenger volumes is transfer
If Schiphol not a hub, it looses 75% of transfer passengers If Schiphol becomes a mega hub, transfer volume doubles, as Schiphol takes over transfer passengers from other hubs. This is on top of autonomous market volume growth
1.9x
Low growth
~1%
0.3x 1.4x 1.0x
1.4x 1.4x 1.4x
2.8x
1.4x
1.9x
SOURCE: Workshop discussion; McKinsey analysis
Beyond 2.5-3x volume growth, relocation of Schiphol might be necessary

INDICATIVE ESTIMATES
Actions Rationale Volume growth factor Schiphol 2040 vs 2007 1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x
x Capacity increase
multiplier
7x
8x
Overflow to regional airports
Transfer non-hub dependent traffic, especially LCC and charters, to overflow airports such as Eindhoven and Lelystad E.g. shorter takeoff/landing intervals; optimize slot allocation and queuing system; reconsider noise restrictions; more pax/plane Reduces burden on capacity from feeder flights (e.g., Antwerp, Brussels, Copenhagen, )
x1.2
Optimize use of current infrastructure Replace shorthaul traffic by train
X1.5-2
x1.1
Physical runway optimization at current location Expand at alternative location or relocate
Extent Schiphol with extra runways at current location in order to increase capacity within noise / environmental boundaries Build new airports or expansion within 5-10 minutes by super fast train to current Schiphol (e.g., Singapore)
>8x
Low Growth Moderate growth, Schiphol not a hub Schiphol still a hub SOURCE: workshop discussions; McKinsey analysis
High growth, Schiphol still a hub
High Growth Schiphol a mega hub McKinsey & Company | 54
Schiphol could increase capacity by outplacing non-hub traffic

Percent of total number of flight movements, 2006
LCC LCC- leisure Full business motive & Charter Freighter Schiphol 12
24
Currently, 24% of Schiphol flight movements

do not contribute to the hub function Paris (CDG) 17
By moving charters and LCC with leisure

motive to regional airports, Schiphol can free-up 8% of current capacity
Frankfurt
If LCCs with a business motives also would

be moved, Schiphol could free-up 20% of current capacity, creating room to increase hub related capacity by 25%
London (LHR)
SOURCE: Lange Termijnverkennning Schiphol; Helder Kiezen, keuzes helder maken; McKinsey analysis
Schiphol could potentially double its capacity at current location

Schiphol Airport passenger capacity, million pax per year
Impact of measures on passenger capacity Million Current operations Headroom capacity within current constraints Current foreseen maximum Technological advances planes make less noise Technological advances larger planes Capacity after technological advances Policy - stimulate use of larger planes Policy - enforce use of quiet planes Policy less restrictive regulation Capacity after policy measures 47 13 60 10 10 80 10 0-10 ? ~100 Assumptions / rationale INDICATIVE ESTIMATES
2008 total pax handled 47 million Current terminal capacity 60 million pax
New aircraft are 50% quieter than aircraft 10 years ago; IATA expects a 50% reduction in noise by 2020 Trend towards larger equipment, especially for truck routes (e.g. A380)
Average aircraft size at LHR is currently 28% more than at AMS (195 seats versus 152 seats) Use landing charges to incentivize use of quieter planes Relaxation of regulation to increase competitiveness ~ 2x current traffic of 50 mln pax per annum
SOURCE: Lange termijnverkenning Schiphol; Jaarverslag Schiphol Group 2008; IATA; OAG; ACI; McKinsey analysis
Substitution of feeder flights by HSL is estimated to have a small impact, unless all short-haul flights would be substituted
Feeder flights on destinations within 500-800 km can be partly substituted by High Speed Rail Number of flight movements that can be substituted Paris 5,800 49
Assumed substitution %
London
3,100
Estimated effect of substitution <3% of

total flight movements
Brussels
800
60
If 100% of traffic could be substituted,

impact could be substantial at >100.0002 flight movements or 17% of capacity
Frankfurt
300
11
This excludes the extra traffic that will

be attracted as the effective catchment area is being enlarged
Other1
5,000-11,000
na Current total number of flight movements of ~450.000
Total
15,000-21000
~3
1 Other European spokes within 500-800 km from Schiphol, such as Munich, Zurich, Lyon, Geneva, Copenhagen 2 Assuming 100% substitution for Paris, London, Brussels, Frankfurt and the lower range of other (assuming 10% substitution for original estimate) SOURCE: Lange Termijnverkennning Schiphol; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 57
Contents
The port of Rotterdam is the largest European port, especially in the dry and liquid bulk segments
Rotterdam is the biggest port of Europe especially in bulk, while it has similar container volumes compared to its main competitors Total dry bulk throughput 2007, Mln tons 2003 2007 Delta 2003-07
0 100 200 300 400 500 91
Total throughput 2006-07, Mln tons
Market share Rotterdam

51 25 27 5 10 28 2 2 17
49%
Rotterdam Antwerpen Hamburg Amsterdam Le Havre Bremen Duinkerken Wilhemshaven Zeebrugge Gent
24% 28% 32%
Total liquid bulk throughput 2007, Mln tons

187
49% 34% 10% 42% 14% 129 8% 38% -5% PoR 26%
40
15
27
46 2
14
41
Total container and general cargo throughput 2007, Mln tons 119 Other general 99 58 10 28 Bre 16 Dnk 0 Wilh Z.bru Containers 34 5 Gent
Antw Hamb Adam Le H
SOURCE: Port of Rotterdam (Port Statistics); McKinsey analysis
Historically, Rotterdam has benefited from strong global trade growth, driven by underlying global trade flow drivers
Global trade growth, 87-08, mln tonnes 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 0 1987 Rotterdam total volumes, 00-07, mln tonnes 420 400 380 360 340 320 Total multiple (trade on GDP) 0 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 2007 1.7 - 2.1 0.3- 2.00.5 2.6 Increasing specialization Productivity gains 2008 Labor cost arbitrage 0.30.5 - 0.7 0.5 ~0.2 0.1 - 0.2 Growth in global consumption/ production Long-term drivers of trade growth, 1980-2008 Factor as multiple of global GDP
ESTIMATES
Catch-up effect in 90s and 00s (opening of E. Europe/China)
Impact on global trade
0.7 - 0.8
Sectors with high transport intensity (agriculture, construction) grow slower than GDP Service industries grow faster than GDP
Physical output outpaces real value added
Substantial global labor cost differentials remain Real transport cost at historical lows Economies of scale drive consolidation in manufacturing Multi-national manufacturers operate trade-intensive net-works and technology clusters become global factories
0.5- 0.7 0.7 0.9 ~0.2
Long-term trade to GDP growth expected at around 2 Catch up effect of 90s/00s fading
SOURCE: McKinsey global trade flows
Key global trends likely to drive cargo volume growth towards 2040
Tick mark explanation Description of drivers

Increased globalization

Decreased globalization
Globalization
Increase of global business resulting in more global trade Emergence of different trade patterns driven by shifting economical powers and new rising economies (e.g., Africa) Rise of alternative energy will result in low energy cost, both due to abundance of energy as low environmental taxes as renewables impose less burden on the environment
Low cost energy
Rise of cheap Continued new energy dependence on expensive fossil fuels
Depletion / Recycling
Depletion of easy to quarry raw materials could result Depletion and Little recycling possible is shift to harder to quarry raw materials in the rest of increased depletion recycling the world accompanied by changing trade flows Possible rise of new commodities due to increased recycling with likely shifting trade patterns Rise of alternative liquid fuels driven by renewable energy revolution (e.g., biofuels, H2, other types of energy carrying liquids, LNG) Plenty new commodities Continued dependence on current liquids
New (liquid) commodities
SOURCE: Expert interviews; workshops; McKinsey analysis
Future scenarios are formulated as combinations of these key drivers

m ic D gr el ow ta fa th ct G or lo ba co ls st s up G pl lo y ba ch liz ai at ns io Lo n w co R st ec en yc er lin gy N g ew /d ep co le m t m od ion iti es
Positive Negative Growth CAGR, %
Megatrends1:
Ec
on o
Global scenario1
Impact on global trade volumes
High growth ~5%
High economical growth, while global trade volume outgrows GDP growth driven by increased globalization, specialization of supply chains, and cheap alternative energy Gap between OECD and emerging countries becomes significantly smaller (e.g. factor costs, GDP per capita and consumption) Moderate global economic growth due to climate taxes and expensive energy cost Continuation of gap between emerging countries and OECD Majority of production remains in Asia as difference in factor cost continues to exist Low economic growth due to expensive energy and multiple international conflicts which has lead to deglobalization (regionalization) High transport costs and international conflicts and crisis lead to emergence of regional trade areas along continental split (i.e. EU, Asia, North Africa)
Medium growth
~3%
Low growth
~1%
1 See appendix for detailed description of scenarios and megatrends SOURCE: Expert interviews; team analysis McKinsey & Company | 62
CPB WLO scenarios are used to quantify these scenarios
CPB WLO scenarios
Story behind CPB WLO scenario
Link to scenarios in this report Similar to High Growth scenario Globalized open economy High global economic growth Low environmental burden on economy
Global Economy
Little governmental intervention in the European Union Liberalization of global trade EU expands with Turkey, Ukraine and other small countries Increased labor mobility EU member states focus primarily on national interests EU redirects its attention to the US Global free trade agreements fail Increased flexibility of the labor market
Transatlantic Market
Similar to Moderate growth scenario Current level of globalization remains Medium economic growth Difference in factor cost remain between OECD and developing countries
Regional Communities
Little modernization of welfare states World fragmented in couple of Tradeblocks Welfare split in old EU members and new EU members No free global trade
Similar to Low growth scenario Regional trade areas Low economic growth Environmental policies potentially harming growth of economy
SOURCE: Welvaart en Leefomgeving: scenario descriptions
CPB scenarios estimate overall growth between -0.5% and 2.5% p.a.
Mln ton
Total volume Dutch ports (including container)
1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0
CAGR, 2005-40, %
Global Economy Transatlantic Market Strong Europe Regional Communities
2.5
1.4
-0.5
Total volume is expected to grow at maximum 2-3%, and is even expected to shrink in RC scenario Primary driver behind this growth are container volumes
Total container volume Dutch ports

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1984
Global Economy Strong Europe Transatlantic Market Regional Communities 3.3 1.3 5.2
2005
2020
2040
SOURCE: CPB, Aanpassing WLO scenarios voor containervervoer, McKinsey analysis
Overall throughput growth is primarily driven by container segment

Scenario summary description Global scenario A High Growth CPB scenario Volume 2040, mln tonnes Size vs 07
High economical growth, while global trade volume outgrows GDP growth driven by increased globalization, specialization of supply chains, and cheap alternative energy Gap between OECD and emerging countries becomes significantly smaller (e.g. factor costs, GDP per capita and consumption) Moderate global economic growth due to climate taxes and expensive energy cost Continuation of gap between emerging countries and OECD Majority of production remains in Asia as difference in factor cost continues to exist
Container Bulk Total
542 426 968
5.9 1.5 2.6
B Medium Growth
287 362 649
3.1 1.3 1.8
C Low Growth
Low economic growth due to expensive energy and multiple international conflicts which has lead to de-globalization (regionalization) High transport costs and international conflicts and crisis lead to emergence of regional trade areas along continental split (i.e. EU, Asia, North Africa)
144 191 335
1.6 0.7 0.9
The high growth CPB scenario would require a combination of very positive developments to materialize
Mln ton The high growth CBP scenario implies one has to believe that
542
287 144 92
Consumption per capita of containerized goods in Western Europe increases by a factor 6x, and/or the ~10% containers with nonWestern Europe final destination grows by a 2 digit factor, and/or global supply chains specialize further to such an extent that goods are shipped back-and-forward multiple times more than today
Low Growth 0.3 Medium High Growth Growth 0.5 1
2005 Implied containers per capita 0.2
~90% of Rotterdam container throughput has a WesternEuropean final destination
Especially the moderate and high growth scenarios could create serious congestion problems
Terminal space / storage capacity
ILLUSTRATIVE
No bottleneck Bottleneck Detailed further
Terminal transshipment capacity Dry Bulk
Hinterland connections Explanation
Storage capacity likely to be sufficient Hinterland connections mainly by rail and barge, no major bottleneck expected Little room for expansion of current storage capacity on terminals Sufficient spare capacity for pipelines to hinterland Terminal storage space reached its limits early 2007, but 2nd Maasvlakte likely to provide sufficient storage Hinterland connections (especially road) currently congested, likely to become worse
Liquid Bulk
Container
CONTAINER HINTERLAND CONGESTION
Different actions can help to accommodate container volume growth

ROUGH ESTIMATES
+ Additional capacity
Examples of actions Volume growth factor of Port of Rotterdam 1x Transport more containers by rail or barge Dedicated freight corridor to North of NL Intermodal hubbing in Hinterland Expansion of hinterland road network 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x
from measure
7x
Expand requirements set for certain modal split for all newbuild capacity on 2nd Maasvlakte to rest of port Set-up a barge corridor to divert all cargo currently trucked to the north Construct Inland hubs and divert all transfer containers to this hub Enlargement of RingRotterdam from 2-3 lanes to 4-5 lanes and A15 & A59 from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Build 2nd Noord-oever connection Prepare roads with possible capacity increase Build 2nd Betuweroute to accommodate growth Build an new dedicated railroute to Antwerp
+~0.5
+~0.3
+ ~1
+ ~1

Expansion of rail network capacity
+ ~1
Low Growth
Medium Growth
High Growth
SOURCE: Team analysis
Rotterdam has the most containerized transfer traffic in the Hamburg Le Havre range
Destinations of hinterland container flows of port outside national territory, percent of total
Other France Belgium The Netherlands
Rotterdam Antwerp Zeebrugge Bremen Hamburg Le Havre 2

9 22 15
30
17 13 9
18 16 21 10
2
7
13
62
Germany
52
60% of Rotterdam
inland container traffic has destination outside of The Netherlands
5 50
German and French

ports have less than 20% of total inland container traffic for foreign destinations
11
SOURCE: Notteboom, Economic Analysis of the European Port System (2009); McKinsey analysis
Containers with destination outside The Netherlands make up for at least 1/3 of containerized road traffic from the Port of Rotterdam
Roughly 40% of total inbound containers in Rotterdam is for the Netherlands Containerized cargo by road, rail and barge 100% while ~60% of the container throughput is done by truck Modal split container throughput, 2007 100%
Germany Barge
31
Belgium France Other
Rail
10
19
Can potentially be diverted to other modes
Assuming all Dutch containers are trucked implies 1/3 of containers currently trucked could be diverted by rail or barge to decrease congestion This would reduce total annual truck movements in Rotterdam with 500.000 - 1.000.000
Truck The Netherlands ~40 40
SOURCE: Notteboom, Economic Analysis of the European Port System (2009); Port of Rotterdam; McKinsey Analysis
Dutch waterways could potentially accommodate up to 7x current volumes, but climate change adaption policies could reduce this potential
The Dutch waterways can cope with a 100% increase in growth, while the Rhine can even accommodate seven times the capacity that it currently processes Bureau Voorlichting Binnenvaart Extreme dry summers and wet winters due to climate change could reduce the capacity of the rivers Interview with DG Water
SOURCE: Bureau voorlichting binnenvaart, Waardevol transport 2007 ; Interview DG Water
Container growth is likely to generate more road congestion, if the current modal split would prevail
Port of Rotterdam Total throughput 2007, Mln tons 802 5,090 4,391 Container - Modal split throughput Number of moves 5,637 5,859 1,354 Barge 23 8
% of total (2006) Capacity left
Headroom left per modality2
2-7 times3 3-5 times4
515
407
486
Rail
2,619 Road Other cargo
45
0 times5
302
287 1,400 2003 04 05 2006 Feeder Throughput 24 n/a
Containers
105 2007 20401
Containers makes up for ~25% of throughput in tons
Majority of throughput to hinterland still by road No major modal shift has happened for hinterland transport in the past years
1 Medium Growth scenario 2 Given the port terminals can handle these volumes per modality 3 Capacity of the Dutch waterways according to Bureau Voorlichting Binnenvaart 4 Rough estimates based on current usage of Betuwe-route vs theoretical capacity 5 Currently capacity constrained in rush-hours SOURCE: Port of Rotterdam (Port Statistics); Bureau Voorlichting Binnenvaart; McKinsey analysis McKinsey & Company | 72
LIQUID BULK STORAGE CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS
Different actions could help to accommodate bulk volume growth
INDICATIVE ESTIMATES
+ Additional capacity
Examples of actions Volume growth factor of Port of Rotterdam 0x 1x 2x
from measure
3x
Capacity increase 2nd Maasvlakte Reduce strategic reserves
Re-allocate strategic oil reserves outside the port to free-up space to accommodate bio-fuels
+0.1
Stop storing ores and coal in port Relocate storage to Amsterdam
Re-allocate storage of ores and coals for the non-Dutch market outside of the port Relocate liquid bulk storage to port of Amsterdam
+0.1
+0.1
Increase port capacity
Increase pipeline capacity
Expand port capacity to accommodate volume growth, e.g., by constructing a 3rd Maasvlakte or dedicated storage capacity in the Dutch Hinterland Increase capacity of pipelines to accommodate new liquids growth and store these liquids outside of the port area Low Growth shrink Medium Growth
+ 0.3-0.5
?
High Growth McKinsey & Company | 73
SOURCE: Team analysis
LIQUID BULK STORAGE CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS
Besides on the 1st and 2nd Maasvlakte, Rotterdam has little spare terminal space available
General cargo Liquid Bulk Dry Bulk Food Distribution Other Activities
Strategic oil reserves in the Port of Rotterdam occupy an estimated 5% of total liquid bulk storage capacity in the port
SOURCE: Port of Rotterdam; COVA; McKinsey Analysis McKinsey & Company | 74
Contents
Role of the Mainports for the economy Interdependence between the Mainports? Strategic choices Schiphol Strategic choices Port of Rotterdam Appendix - Beantwoording Offerte vragen
Antwoord op specifieke vragen zoals gesteld in de offerte (1/3)

Vragen Rol mainports in Economische structuur van 2040 Antwoord Onderbouwing in rapport
Welke rol kunnen de mainports spelen in de vernieuwing en versterking van de economische structuur?
De mainports kunnen een sterke rol spelen voor de direct aan de mainports gerelateerde sectoren en daaraan gerelateerde economische structuur. Voor vernieuwing van de economische structuur lijkt de aanwezigheid van de mainports niet bepalend te zijn. Andere factoren lijken een grotere rol van betekenis te spelen voor vestigingsklimaat van buitenlandse bedrijven en de groei van nieuwe sectoren. De mainports helpen wel met het versterken van de economische structuur. Samen kunnen de mainports de kenniseconomie beperkt versterken doordat theorie opgedaan aan universiteiten en andere innovatie-instituten, gecombineerd kan worden met praktijk van de aan de mainports gerelateerde bedrijvigheid
H1
Kunnen de mainports door hun faciliterende rol voor zowel de kenniseconomie, de zakelijke dienstverlening en de hoogwaardige industrie en logistiek bijdragen aan robuuste(re) economische structuur? Welke rol speelt het feit dat de economie steeds meer een netwerkeconomie wordt voor de betekenis van de mainports?
H1
Het feit dat samenleving steeds meer socially networked wordt zal waarschijnlijk een impuls gegeven aan het mondiale vliegverkeer en zal waarschijnlijk een extra groei driver zijn voor Schiphol
H3

Vragen Sectoren met belangen in de mainports in 2040 Antwoord Onderbouwing in rapport
Welke sectoren of activiteiten hebben baat bij sterke mainports?
Direct ver bonden aan de mainports verbonden sectoren, zoals het petrochemisch cluster, hebben baat bij sterke mainports. Van de niet rechtstreeks aan Mainports verbonden sectoren hebben de volgende activiteiten wel baat bij sterke mainports: (Europese) hoofdkantoren, Europese distributie, Training centra, productie en assemblage en Shared Service Centra Toerisme is een potentile groeisector, maar is niet afhankelijk van sterke mainports. Milieu als groeisector kan heel groot zijn voor Rotterdam door verwachte groei in o.a. biobrandstoffen en waterstof. Vooral daar de energetische waarde van deze brandstoffen lager is dan van conventionele brandstoffen, waardoor meer verwerking- en opslagcapaciteit vereist is in de haven Schiphol zal een faciliterende rol spelen voor nieuwe kennis sectoren zoals de creatieve sector en de game industrie, maar is niet een sleutel succes factor. Het huidige aantal bestemmingen en frequentie van Schiphol is voldoende voor deze opkomende sectoren Voor de verdere ontwikkeling van kennis gedreven en internationale diensten is het opportuun dat Schiphol minimaal de huidige intercontinentale bereikbaarheid houdt in 2040
H1
Is toerisme bijvoorbeeld een potentile groeisector en kan toerisme een groeisector zijn zonder mainports? Hetzelfde geldt bijvoorbeeld voor milieu (CO2opslag, windenergie, bio-energie) als groeisector Hoe zit het met nieuwe activiteiten zoals design, entertainment, gameindustrie, mode, .. Welke rol spelen zij in 2040 in onze economie en hoe passen de mainports daarin? Wat zijn de consequenties voor deze sectoren en activiteiten als we niet meer zouden investeren in de mainports?
H1
H1
H1

Vragen Mogelijke interventies en consequenties Antwoord Onderbouwing in rapport
Wat kunnen de antwoorden op voorgaande vragen betekenen voor de ontwikkelingsrichting van het mainportconcept en de mogelijk daaraan gekoppelde interventies?
Het belang van een gezamenlijke strategie voor de mainports is beperkt, gezien het feit dat de samenhang tussen beiden gelimiteerd is en waarschijnlijk geen belangrijke succesfactor voor de beide mainports. Er zijn echter wel gebieden van gezamenlijke belang die een gecordineerde aanpak billijken De toekomst voor Schiphol is onzekerder dan die van Rotterdam door grotere complexiteit van de industrie structuur. Gezien de mogelijke groei tot 7x het huidige volume zullen keuzes gemaakt moeten worden met betrekking tot wenselijkheid van het accommoderen van die groei Indien de verwachte hoge groei in containers materialiseert, zal dit een grote druk zetten op de achterland verbindingen van Rotterdam. Naast infrastructuur verbeteringen zal Nederland beleidsmaatregelen in moeten zetten welke stromen via welke modaliteit naar het achterland vervoert mogen worden De mogelijke groei in met name natte bulk zal grotendeel geaccommodeerd kunnen worden in de Rotterdamse haven. Allen als de groei zeer hoog uitvalt zal er aanvullende opslag en verwerkingscapaciteit nodig zijn
H3 & 4

MCK Mainports 2040 Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MCK Mainports 2040 Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mainports 2040

Input for exploration phase long-term vision Mainports

Final report, June 2009

McKinsey & Company | 1

Chapter 1: Role of the mainports in the economy

McKinsey & Company | 3

Chapter 2: Interdependence between the mainports

Direct economic interdependence between Schiphol and Port of Rotterdam is limited

McKinsey & Company | 4

Chapter 3: Strategic choices for Schiphol (1/3)

McKinsey & Company | 5

Chapter 3: Strategic choices for Schiphol (2/3)

McKinsey & Company | 6

Chapter 3: Strategic choices for Schiphol (3/3)

McKinsey & Company | 7

Chapter 4: Strategic choices for Port of Rotterdam (1/2)

McKinsey & Company | 8

Chapter 4: Strategic choices for Port of Rotterdam (2/2)

McKinsey & Company | 9

McKinsey & Company | 10

Both mainports are of similar relevance to the Dutch economy

Sectors and functions

which interact with the mainports in some way

for which access to one of the mainports is a key success factor

Agriculture Energy Professional services Training centers European HQ Production/Assem blage

SOURCE: Rankings from World Bank Doing Business; McKinsey analysis

McKinsey & Company | 12

Very important Important Not important

Importance of element for business activity

McKinsey & Company | 13

The Netherlands have not attracted many Asian businesses

No HQ 1-5 HQs >5 HQs

NL: 3 Germany: 12 x5 x5 x3 x3 x2 x2 x2 x1 x1 R&D Service Center Subsidiary x1 x1 x1

Production R&D Marketing Subsidiary Poland: 2

R&D Marketing Subsidiary

Other 9 facilities scattered across the Europe in 9 different countries

McKinsey & Company | 14

SOURCE: Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce

McKinsey & Company | 15

ILLUSTRATIVE Detailed further1

Food Wageningen Westland

Creative Industries Amsterdam-Utrecht Eindhoven

Chemicals Maastricht Eindhoven Arnhem Rotterdam

SECTORS - CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

Rarely driving economic

Visual arts Performing arts Festivals, events

Media and publishing

Occasionally innovative Partially share of

14,641 14,089 41,588 3,154 n/a

(2.9) 10.2 (11.4) 6.0 n/a

Creative business services

13,299 59,213 33,739 9,011

58.8 14.8 11.2 24.0

SECTORS - CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

Number of long haul destinations1

SECTORS - RENEWABLE ENERGY: ETHANOL

Breakdown of ethanol demand Percent 100% = 59,7 bln gallon Europe NA

SOURCE: McKinsey land use and biomass model 2020

McKinsey & Company | 20

SECTORS - RENEWABLE ENERGY: CCS

Not adressable by CCS

Power: oil Power: other Cement Iron & Steel3 Refineries

SECTORS - RENEWABLE ENERGY: CCS