P. 1
Managing Airports

Managing Airports

|Views: 1,097|Likes:
Published by Olimpia Vlad

More info:

Published by: Olimpia Vlad on Feb 18, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/09/2013

pdf

text

original

Sections

  • Introduction
  • Figure 1.1Airport passengers by world region,2001
  • Figure 1.2Airport cargo tonnes by world region,2001
  • Figure 1.3Airport aircraft movement by world region,2001
  • Figure 1.5The world’s 20 largest airports by cargo tonnes,2001
  • Figure 1.6The world’s 20 largest airports by aircraft movements,2001
  • Figure 1.4The world’s 20 largest airports by total passengers,2001
  • Table 1.1Growth in passenger numbers at the world’s 20 largest airports
  • Moves towards commercialization
  • Why privatization?
  • Figure 2.1Ownership of Vienna airport up until 1992
  • Figure 2.2Ownership of Vienna airport after IPO in 1992
  • Figure 2.3Ownership of Vienna airport after secondary offering in 1995
  • Figure 2.4Ownership of Vienna airport after changes in 2001
  • Figure 2.5Total passengers at Vienna airport,1979–2001
  • Figure 2.6Total revenues – Vienna Airport Group,1979–2001
  • The privatization timetable
  • Types of privatization
  • Table 2.1Airport privatization through share flotations
  • Table 2.2Airport privatization through trade sales
  • Table 2.3Airport privatization through concession agreements
  • Table 2.4Airport privatization through project finance
  • Table 2.7Privatization details of Australian airports
  • The globalization of the airport industry
  • Figure 2.12Profitability – Schiphol Group,1989–2001
  • Figure 2.11Total passengers at Amsterdam airport,1989–2001
  • Table 2.8TBI’s expansion into the airport business,1995–2002
  • Impact of airport globalization on users
  • Table 2.9PlaneStation airports operated by Wiggins in 2003
  • Table 3.1Profitability for 30 major airport operators,2001–02
  • Table 3.2Airport operating revenue sources
  • Revenue and cost structures
  • Factors influencing costs and revenues
  • Measuring economic performance
  • Figure 3.2Costs per WLU for European airports,2001
  • Figure 3.3Revenue per WLU for European airports,2001
  • Figure 3.4WLU per employee for European airports,2001
  • Increasing emphasis on quality
  • Measuring the quality of service
  • Table 4.1Service standards used by Manchester airport
  • Table 4.3Summary of QSM scores 2001–02 at BAA London airports
  • Service level agreements
  • Table 4.5BAA London airport ‘best endeavours’service level targets,1999
  • Table 4.6GSSs agreed at Manchester airport in 2002
  • Level of delays
  • Table 4.7Increasing scheduled journey times at congested airports
  • Figure 4.1Passenger survey results at Brisbane airport,2001–02
  • Quality management at airports
  • Table 4.11Static quality indicators at Brisbane airport,2001–02
  • The structure of aeronautical charges
  • Table 5.1Main aeronautical charges at airports
  • The level of aeronautical charges
  • The impact of aeronautical charges on airline operations
  • Table 5.3Discounts given to each airline at Aer Rianta airports,1998–2001
  • The airport regulatory environment
  • Regulation of privatized airports
  • Table 5.5IATA’s criteria for airport economic regulation
  • Table 5.6The ‘X’value used for the UK airport price caps
  • Slot allocation
  • Table 5.8Slot co-ordination status of major airports in the EU
  • Table 5.9Key features of the 1993 EU slot allocation regulation
  • Ground handling issues
  • Table 5.10Key features of the 1996 EU ground handling directive
  • The US experience
  • A new airport–airline relationship
  • The importance of commercial facilities
  • The market for commercial facilities
  • Table 6.1The different markets for commercial facilities at airports
  • Figure 6.2Concession revenue:Brussels airport,2001
  • Figure 6.3Concession revenue:Washington airports,2001
  • The commercial contract and tender process
  • Table 6.2Concession income at BAA London airports,2000–01
  • The ending of EU duty- and tax-free sales
  • Figure 6.4Airport retail revenue per square metre in 2000–01
  • The impact of 11 September 2001
  • Table 6.4Changes in non-aeronautical revenue at UK airports,1998–2001
  • Table 6.5Aer Rianta’s involvement in international retailing activities,2002
  • Figure 6.6Profitability – Aer Rianta,1992–2000
  • Figure 6.7Retail space at BAA UK airports,1990–2002
  • Table 6.6Key developments in BAA’s retail strategy in the 1990–2000s
  • Figure 6.8Revenue sources for BAA,1999–2002
  • Figure 6.9Profitability – BAA,1999–2001
  • The birth of airport marketing
  • Table 7.1Number employed in airport marketing at selected regional airports
  • The nature of airport competition
  • Table 7.2Alternative low-cost airports within Europe
  • Marketing concepts
  • Table 7.3The airport’s customers
  • Table 7.4Factors affecting the choice of airports
  • Table 7.5Passengers reasons for choice of UK airport in 1998/99
  • Airport marketing techniques
  • Table 7.7Elements of agreement between Ryanair and BSCA
  • Table 7.8Main catchment areas of London City airport,2002
  • Table 7.9Passenger profile at Southampton airport,2000
  • Norwich airport
  • Figure 7.1Total passengers at Southampton airport,1990–2002
  • Table 7.10Passenger profile at Norwich airport,1999
  • Figure 7.2Total passengers at Norwich airport,1990–2002
  • The wider picture
  • Airports as generators of economic activity
  • Measuring the direct,indirect,and induced impacts
  • Figure 8.2Employment at European airports in 1996
  • Figure 8.3Employment at Gatwick airport in 1997
  • Table 8.1Employment impacts at European and North American airports
  • Airports and economic development
  • Growing concerns for the environment
  • The main impacts
  • Table 9.1Emission charges at Swedish airports in 2002
  • The role of other transport modes
  • Figure 9.1Existing and planned rail links to airports
  • Figure 9.2Public transport usage by passengers to and from the airport,2001
  • The social consequences
  • Environmental management
  • Table 9.3Key environmental performance indicators at airports
  • Table 9.6Manchester airport’s ‘green charter’
  • Table 9.7Main environmental indicators used by Copenhagen airport A/S
  • Sustainability and environmental capacity
  • Airport traffic levels
  • Airport financial performance
  • Security issues
  • The insurance problem
  • Future prospects
  • Figure 10.2Average annual pax-km forecasts of main regional flows,2002–21
  • Index

Managing Airports

Butterworth-Heinemann An imprint of Elsevier Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP 200 Wheeler Road, Burlington MA 01803 First published 2001 Reprinted 2002 Second edition 2003 Copyright © 2001, 2003, Dr Anne Graham. All rights reserved The right of Dr Anne Graham to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including photocopying or storing in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the written permission of the copyright holder except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, England W1T 4LP. Applications for the copyright holder’s written permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the publisher Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science and Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone: (+44) (0) 1865 843830; fax: (+44) (0) 1865 853333; e-mail: permissions@elsevier.co.uk. You may also complete your request on-line via the Elsevier homepage (http://www.elsevier.com), by selecting ‘Customer Support’ and then ‘Obtaining Permissions’ British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN 0 7506 5917 3 For information on all Butterworth-Heinemann publications visit our website at www.bh.com

Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd, Chennai, India Printed and bound in Great Britain

Managing Airports
An international perspective
Second edition Anne Graham

AMSTERDAM BOSTON HEIDELBERG LONDON NEW YORK OXFORD PARIS SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO

Contents

List of figures List of tables Preface Acknowledgements Abbreviations 1 2 Introduction The changing nature of airports Traditional airport ownership and management Moves towards commercialization Why privatization? The privatization timetable Types of privatization The globalization of the airport industry Impact of airport globalization on users Airport economics and performance benchmarking Industry profit levels Revenue and cost structures Factors influencing costs and revenues Measuring economic performance Service quality and its measurement Increasing emphasis on quality Measuring the quality of service Service level agreements Level of delays Quality management at airports

vii ix xii xiii xv 1 8 8 10 12 17 18 37 48 54 54 56 59 61 74 74 76 82 85 91

3

4

Contents 5 The airport–airline relationship The structure of aeronautical charges The level of aeronautical charges The impact of aeronautical charges on airline operations The airport regulatory environment Regulation of privatized airports Slot allocation Ground handling issues The US experience A new airport–airline relationship The provision of commercial facilities The importance of commercial facilities The market for commercial facilities Approaches to the provision of commercial facilities The commercial contract and tender process The ending of EU duty.and tax-free sales The impact of 11 September 2001 The role of airport marketing The birth of airport marketing The nature of airport competition Marketing concepts Airport marketing techniques Norwich airport The economic impact of airports The wider picture Airports as generators of economic activity Measuring the direct. indirect. and induced impacts Airports and economic development The environmental impact of airports Growing concerns for the environment The main impacts The role of other transport modes The social consequences Environmental management Sustainability and environmental capacity The impact of 11 September 2001 and future prospects Overall effect on the air transport industry Airport traffic levels Airport financial performance Security issues The insurance problem Future prospects Index 98 98 104 104 111 112 120 126 129 132 140 140 142 149 153 158 163 178 178 180 182 188 199 203 203 204 206 212 219 219 220 229 236 237 245 251 251 253 255 259 264 265 272 6 7 8 9 10 vi .

2 3.6 1. 2001 The world’s 20 largest airports by cargo tonnes.4 2. 2001 Airport aircraft movement by world region.1 3.5 3. 1996–7 Profitability at Australian airports. 2002 Financial results of TBI.3 1.6 2. 1996–7 External capital funding at large US hub airports. 2001 The world’s 20 largest airports by international terminal passengers. 2000 Ownership of Vienna airport until 1992 Ownership of Vienna airport after IPO in 1992 Ownership of Vienna airport after secondary offering in 1995 Ownership of Vienna airport after changes in 2001 Total passengers at Vienna airport.12 2.2 2.3 3. 2001 WLU per employee for European airports.14 3. 2001 The world’s 20 largest airports by total passengers. 1979–2001 Total revenues – Vienna Airport Group. 1989–2001 Organizational structure within the Schiphol Group. 2000 External capital funding at small US hub airports. 2001 Revenue per employee for world airports.7 2.4 1.7 2. 2000 Total passengers at Amsterdam airport.1 2. 2001 Airport cargo tonnes by world region.2 1. 2001 Cost per WLU for European airports.13 2. 1999 Passenger survey results at Brisbane airport.8 2.10 2.1 Airport passengers by world region. 1989–2001 Profitability – Schiphol Group.9 2.11 2. 1979–2001 Traffic at Australian airports.5 1.1 1. 2000–01 Total factor productivity for world airports.Figures 1.6 4.3 2.4 3. 1994–2002 Percentage share of aeronautical revenue at ACI airports by world region. 2001 The world’s 20 largest airports by air transport movements. 2001 Revenue per WLU for European airports. 2001–02 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 15 15 15 16 16 16 32 32 35 35 38 38 40 44 57 67 67 68 69 70 90 .5 2.

2 Concession revenue: Brussels airport.7 Retail space at BAA UK airports. 2001 6. 2002–21 5.3 Concession revenue: Washington airports. 2001 6.2 Employment at European airports in 1996 8. 1990–2002 6.2 Average annual pax-km forecasts of main regional flows.1 The economic impact of airports 8.4 Airport retail revenue per square metre in 2000/2001 6.1 Existing and planned rail links to airports 9.1 105 107 147 147 148 159 163 167 169 171 172 199 201 205 207 210 231 232 233 233 254 268 viii . 1998–2001 6.Figures Aeronautical charges and taxes for an international B737–800 turnaround in 2002 at world airports 5. 2000 6.9 Profitability – BAA.2 Total passengers at Norwich airport. 1999–2001 7.2 Landing and passenger charges as a share of total costs for UK airlines.1 Non-aeronautical revenue per passenger at ACI airports by world region.1 Total passengers at Southampton airport. 1990–2002 8. 1992–2000 6.6 Profitability – Aer Rianta. 1999–2002 6.3 Employment at Gatwick airport in 1997 9.8 Revenue sources for BAA.1 Airport passenger growth by world region since 11 September 2001 10.3 Mode of surface transport used by passengers at London Heathrow airport in 2001 9. 2001 9.5 Non-aeronautical revenue share (%) at European airports.2 Public transport usage by passengers to and from the airport. 2001 6. 1990–2002 7.4 Mode of surface transport used by employees at London Heathrow airport in 1999 10.

8 Growth in passenger numbers at the world’s 20 largest airports Airport privatization through share flotations Airport privatization through trade sales Airport privatization through concession agreements Airport privatization through project finance Ownership patterns at main UK airports.8 2.3 4. 1995–2002 PlaneStation airports operated by Wiggins in 2003 Profitability for 30 major airport operators. 1999 GSSs agreed at Manchester airport in 2002 Increasing scheduled journey times at congested airports Delays at major European airports on intra-European scheduled services.6 4.7 4. 2001 Performance indicators commonly used to assess economic performance Service standards used by Manchester airport Criteria most frequently used to measure quality of service at ACI airports Summary of QSM scores 2001–02 at BAA London airports Overall passenger satisfaction levels: best performing airports from IATA’s 2001 global airport monitor by size of airport BAA London airport ‘best endeavours’ service level targets.5 4.4 2.5 2.3 3.1 3. 1987–2001 Privatization details of Australian airports TBI’s expansion into the airport business.7 2. 2003 Traffic and profitability growth at main UK airports.3 2.Tables 1.4 4. 2001–02 Airport operating revenue sources Average revenue and cost structures at European airports.5 4.2 2.4 3. 1983–2001 Revenue and cost structures at a selection of European airports.9 3.1 4. 2002 6 20 22 24 25 29 31 33 44 50 55 56 58 58 64 76 79 80 81 83 84 86 87 .6 2.2 4.1 2.1 2.2 3.

9 5. economic. and parking fees IATA’s criteria for airport economic regulation The ‘X’ value used for the UK airport price caps The ‘X’ value used for the Australian airport price cap for 5 years after privatization in 1997–8 Slot co-ordination status of major airports in the EU Key features of the 1993 EU slot allocation regulation Key features of the 1996 EU ground handling directive The different markets for commercial facilities at airports Concession income at BAA London airports.7 7.11 5.9 4.1 7. landing.2 7. 1998–2001 New route discounts available at Aer Rianta Airports 2001–03 on passenger.8 5. 2001–02 Main aeronautical charges at airports New growth and new route discounts available at Aer Rianta airports.7 5. Geneva.3 9.2 6.10 4. 2001–02 Static quality indicators at Brisbane airport.1 8.5 6.4 7. 2002 Key environmental performance indicators at airports Environmental.4: 5.4 9.6 7.9 7.6 9.3: 5. 2000–01 Short-term impact of the loss of intra-EU duty.5 9. 2001/2002 Key events in the development of Manchester airport’s second runway Manchester airport’s ‘green charter’ Main environmental indicators used by Copenhagen airport A/S 88 90 91 103 109 109 110 116 117 119 122 123 128 146 157 161 164 166 171 179 181 183 184 185 190 192 197 198 200 211 216 226 234 238 239 241 242 244 x . 1999 Employment impacts at European and North American airports Economic impacts at Washington.8 7.2 9. and Vienna airports Emission charges at Swedish airports in 2002 Targets and commitments – Heathrow airport surface access strategy. 2000 Passenger profile at Norwich airport.and tax-free sales on airport revenues Changes in non-aeronautical revenue at UK airports.6 5.2 9. 1998–2001 Aer Rianta’s involvement in international retailing activities. and social expenditure and savings at Heathrow airport.10 8.7 Proposed service quality elements to be included in the regulation of BAA London airports Survey results of seven major airlines at Brisbane airport.2 5.6 7.3 7. 2002 Passenger profile at Southampton airport.1 6.4 6.10 6. Brisbane. 2002 Key developments in BAA’s retail strategy in the 1990–2000s Number employed in airport marketing at selected regional airports Alternative low-cost airports within Europe The airport’s customers Factors affecting the choice of airports Passengers reasons for choice of UK airport in 1998/99 Airline and tour operators marketing support costs at Manchester airport.1 5.3 6.Tables 4.5 7.5 5. 1994–9 on airport fees Discounts given to each airline at Aer Rianta airports.1 9. 1998–2003 Elements of agreement between Ryanair and BSCA Main catchment areas of London City airport.

2 10. 2002 IATA forecasts of international scheduled passengers Long-term forecasts of global traffic growth 247 255 257 258 258 260 262 267 267 xi .4 10.7 10.5 10.6 10.8 The impacts of different options for optimizing noise capacity at Amsterdam airport Change in passenger numbers at major European airports since 11 September 2001 Change in financial performance of the US airport industry since 11 September 2001 Change in financial performance at major European airports since 11 September 2001 Share prices of airport companies since 11 September 2001 Important dates for new security measures in the United States.Tables 9. 2001–02 Funding of security at European airports.1 10.3 10.8 10.

. rather than on the detailed operational and technical aspects. The aim of this book is to provide a comprehensive appreciation of the key management issues facing modern-day airport operators. in the airport sector. At the same time there is a growing recognition of the need to balance the wider economic benefits that airport expansion can bring with the increased environmental costs. commercial and planning areas at a strategic level. they nevertheless have relevance to airport operators throughout the world. the outbreak of SARS and the continuing threat of terrorism. The book uses material from a wide range of airports and has a very practical focus. The emphasis here is on the economic. In addition to facing these important challenges airports have had to cope with the unparalleled consequences of the events of 11 September 2001. Airports are now complex businesses requiring a range of business competencies and skills. An international approach has been adopted reflecting the increasingly international nature of the industry. The first edition of this book was published before these developments – hence the reason for this second edition. or is already working. commercially oriented business. the Iraq War. Airport operators are no longer just operating within the scope of their national boundaries. and the whole industry is becoming global. By necessity the scope has to be very farreaching and so it cannot offer an in-depth treatment of every issue.Preface In most of the published literature the airport industry has received relatively little attention and has traditionally been very much overshadowed by the airline sector. While most of the case studies are from the developed world. Instead it is intended that the book should enable the reader to acquire a broad and up-to-date insight into the workings of the industry which will meet the needs of anyone who wishes to work. The book provides an overview of all the key management challenges facing airports. which has witnessed the fastest pace of change. Attitudes towards airports have changed dramatically as their role has shifted from that of public utility to that of a dynamic.

as I struggled to write the book with numerous other deadlines approaching. Special thanks must go to Professor Rigas Doganis who was largely responsible for introducing me to the world of airports and who has remained supportive of my airport work ever since. Stan Maiden and Mike Toms from BAA plc. Jan Veldhuis from Amsterdam Aviation Economics and John Twigg from Manchester Airport. John Riordan from the Bank of Ireland International Finance. Thanks are due to all these people. Edward Clayton from Hochtief Airport.Acknowledgements I am indebted to many individuals and organizations for helping this book come to fruition and for co-operating with the writing of this book. I have also benefited enormously from discussions with my own students. Amongst the many other airport experts who have helped with this book I must give a special thanks to Wendy O’Connor. I wish to express my . I have spent over 15 years undertaking research into airports and teaching about airport-related topics. I am particularly grateful to Dr Nigel Dennis for his guidance and constructive advice. Hartmut-Ruediger Simon and Rolf Ewald from Dusseldorf Airport. Stan Abrahams formerly from the UK Civil Aviation Authority. I particularly want to express my appreciation to the following individuals who have always willingly given up their valuable time to contribute on our industry seminars: Sigi Gangl formerly from Vienna Airport. So many people have helped me over the years that it is difficult to name them all. Professor Brian Graham from the University of Ulster. I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues at the University of Westminster for their continual support and encouragement. she spent much time and effort replying to my endless questions and searching out relevant documents. This book draws heavily upon these experiences. as well as tolerance and patience. During this time I have been very fortunate in meeting a large number of industry professionals who have provided me with invaluable insights into the management of airports. Nigel Mason from York Consulting. Thanks are also due to Paul Behnke at ACI. Over the years at ACI-Europe. I have learned much from their presentations and informal discussions. and with participants from airport management training programmes organized by the University.

Trevor Eady from Norwich Airport. I am a novice at book writing and they have given me much helpful advice and assistance.Acknowledgements gratitude to Ian Stockman and Dr Romano Pagliari at Cranfield University who have always been most supportive and helpful in sharing their knowledge and expertise and very willing to provide research material. Above all. and to the Daswani family for their help and encouragement. I also very much appreciate the help given by Patrick Alexander from Southampton Airport. Special mention must go to Jason Vallint. I am grateful as well to Dr Ian Humphreys at Loughborough University.Heinemann. Finally. Lorna. and Ewan. have been very patient with my preoccupation with this book – although they still do not understand why anyone would want to write or read about airports! They have tolerated my unreasonable behaviour and brought me quickly back to reality whenever the writing threatened to take over my life. who have tirelessly responded to my frequent requests for data over the years. I am very much indebted to many other airport financial professionals. both of the Transport Research Laboratory. for always being there to look after my children when I tried to juggle writing and family life. with whom I spent long hours debating about the WLU concept. I am very appreciative of the support from my mother Barbara Miller. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Sandra Bollard. and Peter Mackenzie-Williams. In addition. who has shown a keen interest in my work and has provided an invaluable press-cutting service. A special thanks must go to Ian from the public library in Brighton. and from the rest of the Miller family. too numerous to mention individually. Callum. xiv . Ivo Favotto from URS Corporation. I must thank my family and friends for putting up with the disruption to their lives while I have been writing this book. Richard Lewin from Wiggins. I must thank all the staff at Butterworth. Dr Brigitte Bolech from Vienna Airport. Professor Tae Oum from the University of British Columbia and Hans-Arthur Vogel from Fraport. my children.

Abbreviations ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ACI Airports Council International ACSA Airports Company South Africa AdP Aeroports de Paris AEA Association of European Airlines AENA Aeropuertos Espanoles y Navegacion Aerea AGI Airports Group International AIA Athens International Airport SA AIP Airport Improvement Program ANSconf Conference on the Economics of Airports and Air Navigation Services ARI Aer Rianta International ASAS airport surface access strategy ATC air traffic control ATF airport transport forum ATM air transport movement ATU airport throughput unit BA British Airways BCIA Beijing Capital International Airport BOOT build–own–operate–transfer BOT build–operate–transfer BRT build–rent–transfer BT build–transfer CAA Civil Aviation Authority Capex capital expenditure CDG Charles de Gaulle CIPFA Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy carbon dioxide CO2 CPH Copenhagen Airport A/S CRI Centre for Regulated Industries dB decibel DCMF design–construct–manage–finance .

Abbreviations DDF EBIT EBITDA EIA EIS EMAS ENEA ETRF EU EV FAA FAC GA GDP IATA ICAO IDFC IPO ISO LAX LTO MA MAW MCT MII MIS mppa MTOW NOx OAG PFC PIATCO PNR POS ppa QSM ROCE ROR ROT SARS SLA SPA TDENL TFP TJ TQM VAT WLU YVRAS xvi Dubai Duty Free earnings before interest and tax earnings before interest. depreciation and amortization environmental impact assessment environmental impact statement Eco Management and Audit Scheme Establishing a Network for European Airports European Travel Research Foundation European Union enterprise value Federal Aviation Administration Federal Airports Corporation general aviation gross domestic product International Air Transport Association International Civil Aviation Organization International Duty Free Confederation initial public offering International Standards Organization Los Angeles International landing and take-off Manchester Airport plc maximum authorized weight minimum connect time majority in interest management information system million passengers per annum maximum take-off weight nitrogen oxide Official Airline Guide passenger facility charge Philippine International Air Terminals Co. preferred noise route passenger opinion survey passengers per annum quality of survey monitor return on capital employed rate of return rehabilitate–own–transfer Severe acute respiratory syndrome service level agreement strategic partnership agreement total-day-evening-night-level total factor productivity Tera Joule total quality management value added tax work load unit Vancouver Airport Services . tax.

Airports can bring greater wealth. both on the environment in which they are located and on the quality of life of residents living nearby. Airports also offer a wide variety of commercial facilities ranging from shops and restaurants to hotels. conference services and business parks. taxiways.1 Introduction Airports are an essential part of the air transport system. Growing awareness of general environmental issues has heightened the environmental concerns about airports. As well as playing a crucial role within the air transport sector. their baggage. These services include air traffic control. security. and freight can be successfully transferred between aircraft and terminals. Airports bring together a wide range of facilities and services in order to be able to fulfil their role within the air transport industry. they do have a very significant effect. They provide all the infrastructure needed to enable passengers and freight to transfer from surface to air modes of transport and to allow airlines to take off and land. However. provide substantial employment opportunities and encourage economic development – and can be a lifeline to isolated communities. Handling facilities are provided so that passengers. In a number of countries they are increasingly becoming integrated within the overall transport system by establishing links to highspeed rail and key road networks. The basic airport infrastructure consists of runways. . passenger and freight terminals. airports have a strategic importance to the regions they serve. and ground transport interchanges. apron space. gates. and processed within the terminal. fire and rescue in the airfield.

3). out of the 20 largest global airports. 2001 Source: ACI.1–1. accounting for a further 31 per cent of the total traffic.Managing Airports The focus of this book is on management issues facing airport operators. clearly. the actual airport operators themselves only provide a small proportion of an airport’s facilities and services. The importance of the North American region is reflected in the individual traffic figures of the various airports. North American airports handled 1 354 million passengers in 2001 which represented 43 per cent of the total 3 212 million passengers. the airport industry is dominated by North America and Europe (Figures 1. environmental lobbyists. employees. concessionaires. and government bodies. airport users. As regards cargo. For example. as ultimately this will largely determine the air services on offer at the airport. Each will be faced with the challenging task of co-ordinating all the services to enable the airport system to work efficiently. According to the Airports Council International (ACI). the development of a good relationship with the airlines will be critical. North America is again the largest market with 26 million tonnes of the global 62 million tonnes – again with a market share of 43 per cent. handling agents. North America has a larger share of the total 60 million aircraft movements (56 per cent) since the average size of aircraft tends to be smaller due to competitive pressures and the dominance of domestic traffic. The way in which operators choose to provide the diverse range of airport facilities can have a major impact on their economic and operational performance and on their relationship with their customers. reflecting the importance of this area in the global economy. Others include shareholders. and other specialist organizations. Globally. government bodies. degree of autonomy. The providers of services are just some of the airport stakeholders which operators need to consider. All the stakeholder relationships will be important but.1 Airport passengers by world region. 2 . management structure and style. These operators vary considerably in their ownership. Typically. local residents. Asian/Pacific airports have the second highest volume of cargo with a global share of 27 per cent. and funding. North America 43% Africa 2% Asia/Pacific 17% Middle East 2% Latin America 5% Europe 31% Figure 1. The rest of these activities will be undertaken by airlines. There were 994 million passengers in Europe. Each airport operator will thus have a unique identity – but all have to assume overall control and responsibility at the airport. A complex situation exists with many of these groups having different interests and possibly holding conflicting views about the strategic role of the airport.

when just international traffic is being examined. Heathrow has the most international traffic. Not all the major cargo airports coincide with the major passenger airports. 2001 Source: ACI. The cargo market is more widespread with six of the important cargo airports situated in Asia. and Los Angeles have the largest passenger throughput. whether measured in passengers. North America 56% Africa Asia/ Pacific 2% 9% Europe 27% Latin America 5% Middle East 1% Figure 1. 2001 Source: ACI. All the 20 busiest airports. with none in any other global region.3 Airport aircraft movement by world region.6). Similarly. Memphis is the world’s largest cargo airport because Federal Express is based here. Chicago. or Asia/Pacific. while Atlanta. cargo or movements are in North America. The aviation industry has been growing virtually continuously since the Second World War but this growth was dramatically halted recently due to the events of 11 September 2001. However.Introduction Africa 1% North America 43% Asia/ Pacific 27% Middle East Latin America 4% 4% Europe 21% Figure 1. Europe.2 Airport cargo tonnes by world region. 13 are US airports in terms of passenger numbers. which is dominated by domestic traffic. The largest passenger airport in Asia is Toyko Haneda. nine with cargo and 17 when air transport movements are being considered (Figures 1. In the longerturn.4–1. growth will return and so the subsequent need for additional airport capacity 3 . The larger than average aircraft size in Asia means than none of the busiest airports in terms of movements are situated in this region.7). the European region’s significance becomes much more important (Figure 1. UPS has its base at Louisville. combined with a global economic downturn.

6 The world’s 20 largest airports by aircraft movements.Managing Airports 80 000 Terminal passengers (thousands) 70 000 60 000 50 000 40 000 30 000 20 000 10 000 0 North America Europe Asia Pacific Pa Am D L At C Lo Lo To D Fr P M H Sa M H D M L a en ho as h o o e G o in a i a la st ne us n F dri ng tro am at ndo nt ica s A ndo yko llas nk ris ve en V e w n i go ng a Ko it ap ton ra d n ix eg H Fo furt CD rda r ic nc as k ol ng O ele He an G m is is ’H e rt at co ar s hr da Wo e rth ow Figure 1. 2001 Source: ACI.4 The world’s 20 largest airports by total passengers. 2001 Source: ACI. 2001 Source: ACI. 4 Air transport movements (thousands) . 3 000 Cargo (in thousand tonnes) 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0 North America Europe Asia / Pacific M Ta In P Lo Am In C L S N M O Ba N Fr T A L H h e on nc oy s ia em os c d an ing ew ari ou is ica ndo ste he ipe ian aka ngk w Y s a kf ph An g K hor ko mi i go ap n rd on ur po Yor CD vill or ge Ka ok is on ag Na re t k k ol O He am G e le rit e ns g JF N is ’H a s a ew ai ar thr K e ar ow k Figure 1.5 The world’s 20 largest airports by cargo tonnes. 1 000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 k ar ew N rk Yo ew gh N r bu tts Pi n o st Bo furt k an w Fr tte hro rlo eat ha C nH o nd hia Lo elp d ila Ph on st ou H i m ia M is u Lo St r ve s en D ega V lis s La apo ne in M it ro G et D CD ris Pa ix n oe les h Ph nge ort A tW s r Lo Fo s la al re D C At c hi la a a nt ’H O o ag North America Europe Figure 1.

The trend towards airline deregulation began in 1978 with the deregulation of the US domestic market. Initially most change was experienced within the airline sector as a consequence of airline deregulation. traditionally were state owned and often subsidized by their government owners. since the 1970s there have been major regulatory and structural developments.Introduction 60 000 Terminal passengers (thousands) 50 000 40 000 30 000 20 000 10 000 0 North America Europe Asia/Pacific Figure 1. airline ownership patterns have changed. This European deregulation has allowed a new low-cost airline industry to develop. The pace of change was slower in the airport industry. but now this sector.7 The world’s 20 largest airports by international terminal passengers. The other most significant development within the airline industry. this situation has substantially changed as an increasing number of governments have opted for partial or totally private sector airline ownership. In some places this has been the result of the adoption of more liberal bilateral air service agreements. 1990. In the European Union (EU). deregulation has been achieved with a multilateral policy which has evolved over a number of years with the introduction of the three deregulation packages. Many more markets subsequently have been liberalized or deregulated. which has had major consequences for certain airports. which did not become fully operational until 1997.1 shows the growth at the major international airports of the world for the last 20 years. Table 1. is developing into a fundamentally different business. It may been seen that most airports experienced a decline in traffic in 2001 with the largest decreases being in the United States. The 1993 package. too. primarily to reduce the burden on public sector expenditure and to encourage greater operating efficiency. The growth in demand for air transport has had very significant economic and environmental consequences for both the airline and airport industries. with the notable exception of those in the United States. At the same time. Moreover. and 1993. Most airlines. is the globalization of the industry and the 5 r te es ch an M i m ia M d n ri ad ge M ha en op C to n ro To i e es ip l Ta ge An s Lo l FK ou k J r Se Yo ew N ok k ng Ba h ric Zu ls se ita r us Br Na o yk e To por ick a w ng at Si n G o nd ng Lo Ko g m on H rda e st Am urt kf an G w Fr CD hro t ris ea Pa n H o nd Lo . The average annual growth was 6 per cent in the 1980s and 5 per cent in 1990s. was the most significant package and has had the most farreaching impact. which have affected dramatically the way in which the two industries operate. as has occurred on a number of the North Atlantic and Pacific routes. 2000 Source: BAA. However. will undoubtedly be one of the major influences on the airport business. privatization and globalization trends. partly due to deregulation and privatization trends. in 1987.

5 6.3 1.3 0.1 3. The airports have now found themselves being caught up in this environment of change.1 6.5 7.8 4.3 5. to the private sector by a variety of methods.0 5. The transfer of the management of an airport.5 5.2 6.9 1. Four major alliance groupings.2 5.2 6.1 7.6 4.1 Growth in passenger numbers at the world’s 20 largest airports 1980 1990 2000 2001 % average annual change 1990/80 2000/1990 2001/00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Atlanta Chicago O’Hare Los Angeles London Heathrow Toyko Haneda Dallas Fort Worth Frankfurt Paris CDG Amsterdam Denver Phoenix Las Vegas Minneapolis/ St Paul Houston San Francisco Madrid Hong Kong Detroit Miami London Gatwick 40 180 44 425 33 038 27 472 20 810 21 951 16 873 10 091 9 401 20 849 6 586 10 302 9 252 10 695 21 338 10 146 6 829 9 883 20 505 9 707 48 015 60 118 45 810 42 647 40 188 48 515 28 862 22 506 16 178 27 433 21 718 18 833 20 381 17 438 30 388 15 869 18 688 21 942 25 837 21 047 80 162 72 144 66 425 64 607 56 402 60 687 49 361 48 246 39 607 38 752 36 040 36 866 36 752 35 251 41 041 32 893 32 752 35 535 33 621 32 066 75 849 66 805 61 025 60 743 58 693 55 151 48 560 47 996 39 538 36 087 35 482 35 196 35 171 34 795 34 627 33 984 32 553 32 294 31 668 31 182 1.1 7. and ‘Wings’.3 5. Sky Team.1 5.2 8.4 5.3 4.9 2.8 4. Three key developments have been witnessed within the airport sector: 1 Airport commercialization.Managing Airports Table 1.6 2.4 3.6 9.0 4. namely Star.8 3.5 4.4 8. or other co-operative arrangements.0 5.2 3.4 7.8 8.6 5. 2 Airport privatization.1 9.3 8. which in many ways mirrors that which has fundamentally changed the airline industry. BAA and annual accounts.8 4.3 1.6 8. many other airlines are aligning themselves to these groupings with code-sharing. oneworld.6 10.9 6. 3 Airport globalization.7 6. the adoption of strategic partnerships or the introduction of private management contracts.0 3.3 15.5 8. franchising.0 6. The emergence of a few global airport companies who are operating at an increasing number of airports around the world.2 Average Sources: ACI.8 12. Some of these 6 .6 0.3 3.3 5. Moreover.7 4.9 9.3 2.6 3. have emerged with global networks. Radical restructuring has occurred. and in many cases the ownership as well. These include share flotations. The transformation of an airport from a public utility to a commercial enterprise and the adoption of a more businesslike management philosophy.5 0.8 3.8 2. emergence of transnational airlines. These are dominating the airline business – accounting for two-thirds of all traffic.4 2.5 4.1 1.

The concept of sustainability and environmental capacity is introduced. The remaining chapters of the book take a broader view of the airport business and consider the role that airports play on the environment and surrounding community. Chapter 8 discusses the economic impacts of airports and how airports can act as a catalyst for business and tourism development. These developments are having a major impact on both economic performance and service provision. Marketing. Airports can no longer see their role simply as providers of infrastructure but. and slots issues. is also becoming increasingly important. Airports are now complex enterprises that require a wide range of business competencies and skills – just as with any other industry. The sweeping changes. as providing facilities to meet the needs of their users. regulation. instead. Chapter 9 goes on to consider the environmental impacts and ways in which airports are attempting to minimize the adverse effects. Chapter 10 looks specifically at the impact of 11 September 2001 and then brings together the key issues of each chapter in order to make predictions for the coming years and to assess the future prospects for the industry. Airport competition. which is moving from an industry characterized by public sector ownership and national requirements. focusing primarily on airport charging. hardly considered to be a relevant issue by many airports just a few years ago.Introduction global players are traditional airport operators whereas others are new to airport management. A major consequence of airport commercialization and privatization trends is that airport operators are devoting much more time and effort to building up the non-aeronautical or commercial areas of the business. Finally. This role needs to be clearly understood if future growth in the airport industry is to continue. Chapter 7 considers airport marketing. into a new era of airport management which is dominated by the private sector and global players. This book discusses the implications of the development of the airport sector. which for so long has been a basic business competence in most other industries but ignored by many airports. This is considered in Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 5 looks at this. 7 . occurring concurrently within both the airline and airport industries mean that the traditional airline–airport relationship has been irreversibly changed. Chapter 2 describes the privatization and globalization processes that are taking place. is now a firmly accepted management practice at airports. Chapter 6 looks in detail at this area of operation.

London. for example. Elsewhere. Stockholm.2 The changing nature of airports Traditional airport ownership and management It is the aim of this chapter to discuss the development of the airport sector as it moves from an industry characterized by public sector ownership and national requirements into a new era of airport management which is beginning to be dominated by the private sector and global players. Dublin. Virtually all airports traditionally were owned by the public sector. as were many other airports outside Europe such as those in Tokyo. Copenhagen. and Johannesburg. Madrid. Sydney. Manchester airport. Regional airports in the United Kingdom also followed this pattern. European airports serving major cities such as Paris. the airlines. Düsseldorf airport was jointly owned by the governments of North Rhine Westfalia state and the city of . This was the situation with most US airports. local governments. The impact of such fundamental changes will be assessed from the point of view of the airport industry itself. and Geneva were all owned by national governments. Bangkok. Singapore. was owned by a consortium of local authorities with 55 per cent ownership resting with Manchester City Council and the remaining 45 per cent split evenly among eight councils of other nearby towns. either at a regional or municipal level. In Germany. and the passengers. were the airport owners.

There were also airport authorities or companies that operated just one major airport. these organizations managed more than one airport. the Zürich Airport Authority. public ownership – either at a local and/or national level – used to be the norm.g. 9 . such as 60 years at Milan airport. there may have been both local and national government interest. Venice. such as the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission. the concessions were given to the local chambers of commerce with the national government retaining some control over the airfield facilities. At Zürich airport. the military. It was only in the 1990s that there was a significant presence of privately. The strictest form of control existed when the airport was operated directly by a government department. was responsible for the planning and overall operation of the airport and the airfield infrastructure. In a few cases there were multipurpose transport authorities. the province of Lower Austria (25 per cent). tended to be the very small general aviation or aeroclub airports and so the influence of the private sector on the airport industry was very limited. In the United States. and the city of Vienna (25 per cent). companies with public (usually local) shareholdings and perhaps some private shareholdings as well held the operating concession for a long-term period. such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey or Massport in Boston. which operated other transport facilities as well as airports. Africa.g. and South America. However.The changing nature of airports Düsseldorf. For example. owned airports. Turin) or just some of the services such as terminal management and handling (e. There were also a few examples of airports being operated on a concession basis for central government. Ministry of Transport or. but still under public ownership. was a rather unique airport being jointly owned by the national governments of both Switzerland and France. the city of Frankfurt (29 per cent). Milan. typically the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). while a mixed public private company. Amsterdam was owned by the national government (76 per cent) and the municipalities of Amsterdam (22 per cent) and Rotterdam (2 per cent). owned by the republic of Austria (50 per cent). Similarly. operated the airports. At the larger Italian airports (e. In Canada. semi-autonomous bodies or companies. Within Europe. In some instances. the Middle East. FIG. The only privately owned airports traditionally. Vienna airport was another example. which was owned by the Canton of Zürich. At French regional airports also. This was the common practice for airports in areas such as Asia. Milan). With a number of airports. Greece was a good example of a country where airports were effectively run by the CAA. and the federal government (26 per cent). the state department Transport Canada directly operated the 150 commercial Canadian airports. managed and constructed the terminal infrastructure. while the joint owners of Hanover airport were the governments of the state of Lower Saxony and the city of Hanover. situated on the border between Switzerland and France.g. This was the case at Amsterdam airport and many of the German airports. Palermo). the way in which the government owners chose to operate or manage the airports varied quite significantly and had a major impact on the airport’s degree of independence and autonomy. The concession could cover management of the total airport and handling services (e. as was the situation in Europe with the British Airports Authority (BAA) and Aer Rianta Irish Airports. Thus. airport authorities also existed for some of the airports. In other cases. in a few cases. or partially privately. Frankfurt airport was jointly owned by the state of Hesse (45 per cent). Basel-Mulhouse or EuroAirport.

non-aeronautical revenue generation and 10 . For example. in charge of the airports in the east and west of the country. This was achieved with the establishment of more independent airport authorities or. As a consequence commercial and financial management practices were not given top priority. Moves towards commercialization were reflected in a number of different interrelated developments. however. and often strictly controlled. There had always been a number of airports. In some cases. was passed over by way of long-term leases to individual non-profit-making authorities in the 1990s. Thus ‘commercialization’ of the airport industry began to take place. which involved the setting up of an airport company with public sector shareholders. Such developments generally gave the airports more commercial and operational freedom. such as Amsterdam and Frankfurt. and Aeropuertos Espanoles y Navegacion Aerea (AENA) in Spain and the Kenya Airports Authority. two organizations – Angkasa Pura I and II. Other examples include the Polish Airport State Enterprise established in 1987. By contrast airports in areas such as those in Africa and South America generally held on to more traditional attitudes towards airports and experienced less change. the Federal Airport Corporation of Australia set up 1988. while in 1986 the domestic airports came under the control of the National Airports Authority. Many airports gradually started to be considered much more as commercial enterprises and a more businesslike management philosophy was adopted. both formed in 1991. various airports loosened their links with their government owners. 1999). as the air transport industry grew and matured. views about airport management began to change. which had been run by airport corporations or companies. However. the establishment of an airport corporation was primarily undertaken as an interim step towards airport privatization. Vancouver. and sometimes opened the door to private sector investment and partnerships. in some cases. Greater attention began to be placed on the commercial aspects of running an airport such as financial management. The aim behind this was to improve efficiency and integrate each airport more closely with the local economy. The first airport authorities were set up for Montreal’s two airports. changing attitudes in the 1970s and 1980s led to many more airport authorities and companies being established. by corporatization. control of over 100 Canadian airports had been transferred to local organizations (Caves and Gosling. respectively – became public enterprises in 1987 and limited liability companies in 1993. By 2000. airports was historically that of a public utility with public service obligations (Doganis. and as the first steps towards airline privatization and deregulation took place. Canada is an interesting example where the management of many of the country’s major airports. These two authorities merged in 1995.Managing Airports Moves towards commercialization Attitudes towards these publicly owned. and Edmonton in 1992. The pace of change varied considerably in different parts of the world. In the 1970s and 1980s. 1992). In Indonesia. Calgary. such as with Copenhagen airport (1991) or the South African airports (1994). previously under the direct central control of Transport Canada. First. in 1972 the International Airports Authority of India was established to manage the country’s four international airports. with Europe generally leading the way.

many of the airports set up marketing departments. the quality being improved and the range of commercial activities being expanded. encouraged airports to take a much more active and proactive role. A more businesslike approach to airport management. such as landing and passenger fees from the airlines. One of the most visible indications of moves towards commercialization and an increased focus on treating the airport as a business was greater reliance being placed on non-aeronautical or commercial revenues. This meant that comparisons with other organizations could not easily be made. In the past. notably in Europe. all the major regional airports became public limited companies. This meant that the airports adopted commercial private sector accounting procedures. For instance. Relatively underused practices. This development was primarily the result of greater space being allocated to retail and other non-aeronautical facilities. the commercial functions of an airport gradually were recognized as being equally important and. Similarly. operations. non-aeronautical sources overtook aeronautical sources as being the most important revenue. For instance. and began to undertake market research (Humphreys. In the United Kingdom. some of the airports were not considered as a separate accounting unit. had been traditionally by far the most important source. For a number of airports. in the United Kingdom in 1987. such as airline or passenger services. administration. In some airports the typical functional organization structure with different departments for finance. the resources and staff numbers employed in these areas were expanded. In certain cases no separate balance sheet existed for the airport. for example. as a result. This was often the direct result of the loosening of government links with the establishment of an airport authority or corporation. it was sometimes very difficult to obtain financial accounts that gave a true indication of an airport’s financial and economic performance. The airport industry historically had played a rather passive role towards marketing and only responded to customer needs when necessary. An increasing number of airports started adopting more commercial accounting practices in the 1970s and 1980s. such as the benchmarking of financial performance and quality management techniques. Often an airport would adopt public accounting practices specific to the country and would use public sector rather than more standard commercial procedures. This meant that the airport’s costs and revenues were treated as just one item within the government department’s overall financial accounts and rarely were they matched together to assess the profitability of the airport. 11 . and so on was replaced with departments or business units more focused on customers’ needs. Aeronautical revenues. coupled with a more commercially driven and competitive airline industry. when Geneva airport became an independent authority in 1994 it began to show a balance sheet and asset values in its annual accounts. which had previously been omitted. this occurred at Amsterdam airport in 1984. because of government controls. Moreover. One example of this was that for the first time they showed depreciation as a measure of cost of capital. However. 1999).The changing nature of airports airport marketing. started to use pricing tactics and promotional campaigns to attract new customers. The operational aspects of the airport traditionally had overshadowed other areas and most airport directors and senior management were operational specialists. also began to be accepted – albeit rather slowly at the start – by a growing number of airports as essential management tools.

Moreover. notably Europe and North America. deregulation has encouraged growth. It may bring about improved efficiency. Within this context. particularly when a share flotation is being considered. The theoretical arguments for and against privatization of publicly owned organizations. invests inadequately and gives insufficient consideration to externalities such as controlling environmental impacts and maintaining social justice. They have been fiercely debated over the years and are well documented (e. the 1990s were the decade when airport privatization became a reality. But what is meant by ‘airport privatization’? It can have various meanings. 1998. It will reduce government control and may increase an organization’s ability to diversify. Freathy and O’Connell. 1997). to the private sector. but what is certain is that some additional infrastructure will have to be built. Airports have shown that they have the proven ability to meet private sector requirements – albeit from a rather protected position in many cases. Whether all this demand can or should be provided for is debatable. Less favourable employment conditions may be adopted and redundancies may occur. Privatization will reduce the need for public sector investment and free access to commercial markets. On the other hand. namely public sector funds. First. In some markets. airport privatization can be seen as just an evolutionary stage of airport development. greater competition and wider share ownership. such as health and education. the changes within the airline industry have inevitably had a major impact on the airport sector. There have been a number of developments in the 1980s and 1990s that occurred within the air transport industry which have specifically strengthened the case for airport privatization in some countries (Croes. the demand for air transport has continued to grow and is predicted to grow well into the future. ICAO. 12 . Increased commercialization has brought about healthy profits and market-oriented management. 1994.g. it may create a private monopoly which overcharges. The transformation from a predominately publicly owned and state controlled airline industry to a global business with much more commercial freedom has forced many airports to have a much more customer-focused outlook when coping with their airline customers. see Jackson and Price. it is usually associated with the transfer of the management of an airport. 2000a). In its broadest sense. Airports have evolved from public sector utilities to commercial enterprises and privatization can be considered as commercialization taken to its limits. delivers poor standards of service. From one viewpoint. one of the major traditional sources of airport financing. has become increasingly scarce in the modern-day global economic climate as governments have striven to reduce their public sector spending or to shift their focus onto non-revenue-earning activities which appear to be more worthy. Beesley. At the same time.Managing Airports Why privatization? While the 1970s and 1980s were dominated by airport commercialization. 1997. are well known. airport privatization has been seen as a way of injecting additional finance into the airport system to pay for future investment. and in many cases the ownership as well. The current airport capacity cannot cope with this growth. The increasing number of airport privatizations which are taking place throughout the world demonstrate the growing acceptance of this process as a method of tackling some of the challenges which many airports face in the twenty-first century.

airports have a greater tendency to be natural monopolies which cannot be duplicated. in different countries and even between local and central government bodies in individual countries. As a result the airport made a profit for the first time in 1979 and has remained in profit ever since. In the late 1980s. financial/accounting. and supported these with service divisions (such as construction. Between 1978 and 1985. and cargo facilities and by 1978 was handling 2. the privatization of airports. passenger terminal. maintenance and infrastructure services. does not make sense. safety and security. commercialization does by no means always have to lead to privatization and there are a number of examples of airports. air transport ‘operators’. making losses and receiving subsidies from the public sector owners (Gangl. A new functional organization structure with main departments of airport traffic operation. During this time.The changing nature of airports However. It set up business units or customer divisions separately for airlines and passengers. As a result. maintenance and technical service. To some opponents. The inherently monopolistic position of many airports will also continue to be of concern to politicians and airport users. airport ownership and control is always likely to be a controversial area. For many countries.8 million passengers. Unlike the situation with the airlines. and finance and accounting) and central offices (such as legal affairs. the authority was being run very much as a public utility. the airport embarked on major expansion projects of the runway. such as Manchester in the United Kingdom. the city of Vienna (25 per cent) and province of Lower Austria (25 per cent). transferring airports which are considered to be national or regional assets to the private sector remains a politically sensitive policy. human resources). which are run on a very commercial basis but have no desire to become totally private organizations. which is in effect the air transport ‘infrastructure’. New planning and management procedures were introduced and the airport began to proactively market itself to airlines.The shareholders were the Federal Republic of Austria (50 per cent). the airport was handling 3. The fear is that priority will be given to shareholders or investors and that user and community needs will be neglected. By 1985. The evolution of the airport business at Vienna airport Vienna airport authority was created in 1954 when the airport handled just 64 000 passengers annually. and administration was set up. In the next two decades. The business units were required to make profits while the service units were there to provide services in the most cost-effective manner. further commercialization took place with the replacement of the functional organization structure with a new system which allowed the airport authority to respond more effectively to its customers. where competition can more easily be encouraged. communications and environment.9 million passengers and had begun to pay dividends to its three public sector shareholders. that is. Views about privatization vary considerably in different regions of the world. planning and construction. the airport authority went through a major organizational restructuring which meant that the airport began to be considered much more as a business enterprise. 1995). Management practices with greater emphasis on 13 .

which was used by the airport company to partly finance its expansion plans.The organizational structure was further refined to be more customer focused.The sale brought in AS1. On the other hand. and handling services) and non-aviation units (consumer services.6 per cent (Figure 2. the flotation or initial public offering (IPO) took place in June 1992 and was oversubscribed three times in Austria and five times internationally. and then further debt requirements. and training programmes focused on customer orientation and effective business practices. At that time Austrian interest rates for medium. Eighty per cent of this capital was available through cash flow and retained profits but other sources were needed for the remaining 20 per cent. This was primarily because it did not want the large loan servicing costs right through until the next capacity expansion. Attention was also given to developing the nonaeronautical side of the business. which was planned in 2000. Germany. was in a poor trading situation. Since the first year of profits in 1978. this arrangement was terminated in 1998 (Figures 2. passenger numbers have increased by an average annual growth of 6. and Taiwan. airline and terminal services. In 1995. Amsterdam airport also bought 1 per cent of the airport with the aim of establishing a strategic alliance to encourage commercial and technical co-operation.and long-term loans as well as bonds were high. were set up. In 1990 it became apparent that a capital expenditure programme of AS8 billion was needed to extend the airport’s annual capacity from 6 to 12 million passengers. Japan. Budget constraints meant that increasing the equity of the public shareholders was out of the question. In order to be floated on the stock exchange. Switzerland.9 million passengers the same number as in 2000 due to the decline in traffic 14 . The realistic options were either raising the money through loans/bonds or raising equity on the capital markets.The airport also had to ensure that it developed a private sector and market-oriented management approach with an appropriate corporate culture and image – a process which had begun in the 1980s and was further developed during the privatization process (Gangl. In spite of the poor stock market conditions.1–2. and increasing the share capital by 50 per cent. Eventually. However. Employee shareacquisition programmes and investor relations programmes were set up and sales support undertaken through marketing. like most others throughout the world.2 billion proceeds itself. the United Kingdom. advertising. This included changing the corporate status from a limited liability company to a joint stock company. This gave private shareholders 47 per cent of the airport. technical services. In 2001. which followed a share buy-back in 2000 that resulted in 10 per cent of shares being placed in an employee foundation.8 billion. such as retail and catering. the airport authority had to implement a number of very significant changes. the airport handled 11. marketing and service quality provision (Gangl.5 per cent stake in the airport in a secondary offering in 1995 – this time retaining the AS2. A comprehensive management information system (MIS) was launched. the airport decided on a share flotation for 1992. and road shows in areas such as Austria.5). with aviation units (airside services. the Vienna stock market. 1998). 1994).The success of the flotation meant that the Austrian government opted to sell half its remaining 36. Business appraisals for valuing the company were undertaken and consultations held with capital market analysts. the public shareholding in the company was reduced to 40 per cent.4). In 2001.Managing Airports private sector practices in the area of business and strategic planning and cost control were introduced. land development and real estate) both being supported by central services.

6) with a decline of 2.2 Ownership of Vienna airport after IPO in 1992 Source: Annual report.The changing nature of airports Federal republic of Austria 25% City of Vienna 50% Province of lower Austria 25% Figure 2. 15 . Private shareholders 48% Amsterdam airport 1% City of Vienna 17% Province of lower Austria 17% Federal republic of Austria 17% Figure 2. since 11 September in that year.7 per annum (Figure 2.3 Ownership of Vienna airport after secondary offering in 1995 Source: Annual report. Since 1991 when new accounting procedures were adopted the profit before interest and tax increased from AS409 million in 1991 to AS1157 million in 1999 – an annual average growth of 13. Private shareholders 27% City of Vienna 37% Federal republic of Austria 18% Province of lower Austria 18% Figure 2. In 2000 profit was up by 4 per cent but it declined by 8.1 Ownership of Vienna airport up until 1992 Source: Annual report. During the same period revenues have grown by 8.2 per cent in 2001.5 per cent in 2001.9 per cent.

Managing Airports Private shareholders 50% Employee foundation 10% City of Vienna 20% Province of lower Austria 20% Figure 2.6 Total revenues – Vienna Airport Group. 1979–2001 Source: Annual reports.5 Total passengers at Vienna airport. 14 Total passengers (million) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 19 700 Revenues (Index: 1979=100) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 2.4 Ownership of Vienna airport after changes in 2001 Source: Annual report. 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 16 . Figure 2. 1979–2001 Source: Annual reports.

However. a number of airports in central and southern America countries. at Copenhagen airport there were share flotations of 25 per cent in 1994 and a further 24 per cent in 1995. Wellington. Bournemouth and Cardiff airports were privatized in the United Kingdom and private involvement in the new Athens airport at Spata was agreed. this has meant that in some cases purchase prices have been inflated and that some 17 . for a new international terminal and car park at Istanbul airport which was opened in 2000. This was the total flotation of shares of BAA plc. privatization occurred at airports as varied as Frankfurt. There were also share flotations for Malaysia Airports Beijing Capital International Airport. 1999). The first partially privately financed Indian airport was opened in Cochin. Chile. The year 1996 appeared to be a turning point for the airport industry and the following few years saw airport privatization becoming a much more popular option in many areas of the world. East Midlands which was totally privatized in 1993. and Hanover. Edinburgh. It is a member of the consortium which is to develop and operate the new Berlin Brandenburg airport. Kerala in southern India. and Perth were partially or totally privatized in 1997. it joined a joint team to build a new Cuidad Real airport in Spain and in 2002 a consortium led by Vienna airport won a 40 per cent stake in a 65-year concession to operate Malta airport. this included Liverpool airport which was partially privatized in 1990. For example. more and more investors and companies have become interested in becoming potential purchasers. and 30 per cent from companies supplying goods and services at the airport (Barker. Further privatizations took place in 1998 in Australia as well as in South Africa. Newcastle. and Stansted) and four Scottish airports (Aberdeen. which at that time owned three London airports (Heathrow. the Dominican Republic. Naples. and Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt. In 2001. for instance. the airport has been keen to become involved in international projects. In 1999 and 2000. Costa Rica. Seeb and Salahah in Oman. Glasgow. Airports as diverse as Düsseldorf. Stockholm Skavsta. such as Mexico. and Cuba. Auckland. Bristol. Birmingham. Elsewhere in Europe and in other continents there was little evidence of definite moves towards privatization. Similarly. Sandford Orlando. and Zürich Airport. Argentina and other destinations such as Luton. and Belfast International which was subject to a management buyout in 1994. As previously mentioned. In the United Kingdom. Gatwick. as were the small US airports of Stewart and Niagara Falls. As the pace to privatize has gathered momentum. In that year.The changing nature of airports Like many major airports in Europe. in the next few years only a handful of airports actually were privatized. it has been partly responsible. Melbourne. 27 per cent of shares in Vienna airport were floated in 1992 followed by a secondary offering of a further 21 per cent in 1996. Rome. and Prestwick). Brisbane. In 2001. Inevitably. This successful privatization opened up the debate at many other airports as to whether they too should be privatized. with the notable exceptions of Vienna and Copenhagen airport. The privatization timetable The first major airport privatization took place in the United Kingdom in 1987. with other investors. 35 per cent from individual investors. were privatized. having been financed 35 per cent from local government.

EBIT) when deciding whether to invest. Privatization was also being considered for a number of South American countries such as Venezuela. and Argentina. 2002. Ireland (the Aer Rianta company). Panama and Peru. The long-term viability of the airports in question in this privatized form may also be in doubt and it could be that certain airports may be reoffered to investors. Vienna. for example. Not all privatizations have been successful. up to 20 in some cases. Korea. it has taken three attempts to privatize the airports since 1991. In 2001. Spain. and Japan. An International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) survey of 82 countries covering 303 airports found that privatization through sales. Calcutta. and Russia (Moscow). Many of the airports. the Czech Republic. particularly the major ones. Indonesia. and amortization. For later privatizations multiples of up to 15 have been achieved in countries such as Mexico. for the Australian airport sales. Deutsche Bank. EBITDA. First. the relatively low investment needs and the economic and political stability of the country (Bennett. and Copenhagen the EV/EBITDA multiples were in the region of five to ten. the airport industry has strong growth potential. O’Connor. leasing. depreciation. and Madras for a 30-year period by 2003. for a number of reasons. For example. the Frankfurt airport company Fraport was involved with a privatization project at Manila Airport in the Philippines but problems with this investment meant that in 2003 the company withdrew from this venture. These included European countries such as the United Kingdom (Belfast City. Cyprus (Larnaca and Paphos). This was due to a combination of factors such as an excessive number of bidders and the attractiveness of the airports on offer with regard to their traffic and commercial potential. face limited competition. Germany. In Berlin. BAA had a management contract at Harrisburg airport which was terminated early. the events of 11 September coupled with an economic downturn and airline failures in some areas meant that airport privatization temporarily became a less attractive option and various privatizations at airports such as Milan. Bombay. and in Asian countries such as Thailand.Managing Airports buyers are thought to have overpaid for their airport acquisitions. Malaysia. Italy. though there were signs that airport privatization was back on the agenda for a number of airports. 1999. 2000). Aviation Strategy. tax. 1999. all evidence points to the continuation of this privatization trend well into the twenty-first century. Analysts typically will consider the price of the airport (enterprise value. with the successful privatizations of Sydney and Malta airport. or concession arrangements was expected to grow significantly in the future (ICAO. 2000b). or earnings before interest and tax. Norwich) Portugal. India was expected to have leased its four major airports in Delhi. However. both from other 18 . By mid-2002. South Africa. This is of particular concern to airlines that fear charges will have to be raised to compensate for the high purchase cost. The EV/EBITDA multiples were particularly high. For earlier privatizations such as BAA plc. 2002). Types of privatization Airports are generally seen as attractive organizations to investors. and Sydney were postponed or cancelled. EV) in relation to profit (earnings before interest. Brussels. Brazil. In the United States. Other privatizations were being planned or considered although investors generally appeared much more cautious (Forbes.

With a share flotation. Other partially floated airport companies include Vienna airport (Flughafen Wien AG). the government owner will give up total or partial ownership. the quality and expertise of the current airport operators. Share flotation The first option is a share flotation with the airport company’s share capital being issued and subsequently traded on the stock market. By the end of the 1990s. the only 100 per cent share flotation which had taken place was with BAA plc in 1987. further investment requirements and the financial robustness of the airports under consideration all have to be taken into account. With this ‘cornerstone’ approach AdP bought 10 per cent of the airport. namely Aeroport de Paris (AdP). The selection of the most appropriate type of privatization involves a complex decision-making process which will ultimately depend on the government’s objectives in seeking privatization. Risks clearly exist as well. is the type of privatization required to lessen the burden on public sector finances. the types of privatization models which have been adopted have become increasingly diverse. with positive factors such as strong growth prospects. For example. limited competition because of high barriers to entry and minimal threats of substitutes.The changing nature of airports airports and other modes of transport. There are very high barriers to entry within the industry due to the large capital investment needed and the difficulties in finding appropriate.1). Malaysia Airports (an organization owning 37 airports in the country). The BCIA flotation is interesting as it is the first airport where a share flotation has come after an initial trade sale to a strategic partner. such as political interference in the form of airport regulation and control over airport development and the changing nature of the airline industry with developments such as deregulation and greater collaboration through alliances. and potential commercial opportunities influencing their views. They broadly fall into five categories: 1 2 3 4 5 share flotation. ABN Amro Ventures bought another 8 per cent. Total or partial privatization of this type will totally eliminate or certainly reduce the need for state involvement in the financing of airport investment. project finance privatization. 2000). generate funds from the airport sale. and Beijing Capital International Airport (BCIA) (Table 2. convenient locations where airport development is allowed. and institutional and retail investors a further 17 per cent – leaving the Chinese government with a 65 per cent share (Beechener. Zürich. Auckland Airport. Generally. Fraport. management contract. the stock markets have viewed purchases of shares in airport companies in a favourable light. trade sale. while transferring the economic risks and effective control to the new shareholders. concession. As airport privatization has become more popular. competition or management expertise within the airport sector? In reaching a decision. Copenhagen Airports A/S. factors such as the extent of control which the government wishes to maintain. The proceeds from such a privatization could be used for funding future investment at the 19 . increase share ownership or encourage greater efficiency.

1 Airport UK: BAA Austria: Vienna Denmark: Copenhagen Italy: Rome New Zealand: Auckland Malaysia: Malaysia Airports China: BCIA Switzerland: Zürich Italy: Florence Germany: Fraport Airport privatization through share flotations Date 1987 1992 1995 2001 1994 1996 2000 1997 1998 1999 2000 2000 2000 2001 Type of sale 100% IPO 27% IPO 21% Secondary offering Further secondary offeringa 25% IPO 24% Secondary offering 17% Secondary offering 45. South America and Africa. However.Managing Airports Table 2.6% IPO 18% IPO 35% IPO and trade sale 22% IPO and 28% secondary offering 39% IPO 29% IPO Note: a In 2001 at Vienna airport a further sale of shares following a re-purchase of some shares which were transferred to an employee foundation resulted in 40% of the airport remaining under government ownership. as with the IPO of 27 per cent at Vienna airport. airport. the European Court of Justice declared this type of shareholding to be illegal in 2003 because it prevents capital movements within the EU. Airports not performing well clearly would find it hard to be successfully privatized in this way. the UK government had a golden share in BAA which gives it the right of veto over undesirable takeovers deemed to be against national interests and caps the amount of shares that any one shareholder can hold at 15 per cent. All the trade sales which took place in the 1990s involved strategic partners rather than just passive investors. as a consequence. The airport company will have to get used to daily scrutiny of its financial performance by its shareholders and other investors and. or can go directly to the government. which may not be the situation in certain areas of.5% IPO 51. In order to be floated on the stock market. Trade sale With this option. some or all of the airport will be sold to a trade partner or consortium of investors. limits can be placed on the maximum shareholding. Even when total privatization takes place. issuing shares to employees may give them an incentive and make them feel move involved in the affairs of the airport company. Source: Compiled by author from various sources. To prevent domination by any individual shareholder. a degree of government influence can theoretically be maintained by issuing a golden share to the government so that in extreme cases national interests can be protected. This meant that the management 20 . However. For instance. may find it hard not to become preoccupied with the share price. the airport company will be required to have a track record of minimum profits to make the airport attractive enough to investors. for example. Fully developed capital markets also need to be in existence. as with BAA plc.

The ACSA owns and manages nine South African airports including the three major international airports of Johannesburg. In many of these cases. With most of the Australian airport sales. The first significant trade sale was in 1990 when 76 per cent of Liverpool airport. namely La Paz. Durban. a strategic partner has been brought in through a partial sale. which owns Amsterdam airports. the majority of which have been sold on long-term leases (50 years with a further possible option of 49 years) to different consortia. Elsewhere in Europe. Hamburg.2). Two-thirds of Wellington airport in New Zealand has been sold through a trade sale. Concession With this type of arrangement. Bournemouth. In the case of Birmingham. there was an airport interest within the successful consortia. the Milan 21 . 20 per cent of the Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) has been sold to a strategic partner. One of the earliest concession arrangements were agreed in 1997 for the three main airports of Bolivia. Aer Rianta Irish Airports. has been successfully involved in the partial privatization of Birmingham. the strategic partner is an established airport operator or the purchasing consortium will contain a member with airport management experience. The most notable example here is the Australian airports. Aeroportuertos Argentinos 2000. and Naples airports have also been partially privatized through a trade sale. such as East Midlands. SEA. was awarded the 30-year concession during which time it guaranteed to upgrade the three airports and pay an annual fee of 21 per cent of gross revenues. Outside Europe. previously owned by local government. Another example is the 30-year concession for the 33 Argentinian airports. Santa Cruz. which it wants to develop as an alternative venue for freight activities. Aeroports de Paris has a 25 per cent share of Liège airport in Belgium. Subsequently a number of other UK airports. commonly between 20 and 30 years. which is a public corporation. Airports Group International. For example. has a number of interests in other airports around the world. an airport management company. Similarly the government owned Schiphol group. Airports which have been leased on long-term arrangements to strategic partners or consortia can also be included in this category – as effectively all control will be transferred from the publicly owned airport to the trade partner. BAA plc is the strategic partner in the Naples airport sale and Aeroporti di Roma belongs to the consortium which bought part of the ACSA. an airport management company or consortium will purchase a concession or lease to operate the ‘privatized’ airport for a defined period of time. Düsseldorf. and Cape Town. Hanover. Privatization has been discussed for both these airport groups but has not yet occurred. and Düsseldorf airports. and Humberside airports. which was awarded to the consortium. was sold to British Aerospace (Table 2. Many of the participating airports in these airport privatizations are not actually privatized airports themselves which leads to further complications in the definition of a ‘private’ airport. For example. Cardiff.The changing nature of airports and technological expertise of the partners as well as financial capabilities were taken into account when agreeing on a sale. which has among its partners. Newcastle. Financial terms and the types of lease will vary but typically this option will involve an initial payment and a guaranteed level of investment and/or payment of an annual fee. and Cochabamba. and Southend have been totally sold off to a trade partner.

airport company. After that time. The consortium has also agreed to invest US$2.1 billion at the airports in the 30 years. primarily at the two Buenos Aires airports (Gray.Managing Airports Table 2.2 Airport Airport privatization through trade sales Date Share of airport sold (%) 76 100 100 100 100 100 100 51 51 76 100 50 65 100 100 90 20 30 66 100 83 100 25 100 51 41 36 49 100 Main buyer UK: Liverpool UK: Prestwick UK: East Midlands UK: Southend UK: Cardiff UK: Bournemouth UK: Belfast International UK: Birmingham UK: Bristol UK: Liverpool UK: Kent International Germany: Dusseldorf Italy: Naples Australia:a Brisbane. the airport services company. The consortium has agreed to pay an annual US$171 million a year for the first 5 years of the agreement. 1998). with over US$800 million being spent in the first five years. Perth Sanford Orlando Skavsta Stockholm South Africa: ACSA Germany: Hanover New Zealand: Wellington Australia:a 15 remaining major Australian airports (except Sydney) UK: Humberside US: Stewart Internationalb Belgium: Liege US: Niagara Fallsb Italy: Rome Italy: Turin Germany: Hamburg UK: Newcastle Australia:a Sydney 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1995 1996 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2002 British Aerospace British Aerospace National Express Regional Airports Ltd TBI National Express TBI Aer Rianta/Natwest Ventures (40%) Other investors (11%) Firstbus Peel Holdings Wiggins Hochtief and Aer Rianta consortium BAA Various TBI TBI ADRI South Africa consortium (Aeroporti di Roma had 69% share) Fraport Infratil Various Manchester airport National Express AdP Cintro Leonardo consortium Benetton Group consortium Hochtief and Aer Rianta consortium Copenhagen airport Macquarie/Hochtief consortium Notes: a Most of the Australian airports have been sold on a 50-year lease with an option for a further 49 years. the concession fee will be related to traffic growth. 22 . Melbourne. b Ninety-nine-year lease. and Ogden.

Other options may actually involve the ownership of the facility such as build–own–operate–transfer (BOOT) 23 . In 1998.3). A concessionaire-type arrangement was chosen. for example. with this type of arrangement. the Spanish airport group. Here. This arrangement involves paying an initial annual concession fee of US$19 million which will increase as passenger traffic grows (Communique Airport Business. and AGI (which was subsequently bought by TBI in 1999) was given the 30-year concession to run the airport in 1998. In 2000. a consortium originally consisting of Barclays Investment. Generally such an arrangement will require no upfront payment but the operating company will bear all the costs of building or re-developing the facility. There will be a strategic partner with each group. the government owner will have a greater degree of control than with an outright sale. Barclays have subsequently sold off their interest in this airport. such as a terminal. Uruquay. rather than a flotation or trade sale. Chile. the airport company will take full economic risk for investment and operations. and then transfer ownership back to the government. and it is planned that there will be a subsequent flotation of remaining government shares as well – this has already happened with the Southeast Group ASUR. as the name suggests. There are a number of project finance privatization methods with the most popular being build–operate–transfer (BOT) when. Costa Rica. Bechtel Enterprises. Peru. the Southeast Group. 15 per cent of the Pacific Group of twelve airports was sold to a consortium with AENA. for a certain length of time. the concessionaire will take full economic risk and will be responsible for all operations and future investment. Thus. 15 per cent of this group (which includes the airports of Cancun and Merida) was sold to a consortium which included Copenhagen airport and the construction company. traffic growth is predicted to be high but in many cases the infrastructure is inadequate and the governments are unwilling or unable to invest in the airports (Ricover. Other countries which have concession agreements for their airports include the Dominican Republic.The changing nature of airports Generally. The situation is rather different in Mexico where the country’s 58 airports have been divided into four groups. 1999). In 1999. At the end of this period. Project finance privatization With this option. the company will build the facility. namely the North-Central Group. and Tanzania (Table 2. or design– construct– manage–finance (DCMF). ownership will revert back to the government owners. Other similar models include build–transfer (BT). Since the privatized airport will only be handed over for a fixed period of time. as a key partner. Concession contracts have been awarded or are planned for each group for an initial 15-year period with an underlying 50-year agreement. a company will usually build or redevelop and then operate an airport or specific facility. since the local government owners had promised not to relinquish total control of this publicly owned asset to private hands. the company will have to cover the operating costs but will also retain all revenues until the facility is handed back. and the Mexico City Group. operate it for a certain length of time. the Pacific Group. 1998). build–rent–transfer (BRT). Cintra. At Luton airport in the United Kingdom. When it is built. an identical share of the North Central Group was sold to an AdP consortium. in South America where a number of concession arrangements were negotiated in the late 1990s. This has proved more politically acceptable in some countries.

Cochabamba UK: Luton Mexico: South East Groupb Mexico: Pacific Group Argentinean Airport System Tanzania: Kilimanjaro International Airport Dominican Republic: 4 airports including Santo Domingo Chile: Terminal at Santiago International Airport Uruguay: Montevideo Costa Rica: San Jose Columbia: Cali Mexico: North Central Group Peru: Lima Oman: Seeb and Salahah Malta Jamaica: Montega Bay 1996 1997 1998 1997 1998 1998 1999 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2001 2002 2003 Schiphol consortium AENA consortium AENA consortium AGIa AGIc Bechtel/Barclays consortium Copenhagen airport consortium AENA consortium Aeropuertos Argentina 2000 consortium (including SEA Milan and Ogden) Mott Macdonald consortium with minority government share Vancouver Airport Services (YVRAS) and Odgen consortium YVRAS consortium YVRAS consortium TBI AENA consortium AdP consortium Fraport /Bechtel consortium BAA consortium Vienna airport consortium YVRAS consortium Notes: a AGI was bought by TBI in 1999. Santa Cruz.3 Airport Airport privatization through concession agreements Date Length of concession (years) 15 15 15 25 30 15c 15c 33 25 20 15 25 20 20 15c 20 25 65 30 Concessionaire Columbia: Barranquilla Columbia: Caratagena Bolivia: La Paz. b . c Fifteen-year contract but underlying 50-year concession. Source: Compiled by author from various sources. The ASUR company which operates the South East Mexican airports was subsequently floated on the stock market in 2000.Table 2.

are often referred to by the generic term BOT (Ashford. and John Laing Holdings (11. The Greek government holds 55 per cent of the shares in the new company. Forte (6 per cent). which is being led by the German construction company. 25 . This type of arrangement is often used when relatively large investments are needed for totally new airports or perhaps for new passenger terminals or other major facilities.4). the international terminals at airports such as Budapest and New York JFK are all being developed through BOT projects (Table 2. Elsewhere. local authorities (14. 1995). British Airways (21. The consortium which was involved with this twenty Table 2.4 Airport Airport privatization through project finance Date Length of agreement (years) Terminated Terminated Contractor Canada: Toronto Terminal 3 UK: Birmingham Eurohub 1987 1989 Lockheed consortium Various including Birmingham airport. Airports Group International/TBI now have a management contract for this terminal The Eurohub at Birmingham airport was build under a BOT-type arrangement by a company comprising Birmingham airport (25 per cent).9 per cent) (Lambert. All these methods. One of the first major projects of this type was Terminal 3 at Toronto’s Lester B. and Frankfurt airport.4 per cent). 1999).3 per cent). however. This terminal is now a fully owned and managed facility of Birmingham International Airport plc. Athens International Airport SA (AIA).4 per cent). This was the first project finance model of its kind in the Asia/Pacific region. Another example of a BOT project was the international passenger Terminal 3 at Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Manila. Hochtief. British Airways. Pearson International Airport which was developed as a BOT project by Huang and Danczkay and Lockheed Air Terminals (Ashford and Moore. 1999).The changing nature of airports or rehabilitate–own–transfer (ROT) projects. National Car Parks (21. National Car Parks 55% Greek state. 45% Hochtief consortium Aeroport de Montreal Consortium Fraport consortium Schiphol consortium YVRAS consortium Greece: Athens 1996 30 12 25 20 25 Hungary: Budapest International Terminal 1997 Philippines: Manila International Terminal 1999 US: New York JFK International 1997 Arrivals Terminal Egypt: Sharm El Sheikh 2001 Source: Compiled by author from various sources. The remaining share 45 per cent share belongs to an international consortium. The new Athens airport at Spata Eleftherios Venizelos was built under a 30-year BOT arrangement.

the Irish operator has retail contracts at various airports including Greece. and some of the Australian and South American airports. Beirut. Hamburg. Aer Rianta. In 1998. Qatar. the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. The Spanish airport company. Such arrangements can cover all airport operations or just one aspect. A government may hold on to a considerable amount of control if a management or private finance contract is chosen. at BAA plc London airports. In these latter cases it is often feared that the privatized airport will become a private monopoly and will not always operate with the best interests of the airport users in mind. for example. More common is for European airports to have management contracts in other areas of the world. AENA. Management contract The least radical privatization option is a management contract when ownership remains with the government and the contractors take responsibility for the dayto-day operation of the airport. BAA plc. This has occurred. while very little state influence may remain after an airport company has been floated on the stock market or sold to a strategic partner. the Cook Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands. Bordeaux airport has contracts in Togo and Mauritania. Elsewhere. Vienna. while AGI (now TBI) has management contracts at some US airports such as Burbeck and Albany. Pakistan. and Canada. AdP has management contracts in Cameroon and Madagascar. from 1987. through a trade sale. may be seen as too great a risk. Investment will normally remain the responsibility of the government owner and so the overall economic risk will be shared between the owner and the management company. for example.Managing Airports five year project. this company merged with the public company operating the rest of the airport to become the Brussels International Airport Company. Chapter 5 explains in detail the type of regulation introduced and the rationale behind it. Syria. such as retail. Competition issues The amount of influence that a government can exert over a private airport clearly depends upon the type of privatization model chosen. has a general management contract at Indianapolis airport in the United States and in Mauritius and has retail contracts with Pittsburgh and Boston. usually related to the performance of the airport. (PIATCO) was led by Fraport which actually withdrew from the project in 2003. however. Cyprus. 26 . and Marseilles airport has an involvement with the airports in Gabon and Côte d’Ivoire (Carre. the Brussels Airport Terminal Company. for instance. Bahrain. Therefore economic regulation has been introduced at a number of airports when the privatization process has taken place. whereas for the contractor such an arrangement may be attractive in countries where greater financial exposure. 1999). has management contracts for Cayo Coco airport in Cuba and three major airports in Columbia. Vancouver Airport Services (YVRAS) has contracts with the main Bermuda airport. Russia. Within Europe. The contractor will pay an annual management fee. Kuwait. For example. For the government owner this may be politically more acceptable. the terminal of Brussels airport was under a management contract to a private company.

reaching an agreement to lease out the four major airports on long-term agreements has been a long and difficult process since these airports provide the bulk of the profits of the whole Indian airport network.The changing nature of airports There is also another competition issue which has to be taken into account if a group of airports rather than a single individual airport is being considered for privatization: should the airports be sold off together as a group or should they be split up into different companies? This is particularly an issue when the airport group or system may contain a few large international airports which are profitable and a number of smaller regional or local airports which are loss makers. In Australia. typically in some remote area which they do not use (IATA. while in Mexico the airports have been divided into four different groups. Airlines tend to be suspicious of airport groups. all 33 Argentinian airports are covered under the same concession agreements. Unsurprisingly. Critics of BAA plc privatization argue that the group sale has given BAA plc much less incentive to provide any extra capacity than would have been the case with individual airport sales. In India. the sale proceeds from the group privatization was much higher than would have been achieved otherwise. In response. Over the years. Edinburgh. a few years after BAA plc privatization. selling off airports in this manner may inhibit competition. a higher sale price may be achieved – primarily because of the lack of perceived competition from other airport operators. Glasgow. In Japan in 2002. although the extent of competition which exists between airports in a group is always debatable. fearful that they will be paying charges at one airport which will finance the development of another airport. there have been various reviews into BAA investigating whether it should be split up but these have generally concluded that the additional benefits of competition would be more that offset by the disbenefits of loss of economies of scale and fragmentation of financial strength together with the dispersion of expertise. and Prestwick airports in Scotland. After a long debate in the United Kingdom. the government had to amend its plans to privatize Narita. Interestingly. 2000b). the government decided on individual privatizations for the major international airports but with packages of some of the smaller ones. and Stansted airports in the South East and Aberdeen. Restrictions were imposed to stop the same operator from having overall control at a number of airports. and Cork – and is likely to be privatized in the early 2000s. and if generally this group as a whole has a good financial track record. This was the case with the Australian airports and also in a number of South American countries prior to privatization. This was an interesting example as BAA plc airports in London were in many ways in direct competition with each other. In South America. However. Belfast International airport wanted to buy the neighbouring Belfast City airport but was prohibited from doing so by the government as it was seen as anti-competitive. 27 . Gatwick. BAA plc. This debate is also relevant for Aer Rianta. owning London Heathrow. the Irish airport company. and a new airport in Central Japan near Nagoya as an airport group. any unprofitable parts of the airport system (usually the smaller airports) will not have to remain under public ownership and raising capital on the commercial money markets for future investments may be easier for a larger company. If the airport group is sold as a single entity. Shannon. which owns three airports – Dublin. Kansai. was sold off as a single entity in 1987. In addition. airports often argue that they are making best use of resources and expertise by operating as an airport group.

the new situation at the regional airports had also given them considerable more opportunity to commercialize their activities. which was introduced in 1986. not only because the first major airport privatization took place in this country. and to increase share ownership among the UK population. and Oman. ranging from Manchester airport. owned by Southend Borough Council and handling just over 100 000 passengers.2 billion going to the government. the regional airports were finding it increasingly difficult to obtain permission to borrow funds for 28 . This gave BAA plc the freedom to borrow from commercial markets and diversify into areas of operations such as hotels.The first part of the Act was concerned with the then government-owned BAA which operated seven UK airports. By the early 1990s. Airport privatization came about because of a major piece of legislation. the Airports Act. Glasgow. Edinburgh.5).This was the Conservative government’s ultimate aim. Sixteen airports were covered by this part of the Act. and Prestwick. who feared that Narita would be used to subsidize the debts of the other two airports. The second part of the Act required all airports with a turnover of more that £1 million in two of the previous 3 years to become companies. As a result the share of non-aeronautical revenue has increased at the majority of these airports and more resources have been devoted to commercial activities such as marketing (Humphreys. airports had been run directly by their local government owners. London Stansted. 1986). Mauritius. This reflected the overall aim of the conservative Thatcher government of the time to privatize nationalized industries such as utilities and communications. which it did in its first few years of operation (Doganis. namely London Heathrow. BAA plc was floated in 1987 with £1. Prior to this these. The United Kingdom: paving the way for airport privatization The United Kingdom is worthy of special attention when privatization is being considered. The most significant impact of the Airports Act has been the change in ownership patterns which have emerged (Table 2. 1992). owned by a consortium of local authorities which at that time had a throughput of 9 million passengers. the United States. The shareholders of these airport companies were initially to be the local government owners but the shares could then be sold off to private investors if desired by the public sector owners. 1999).Managing Airports Opposition particularly from the airlines. property management and hospital shops. meant that the government decided to privatize each airport separately instead. The Act made provision for the British Airports Authority to become a private company through a subsequent 100 per cent share flotation in 1997. Italy. London Gatwick. BAA plc has subsequently dramatically expanded the retail part of its business and has become a global player in airport management by having interests in airports in as diverse areas as Australia. The Act also introduced economic regulation at these airports which is discussed in Chapter 5 (UK Government. but also because subsequent privatizations have been quite varied in nature. Meanwhile. to Southend airport. and the four Scottish airports of Aberdeen.

The only alternative for airports that wished to invest was privatization. in 1993. investment and. Source: Compiled by author from various sources.5 Airport Aberdeen Belfast International Birmingham International Bournemouth International Bristol International Cardiff International East Midlands Edinburgh Exeter and Devon Glasgow Highlands and Islands Airportsb Humberside Internationalc Leeds Bradford International Liverpool London Gatwick London Heathrow London Luton London Stansted Manchester Newcastle International Norwich Prestwick Southampton International Teesside Internationalc BAA TBI Local authorities/Aer Rianta/Macquarie Airport Group/Employees Manchester airport Cintra/Macquarie Airport Group TBI Manchester airport BAA Local authorities BAA Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd Local authorities/Manchester airport Local authorities Local authorities/Peel Holdings BAA BAA TBI/Alterra BAA Local authorities Copenhagen airport Local authorities Infratil consortium BAA Local authorities 1987 1994 1997 1995 1997 1995 1993 1987 N/A 1987 N/A 1999 N/A 1990 1987 1987 1998 1987 N/A 2001 N/A 1987 1961 N/A Notes: N/A not applicable. 2003 Present ownership Private interest (%) 100 100 51 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 0 83d 0 76 100 100 100e 100 0 49 0 100 100 0 Privatization date Table 2. Political pressures from a Conservative central government. not necessarily the first private sector owner. which was very much ideologically attracted to the transfer of public service to the private sector whenever possible. undoubtedly played a major role. Ownership remains with the local authorities. 29 . the government announced that there would be no further spending allocation for airports. c Privatization was planned for 2003. d Eighty-three per cent share is held by Manchester airport which is under local authority ownership.The changing nature of airports Ownership patterns at maina UK airports. a All airports with more than 100 000 annual passengers. the table shows the most recent owner. which an increasing number of airports had no choice but to adopt. b Nine airports including Inverness and Sumburgh with over 100 000 passengers. e The private investors have a 30-year concession contract.

There are also a small number of other airports in the United Kingdom which have had a different history. and Sheffield City airports have always been in private hands. Bristol. while others have not. Belfast City. London Stansted. and Prestwick. It was involved with the successful consortium in the sale of Adelaide/Parafield and Coolangetta airports in Australia but because of its status could only act on a consultancy basis with no equity share involved. Liverpool. Liverpool. Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. Some of the privatized airports have performed better than those remaining in public sector ownership. and Stansted airports. 1999). operates nine airports in Scotland with the help of a government subsidy. From April 1999.Managing Airports Various airports have chosen full privatization through a trade sale to a strategic partner. Some local authority airport owners have remained strongly opposed to privatization moves – arguing that the airport should remain in public sector hands to maintain its role as a regional public asset. Leeds-Bradford. Its public sector status. Southend airport has also been totally privatized but in this case the sale was undertaken to ensure the survival of the airport rather than to give access to finance for expansion as with many of the other airports (Humphreys. means that it has not been free to expand internationally on equal terms with competing private airports.Thus. Norwich. 30 . Manchester is one such airport and financed the whole of its second runway project from retained profits. Cardiff. in addition to providing a new investment opportunity. a state-owned company. such as East Midlands. Some airports such as Newcastle and Liverpool have opted for a partially privatized approach which gives them access to finance but also enables some local public control to be maintained. however.6). The relatively newly developed London City.This solved the short-term problem of funding but subsequent traffic growth meant that there was once again pressure for additional investment and this time the airport opted for a partial privatization. By 2000. recorded a loss before depreciation and interest (results after depreciation charges were not available) (Table 2. has indeed improved efficiency. Newcastle. however. This enabled Manchester to purchase 83 per cent of the nearby Humberside airport soon afterwards. Belfast International was privatized by means of a management buyout in 1994 and was subsequently sold to TBI in 1996. 1998). and Bournemouth. The smallest average traffic growth of just over 3 per cent was recorded at Belfast International and Aberdeen airport whereas growth in excess of 10 per cent annum was experienced for Birmingham. and Norwich) to be able to borrow money on the open market (DETR. it is difficult at this relatively early stage to draw any conclusions as to whether privatization. this situation changed with legislation introduced to allow for the larger profitable regional airports which were still in local governments hands (Manchester. such as Exeter. it may be seen that a number of airports. Most of the smaller regional airports in the United Kingdom remain under public sector ownership. Traffic has grown substantially at all these airports over these years. Birmingham airport is an interesting example which initially overcame funding difficulties by establishing a joint venture company to build the additional Eurohub terminal with a BOT project without a change in overall ownership. all airports were in a profitable situation with the exception of Liverpool and the Highland and Islands Airports. Looking back to 1986 before the Airports Act. Humberside.

b Australia: a phased privatization process Between 1988 and 1997. and annual accounts. Considerable attention was given to whether the airports should be sold off as a system (as had happened with BAA plc which was the only other airport group at that time that had been privatized) or to whether they should be sold off 31 .6 Airport Notes: a All airports with more than 100 000 annual passengers. and tax ( 1 000 UK£) 1986–7 2000–01 Profit before interest and tax ( 1 000 UK£) 2000–01 Aberdeen Belfast International Birmingham International Bournemouth International Bristol International Cardiff International East Midlands Edinburgh Exeter and Devon Glasgow Highlands and Islands Humberside International Leeds Bradford International Liverpool London Gatwick London Heathrow London Luton London Stansted Manchester Newcastle International Norwich Prestwick Southampton International Teesside International 1 452 1 882 1 725 137 436 436 941 1 756 105 3 200 N/A 118 508 263 16 751 32 092 1 635 577 7 596 1 165 191 330 267 297 2 431 3 175 7 712 279 2 210 1 547 2 237 5 645 330 7 022 782 461 1 608 2 071 32 242 64 670 6 364 12 399 19 112 3 376 371 1 232 869 757 1 500 3 935 6 781 164 1 131 689 3 637 2 800 59 5 500 N/A 34 2 134 2 053 53 200 119 000 4 003 1 800 18 715b 3 526 56 500 N/A 135 12 443 14 864 43 513 1 529 13 224 10 723 15 967 23 760 1 366 33 740 102 1 526 7 013 2 666 160 000 464 600 6 640 46 153 98 606 15 405 1 857 N/A 4 627 1 435 10 913 13 864 30 474 840 10 490 9 699 12 372 17 868 542 25 441 1 179 997 4 600 4 369 119 500 349 200 1 173 28 049 49 869 8 425 659 N/A 3 357 438 Table 2. At the beginning of 1997. Source: Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA). Discussions relating to the privatization of the FAC began in the early 1990s with a firm decision to privatize being made in 1996. interest. The FAC corporate office undertook various central services and imposed a common charging policy on its airports. 1987–2001 Total passengers (thousands) 1986–7 2000–01 Profit before depreciation. most of Australia’s airports were operated by the stateowned Federal Airports Corporation (FAC). 1985–6 data. BAA. Centre for Regulated Industries (CRI).The changing nature of airports Traffic and profitability growth at maina UK airports. the FAC operated 22 airports and handled over 60 million passengers annually.

32 . Issues relating to the national interest. It was the government’s intention to bring competition and diversity into the airport system and so there were strict cross-ownership limits associated with the airport sales. the privatized airports were initially price regulated. Banktown includes Camden and Hoxton Park Total passengers (million) 20 15 10 5 0 Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Coolangatta Canberra Darwin Hobart Alice Springs Townsville Launceston Mount Isa Moorabbin Bankstown Parafield Essedon Archerfield Jandakot Perth Figure 2.Managing Airports individually. In addition. As in the United Kingdom. 1999). and Perth. Banktown includes Camden and Hoxton Park Brisbane Perth Adelaide Coolangatta Canberra Darwin Hobart Alice Springs Townsville Launceston Mount Isa Moorabbin Bankstown Parafield Essedon Archerfield Jandakot –20 Figure 2. Brisbane. Potential buyers had to have a majority Australian interest and airport management experience. were sold in 1997.7 and 2. it was decided that the airports would be leased off individually on long-term 50-year leases.8 Profitability at Australian airports. three airports. After Sydney. 1996–7 Source: Annual accounts. these three airports were the most profitable airports in the FAC system and they handled the most traffic (Figures 2.7 Traffic at Australian airports. Political factors played a key role. particularly as government forecasts had shown that separate sales would generate more income (Knibb. efficiency and competition were fiercely debated. In phase 1 of the privatization process. Eventually. they are required 25 Alice springs includes Tennant Creek. with a further option for 49 years. 120 100 EBIT (A$million) 80 60 40 20 0 Sydney Melbourne Alice springs includes Tennant Creek. namely Melbourne. 1996–7 Source: Annual report.8).

Vienna. Deutsche Asset Management and Hastings Fund) Westralia Airports Corporation Ltd (AGI. Infratil) Adelaide Airport Ltd. Parafield Airport Ltd (Unisuper. Hambros) Jandakot Airport Holdings (property investors and former FAC employees) Australia Pacific Airports Pty Ltd (BAA. Macquarie Airport Group. John Laing. As previously mentioned. Deutsche Asset Management and Hastings Fund) Metropolitan Airport Consortium (property investors and former FAC employees) Australian Airports Ltd (former FAC CEO and financial investors) Southern Cross Airports Consortium (Macquarie Airport Group. and AGI. Hobart Ports. National Express. Manchester. Macquarie Airport Group. AMP. Port of Brisbane and others) Australia Pacific Airports Pty Ltd (BAA. Serco. Amsterdam. Serco and others) Hobart International Airport Corporation (AGI.The changing nature of airports to undertake quality of service monitoring and to provide evidence of this to the regulator.7 Privatization details of Australian airports Airport Ownership Privatization date: sale price (million A$) July 1997: 1 397 Brisbane Melbourne Perth Adelaide/Parafield Alice Springs/Darwin/ Tennant Creek Archerfield Canberra Colangatta Hobart Jandakot Launceston Moorabbin Townsville/Mount Isa Sydney Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd (Schiphol Group. AMP. 33 . A number of airport companies were interested in operating the Australian airports including BAA plc. and others) Northern Territories Airports Ltd (AGI/Infratil) Archerfield Airport Corporation Ltd (Miengrove Pty) Capital Airports Group (local company) Gold Coast Airport Ltd (Unisuper. and others) July 1997: 1 307 July 1997: 639 May 1998: 365 May 1998: 110 May 1998: 3 May 1998: 66 May 1998: 104 May 1998: 36 June 1998: 7 May 1998: 17 May 1998: 8 May 1998: 16 June 2002: 5 588 Source: Compiled by author from the individual airport regulation reports and other sources. Aer Rianta.7). Commonwealth Investments. Amsterdam and AGI were each partners in winning consortia (Table 2. Hochtief. Hastings Fund. In the end BAA plc.They also had to provide development guarantees by preparing five-yearly master plans and pledging a certain sum for investment. the EV/EBITDA multiples Table 2.

1997). US airports enter into legally binding contracts with their airline customers. the collapse of the Australian carrier Ansett and the events of 11 September. In spite of the fact that these airports were smaller and not in such a healthy position. Some airport companies which were involved with the phase 1 airports. Camden. In 1998. a separate state-owned entity. but also because high growth was being forecast and the infrastructure needs were relatively small. over half of these smaller airports were making losses and were much more reliant on the services of the FAC corporate office. Nearly all US airports remain under local public ownership – with the pace towards privatization being much slower than in many other parts of the world. which was not only due to the fact there were a large number of binders. 34 . Whereas the phase-1 airports had been relatively independent profitable entities. The airports. These ‘phase-2’ airports included Adelaide which was the largest airport with just under 4 million passengers and general aviation airports such as Archerfield. There are two key factors which make US airports unique when possible privatization is being considered. it is often assumed that the airport industry must be primarily driven by private sector considerations as well. was established to run the four Sydney airports and Elldeson. Airlines are also not allowed to have greater than a 5 per cent share in any airport. in reality.Managing Airports were particularly high for the Australian airports. when and where a second Sydney airport would be built (Ballantyne. Crossownership restrictions prevented certain neighbouring airports coming under single ownership. In 2000 plans to develop a second Sydney airport were shelved for at least a decade clearing the way for privatization in 2001. US airports: the slow pace towards privatization Since the United States has always possessed a private airline industry. Townsville. Parafield and Jandakot. operate very closely with the airlines and the airlines have a considerable amount of influence as regards future developments at the airports. Sydney Kingsford airport and the general aviation airports in the Sydney basin (Bankstown. known as airport use agreements. and Mount Isa. 1997). again there was considerable interest in the sales and relatively high purchase prices were paid. and Hoxton Park) were excluded from these two phases of privatization because of unresolved issues related to noise control at Sydney Kingsford airport and continuing controversy over if. gained further airports under this phase-2 privatization. First. such as BAA plc and AGI. Considerable preparation was therefore involved in getting the airports reading to be stand-alone entities (FAC. Former FAC employees also gained interest in a number of airports such as Jandakot. Sydney Airports Corporation. which detail the charging and conditions for the use of both airfield and terminal facilities. This is not the case. Moorabbin. the general aviation airport in Victoria which had been withdrawn from the privatization process. However. 2001 meant that the privatization of Sydney airport was postponed until 2002 when it was bought by a consortium led by the two companies Macquarie Airports Group and Hochtief AirPort. It was decided that a further group of airports would be privatized in 1998.

10). therefore.9 External capital funding at large US hub airports. the airports are funded through a mixture of private and public funds. with airports being seen as a popular investment particularly because of their tax-exempt status due to their public ownership. the likelihood of litigation by the airlines – who argued that federal law prohibited the use of airport revenues State 2% Other 13% Bonds 40% PFCs 33% AIP 12% Figure 2. Inevitably. privatization has been considered as an option. as elsewhere where airport funding has become an issue. and from grants from the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) which comes from the federal government’s Aviation Trust Fund. already have access to the commercial bond markets. 1999).9 and 2.10 External capital funding at small US hub airports. At major airports tax-exempt commercial bonds and PFCs make up the bulk of the investment funds whereas at smaller airports the AIP funds are proportionally more important (Figures 2. financed primarily by a national passenger tax. Second. 2000 PFCs 16% State 4% Other 4% Bonds 39% AIP 37% Figure 2. Most airports. 1995). and all the major ones. the privatization of John Wayne Airport in California’s Orange County was discussed as part of the solution to the county’s bankruptcy (Poole. it is not an easy process. 2000 35 . The PFC and AIP were raised in value in 2000 but shortfalls in investment funds are still thought to exist. if privatization were to take place. though. In 1995. However. There is a growing concern that in the future there will not be enough funds to meet investment needs – estimated to be in the region of US$3 billion (GAO. Funding is also available from passenger facility charges (PFCs) which are generated by the passengers at individual airport. The major criticism of the federal grants is that they are subject to congressional spending procedures and that the amount of funds available is not enough.The changing nature of airports Airline approval would be needed. In the United States.

construction and operation of the international arrivals building at New York 36 . BAA plc expected to save the airport $100 million during the 10-year contract by increasing non-aviation revenue and reducing expenditure from energy supply. the financing. 1996b). is seen as one of the key obstacles to airport privatization in the United States. the use agreements with the airlines could mean that the airports could only be privatized as the agreements expire or that privatization would have to be limited within the bounds of the agreement. Such privatizations need approval of the majority of airlines using the airport. Airports Group International had some management contracts before the 1990s. There has been only limited interest in this scheme particularly because of slow and rather complex approval procedures and the majority airline consensus rule. equipment.7 million passengers. the restrictions on prohibiting revenues to be used for non-aeronautical reasons have been waived. 2000. Aguadilla in Puerto Rico and New Orleans Lakefront (McCormick. The airport transferred management in April 2000 (Federal Aviation Administration. 1998). The company guaranteed average annual savings of more than US$3 million (US$32 million over a 10-year agreement) and would not be paid any fees until after it produced average annual savings of nearly US$6 million (US$58 million over a 10-year agreement). PFC. which was given a 99-year lease to the British company. in 1995 BAA plc won the 10-year management contract for Indianapolis airport. namely the inability of airport owners to reap the financial benefits from the airports. there must be a general aviation (GA) airport and only one large hub airport. or tax-exempt debt financing? Would they have to pay back the federal grants? At many of the airports. but mostly at small airports with the exception of the international terminal at Atlanta airport. and payroll costs. For example. However. would private airports survive if they could not use trust fund. Other airports which have been involved with the scheme and are at various stages of approval are Brown Field (a GA facility in San Diego). McCormick. This makes provision for five airports to be exempt from some of the legal requirements that impede their sale to private entities (GAO. National Express. There has been some. General aviation airports may be leased or sold but larger airports can only be leased. However. In another development in 1997.Managing Airports (including sale proceeds) for non-airport purposes (so-called ‘revenue diversion’) – led to the conclusion that airport privatization was not feasible. more radical privatization still seems fairly remote. BAA plc was not to receive any fixed management fee but would share in the savings it generated. who hold very powerful positions. moves towards airport privatization with the introduction of the airport privatization pilot programme in October 1996. do not wish give up control of their airports. The airport board would continue to set policy enforce agreements and control rates and charges (Ott. The first airport to be approved under the scheme was Stewart International Airport in New York. In 1998 an amended new 10-year contract was signed. which was an airport of considerable size with a throughput of 6. Also many local politicians. In spite of these developments. 2000a). BAA plc also has retail management contracts at Pittsburgh and Boston. Niagra Falls. Under the scheme. greater private participation has been achieved with the adoption of management contracts and project finance schemes at some airports. Under the scheme. For example. albeit rather limited. Various other issues would have to be resolved if such privatization were to take place. 2000b). This issue.

For example. Generally. Outside Europe. and Aer Rianta (Ireland). AdP. The notable example here is the airport of Harrisburg where BAA lost a management contract after only managing the airport for three years of the ten year agreement primarily because the airport’s administration changed (Gethin. For example. now has airport interests in countries such as Italy. and the Lebanon. also have involvement in other airports in their own country. Fraport has set a business target for 2005 which aims for 50 per cent sales to be generated by external business (Frankfurt Airport. Mauritius. Similarly. US 37 . Bates. BAA plc. As further opportunities for privatization occur. such as Rome. Milan. for example. BAA plc. With most global industries. AdP. this will accelerate the pace of globalization of the industry. Fraport. 1998. Copenhagen. The globalization of the airport industry Privatization has enabled a number of airport companies to expand beyond previously well-defined national barriers. Frankfurt airport has been involved with ground-handling contracts and baggage systems in as diverse areas as Spain. Aer Rianta has mostly specialized in retail contracts. and Oman. Fraport. Tennessee because of administrative constraints. and the airports of Amsterdam Schiphol and Frankfurt have always been very active in providing consultancy services and running management contracts for certain activities at some airports. Vietnam. This expansion has occurred not only with well-established airport companies such as BAA plc and Amsterdam Schiphol. Some of these airports. 2002). international airport companies are less involved. Milan. Zürich. Aeroport de Paris has built a reputation in the management of engineering and construction projects in countries such as China. Bennett. The Wiggins group also withdrew its interest at Smyrna airport near Nashville. Indonesia.The changing nature of airports JFK airport was handed over to a private consortium (which includes Amsterdam Schiphol airport) for 20 years. AENA (Spain). the Philippines. with the exception of some Canadian airports such as Vancouver with interests in a number of South American airports and Sharm El Sheikh airport in Egypt. Manchester. 2000b). and Kenya. Australia. and to a lesser extent Montreal which is involved with the Europort-Vatry cargo airport in France and Budapest Ferihegy airport. Aer Rianta. Most of these European airports have ambitious plans to expand their external operations. the United States. Other European airports or airport groups with international interests include Rome. 1999. however the fiscal and political constraints which exist at US airports have meant that private sector involvement has in some cases been difficult to maintain successfully. the United States. Vienna. Traditional airport companies There are a number of airport operators who are well established in providing services for other airports. Australia. Cyprus. The opportunities for international expansion have increased substantially with airport privatization.. 2002a). the Schiphol Group has involvement in other airports in the Netherlands. and Manchester. and the United States. but also with a number of non-airport companies whose previous experience in running airports was rather limited or non-existent (Schneiderbauer et al.

self-sufficient business. the city of Amsterdam (22 per cent).11 Total passengers at Amsterdam airport.Managing Airports companies tend to play a major role. Since 1958 the company has operated as an independent.2 million tonnes of freight. The Schiphol Group: attempting to expand from Amsterdam airport to a global airport company The Schiphol Group is a publicly owned company. Figure 2. 1989–2001 Source: Annual reports. there is little competition from US companies with the exception of Houston airport which in 2002 was involved in the bidding consortium for Ecuador’s existing and new airport in Quito and San Francisco which has provided management services at various Honduran airports. and the city of Rotterdam (2 per cent). In the last 12 years. However. 1989–2001 Source: Annual accounts. unusually. it handled 40 million passengers and 1. (Note: accounting practices changed in 1999) 38 . The shares are held by the state of the Netherlands (76 per cent). its passenger traffic has grown by an 45 Total passengers (million) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1989 800 Profit before interest & tax (Index: 1989 =100) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 2. because of the unique situation of US airports.12 Profitability – Schiphol Group. In 2001.

Schiphol International. and the Philippines. In 2000. the Schiphol Group has also been pursuing a policy of acquiring equity shares and other interests in both domestic and international airports. Portugal. Bulgaria. Malaysia.This BOT project was due to be completed by 2001 and then the JFKIAT consortium. the Gambia.11 and 2. the profit increased by 6 per cent and then subsequently increased by 12 per cent in 2001 in spite of the events of 11 September. and Stewart in the United States. In 1999. Malaysia. By the mid-1990s it had considerable consultancy experience particularly in the developing areas of South East Asia in countries such as Indonesia.The changing nature of airports average annual increase of 8 per cent. Lelystad was bought with the aim of making it into as a business airport for general aviation. The first domestic airport to come under Schiphol’s control was Rotterdam airport in 1990.13). which is being developed into an airport offering short-haul scheduled flights for the business community. Then. which was agreed in 1993. Lithuania. the Philippines. Thailand. The airport company has been adapting its organizational structure to reflect this increasing involvement in other airports. and Georgia. China. In addition. Schiphol’s first international involvement came in 1997 when it took a 40 per cent share in the JFKIAT company which was selected to provide a new international arrivals terminal at New York JFK airport. Separate business units. St Maarten. In this year. the name of the airport company was also changed to reflect the increasing diversity of activities. Further expansion meant that by the end of 1999 it had active consultancy and management projects being undertaken in a wide range of countries including the United States. It aims to do this by reinforcing Amsterdam Airport Schiphol’s international 39 . in 1998. Schiphol acquired a 51 per cent shareholding in the regional airport of Eindhoven where it plans to attract scheduled European airlines to the airport. and Schiphol Real Estate and the two support units – Schiphol Support Services and Information and Communications Technology (Figure 2. Schiphol’s international involvement was confined to providing training and education at other airports. South Africa. it made the decision to expand by offering more general airport consultancy and managing commercial airport operations.12). Lithuania. Schiphol has also been involved in a number of unsuccessful bids. while its profit figures before tax and interest increased by 19 per cent between 1989 and 1999 (Figures 2. Russia. Up until 1991. Schiphol has had a 13 per cent shareholding in the Brisbane Airport Corporation. Mexico. China. namely Schiphol Project Consult and Schiphol International were set up for the consultancy and international undertakings. for example in South Africa. Since 1997. Since 1990. there are the three independent subsidiaries – Schiphol Project Management. It is the Schiphol Group’s stated mission to be a leading international airport operator. Curaçao. and in the CIS in countries such as Russia. In 1993. the consortium chosen to run Brisbane airport. France. rather than Amsterdam Airport Schiphol which is now just one organization within the structure. The overall company name became Schiphol Group. limited liability companies. to optimize feeder flights with Amsterdam and to develop charter traffic. It also had management contracts with other airports such as Cartagena in Columbia and St Maarten. whose other partners are a property developer LCOR (40 per cent) and the American financial institution Lehman Brothers (20 per cent) will operate the facility until 2015. Greece. In 1998. these units became independent. Egypt. One of its first management contracts was in Curacao.

40 Schiphol Group Board of Management Corporate Staff Participations Schiphol Real Estate Schiphol Project Management Amsterdam Airport Schiphol Information and Communication Technology Schiphol Support Services Schiphol International Business Unit Passengers Business Unit Retail Business Unit Airlines JFKIAT Brisbane Airport Figure 2.13 Organizational structure within the Schiphol Group. 2002 .

for example. and Wellington airports. and international activities. 1999a). One of the reasons for why the Schiphol group wants to have a strategy of expanding overseas and entering into alliances is its relatively small home market. with the aim of sharing expertise. 2000). Perth. and Ajman (UAE). property development. it became the first airport company to take a shareholding in another company. In the same year. in the areas of retail performance. In 1995. The other key issue for the group is its public ownership. communication and business activities. and property development. hotels and recreation. subsequent changes in government meant that no privatization occurred by 2002 – although it is still being talked about as an option for the future (Piling. It has worked with Brussels International Airport Company to develop a new flight information system and with other information technology projects. has involvement with Prestwick. Also in this year a consortium of financial and industrial organizations was formed with both the Schiphol Group and Fraport having a 1 per cent shareholding. 2002). They include property developers such as TBI (which took over AGI in 1999) which has interests in airports in the United Kingdom. Parchim and Lahr (Germany). Hochtief which has interests 41 . the government stated that in principle it was in favour of privatization and the company began to prepare for privatization. and information. This consortium.The changing nature of airports competitive position particularly by developing its concept of an ‘AirportCity’ which provides services 24 hours a day in the form of shops and catering. there is uncertainty about long-term growth at Amsterdam airport. cost efficiency. Other UK companies include Peel Holdings which has a majority share in Liverpool airport and has plans to develop Finningley airport in the North of the United Kingdom. 1 per cent in Vienna airport. but was subsequently unsuccessful. There are also traditional construction companies such as Vinci which has a close partnership with AdP on international projects. retail. The utility and property company. The airports consider that synergies in airport operations and combined financial strength will help in the acquisition of further international airports (Schiphol Group. Moreover. and North America. although a government decision at the end of 1999 confirmed that the airport would be allowed to expand at a controlled pace (Schiphol Group. Borgond (Hungary). it formed the Pantares alliance with Frankfurt airport (Fraport) and started looking at co-operation in areas such as information technology. However. Pilsen (Czech Republic). In 2000. Infratil. and Wiggins which owns the Manston airport in the United Kingdom. and manages further small airports in Odense (Denmark). More recently in 2002 Schiphol also had plans to buy 30 per cent of the Malaysian Airports company but in the end this did not happen. Sweden. handling and cargo. called Establishing a Network for European Airports (ENEA) expressed interest in gaining a share in the Aeroporti di Roma company. It wants to market this concept internationally. It is particularly keen to develop alliances with other airports to optimize management skills and knowledge (Schiphol Group. Cuneo (Italy). New airport operators The other organizations which have taken advantage of the privatization trend to become airport management companies are quite varied. 1999b).

however. Berlin. It was listed on the stock exchange in 1994. Ryanair.5 million for the airport with a further US$6. in August 1996 from the management owners. This means that the airlines get exclusive rights to parts of the terminal and/or they may receive substantial discounts on usage. Hamburg. Lima airport in Peru and San Jose airport in Costa Rica. based at Dublin airport has also proposed building its own low-cost terminal. Low cost carriers have also expressed an interest in running their own facilities in order to keep the service simple and keep down costs. such practice is rare. It subsequently went on to buy Belfast International Airport. Birmingham. Skavsta airport is a small airport about 100 km south of Stockholm. TBI: from property management to global airport operations TBI began life as a Wales-based property company.Managing Airports in Athens. which was handling around 2 million passengers. The only recent developments have been the terminal facilities developed exclusively for BA at Manchester airport and Lufthansa’s joint venture partnership with Munich airport in developing the second terminal. handling just under 1 million passengers. Its first airport acquisition outside of the United Kingdom was in 1997 when it purchased Orlando Sanford International.TBI initially paid US$27. an airport handling around 1 million passengers. Thomas Bailey Investment. There has been considerable discussion as to whether airlines could buy and operate airports. and Stewart International until 2001 when it sold its UK airports to concentrate on other transport activities. UK transport operators Firstgroup and Stagecoach also each owned one UK airport in the late 1990s but have now sold these. unsuccessfully tried to buy the airport when it was up for sale. and Düsseldorf airports and Cintra which has involvement in the Mexican airports. airlines already partially or totally lease terminals and in Australia the domestic terminals are leased to the domestic carriers. At all three airports it embarked on major capital investment programmes. and Rome airports. Elsewhere. If an individual airline or alliance grouping wanted to buy a substantial share of an airport to obtain more control and develop a stronger brand presence. It first became involved with airports when it bought Cardiff International. EasyJet. Finally. This shows that perhaps the synergies from airport operations which these transport operators had hoped for were not as significant as was first thought. there would be a number of regulatory and competition issues which would need to be considered. most notably National Express which had interests in East Midlands. Sydney. In the United States. Another construction company Bechtel has teamed up with Singapore Changi airport to form Alterra Partners which has an interest in Luton airport. when TBI acquired 90 per cent of Stockholm Skavsta airport in Sweden. there have been transport companies. An unusual example is the Birmingham Eurohub which was partially financed by British Airways (BA). Then there are international financial investors such as Macquarie Bank which is involved with Bristol. the third busiest international airport in Florida. Bristol. Further expansion into the airport business occurred in June 1998. in April 1995 from the local government owners. and Niagara Falls airport. Bournemouth. which has developed services out of London Luton airport.5 million to be paid when certain goals 42 .

2000). Perth. Finally. US$2.5 million paid upfront and the rest in annual payments. TBI has grown very rapidly from a property company with interest in a couple of small airports to a major global airport company in less than 5 years (Table 2. TBI has subsequently gone on to expand its business further. In June 1999. Two major changes occurred in 1999 to the company’s focus and operations in line with the company’s declared strategic objective of becoming an established airports group with a substantial international presence. there were 213 000 passengers. These goals relate to passenger and freight throughout. respectively.5 million when freight exceeds 71 120 tonnes and US$1. flying mostly on lowcost carriers and charter. Tennant Creek. Airports Group International had involvement with 29 airports worldwide when it was acquired by TBI. a 20-year management contract was agreed for Juan Santamaria International Airport in Costa Rica which served around 2 million passengers. 43 . 2000). 1999). Acquiring AGI changed TBI into a company which had controlling equity shares at seven airports. Then in September 1999. In North America. By 1997–8.TBI owns 82 per cent of the equity in management company. 1999). and Hobart) and equity interests in a concession contract for La Paz. In November 1999. At a number of other US airports it had contracts for handling and other airport services. Bechtel. In 1996–7 when it began to enter into the airport business its profit from airports was £10 million compared with £15 million from the property business. it had management contracts for Terminal 3 at Toronto Pearson International airport. namely US$2.5 million when passengers numbers exceed 600 000.The changing nature of airports are achieved. AGI had a 25 per cent equity share in the concession consortium which was managing Luton airport. Santa Cruz. for the international concourse at Atlanta Hartsfield and for the small airports of Burbank airport in California and Albany airport. 1999). and has guaranteed to implement the master plan which will increase the capacity of the airport to around 4 million passengers at a cost of around US$20 million (TBI. AGI was a large private airport operating company backed by the US financier George Soros. non-controlling equity shares at another six and contracts to manage or to provide services at another 24 locations (TBI. In 1998. This meant that its stock market classification was changed from property to transport. At around the same time as the AGI acquisition. and Cochabamba airports in Bolivian airports. per annum (Figure 2. and GE Capital. TBI has subsequently developed new terminal facilities allowing the airport to handle 1 million passengers annually and has lobbied for the airport to achieve ‘Stockholm Second Airport’ status. and 25 000 tonnes of freight (ACI Europe. it acquired Airports Group International (AGI) for £86 million (TBI. it took the decision to concentrate on its airport business and so disposed of all its £190 million property interests except the Cardiff Hilton Hotel. Lockheed Martin. 1998).25 million when both goals are achieved (Graham. Consorcio AGI. Its turnover and profit before interest and tax has increased by 40 and 30 per cent. Alice Springs. It had equity shares in a number of Australian airports (Darwin.The annual payments are matched by Federal Aviation Authority and Florida Department of Transportation funding (Orlando Sanford Airport Authority. New York.8).This involved TBI paying US$10 million towards the US$25 million cost of the terminal expansion to handle up to 3 million passengers – US$7. approval was given to TBI for a 30-year management contract to operate Orlando Sanford airport’s domestic terminal.14).

Perth and Northern Territories) Acquisition of controlling share (71%) of Luton airport 2001 Source: Compiled by author from various sources. 2002). US Canada and Luton Acquisition of management contract for domestic terminal at Orlando Sanford Airport Acquisition of 82% share of Consorcio AGI which has management contract for Juan Santamaria International Airport in Costa Rica Disposal of airport interests in Australia (Hobart. £21 million profits came from airports while £17 million came from property. 2001. however. 44 .Managing Airports Table 2.The gap widened in 1998–9 with £24 million from airport profit and only £14 million from property. 1995–2002 Development Acquisition of Cardiff International Airport Acquisition of Belfast International Airport Acquisition of Orlando Sanford International Airport (long leasehold interest) Acquisition of 90% share of Stockholm Skavsta Airport Disposal of entire property business (except Cardiff Hilton Hotel) Purchase of Airport Groups International (AGI) acquiring airport interests in Australia. TBI’s financial position remained relatively strong in 2001–02 in spite of the events of 11 September. Bolivia. the additional expense of defending a hostile bid for the company and the loss of the major services of BA and British Midland at Belfast International airport (TBI. 200 000 180 000 160 000 Revenue Profit before interest and tax ×1000 UK£ 140 000 120 000 100 000 80 000 60 000 40 000 20 000 0 1994/5 1995/6 1996/7 1997/8 1998/9 1999/0 2000/1 2001/2 Figure 2.8 Date 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 TBI’s expansion into the airport business.14 Financial results of TBI. 1994–2002 Source: Annual reports. The disposal of the property business in 1999 meant that subsequently nearly all profits in that year were airport related.

which may operate within a different competitive environment and regulatory regime. Why go global? Globalization is a dominant trend within the world’s economy bringing cost savings. Nichols et al. in Australia previous aviation management experience was required and in Mexico a major local partner was essential. For example. If the airport company is to compete within the global airport industry. the tender authorities may stipulate the type of expertise required in the consortia. Once the airport company has bought or acquired effective control of the ‘privatized’ airport it then has to demonstrate additional skills to those just associated with the core competencies of airport operations and commercial management. 2002). In addition. In any bidding process there is always considerable debate as to the best mix of partners. These include skills in the management and development of retail and other commercial facilities. passenger and other customers. To be successful. In order to take advantage of these new opportunities it will also have to have expertise in change management and global business skills. The core competencies in traditional airport operations are familiar to any airport manager. which may involve identifying new opportunities and marketing and developing new business. This may be hard to achieve for some of the large state-owned European airport operators. 1998. and competence in quality management techniques. it will need to be competent in bid and project management. Gangl. security and safety operations. In some cases. in this modern age of airport management. marketing advantages. quasi-monopolistic position by serving the capital city of the country. (1999) suggest that an airport operator plus an engineering company to control the master project management and a financing partner to structure project financing may be the optimal solution. and master planning. marketing expertise in meeting the needs of airlines. skills in running the airport as a business as well as operational expertise are equally as important. these core skills will have to be adapted for an airport perhaps in another part of the world. and technological development opportunities to 45 . cost control and optimizing organization and productivity. consortia formulation and management. In addition. and bid preparation and negotiation.The changing nature of airports Skills needed to become a global airport player For a traditional airport company to become a global player. are being controlled by various consortia partners rather than individual companies. surface access planning and co-ordination. They include overall management of the airfield and terminal areas. for example. This means that it will need to have skills in investment evaluation and business planning. in Australia and South America. It must be able to achieve success and add value at the new airport. Many of the airports that have been privatized.. it is clearly not just a question of transferring the core skills and competencies which have already been gained through airport management in the home country to the new airport. facility and utility management. there are a number of new areas of expertise which must be acquired if the airport operator is to become a successful international organization (Schneiderbauer et al. which have always held a rather privileged.

and AENA. however. There are also companies such as AdP. cost reductions could be 46 . as is the situation with the London. Also risks may be reduced by going global. Perhaps for some airports there may be an element of fear of being left behind in the race to globalize. In addition. particularly when the airports are operating in different regulatory environments. One of the major general benefits that international or global companies have is that they may be able to reduce costs through bulk buying and joint purchasing in some areas. just the privatized or partially privatized airports (such as those of BAA plc. The motivation for such expansion is less clear – though it is true that such airports. are increasingly under greater pressure to perform well and many are expected eventually to be privatized. Once privatization has proved to be successful. as is the case with BAA plc. Milan. terminal or runway) is physically or environmentally constrained. Frankfurt. but are just as keen to acquire other airports.and taxfree sales in 1999 has also made commercial opportunities outside the EU more attractive. For airport companies. some quite persuasive general arguments for encouraging any business to aim for a global or worldwide presence. and in some cases inflating the prices being paid.Managing Airports many industries – including travel-related businesses such as hotels. Some airport companies. Copenhagen. For airlines. There are. This factor may be partly responsible for increasing the competition at the bidding stage at a number of airports in the late 1990s. network spread and product integration. The abolition of EU duty. Globalization can be seen as a natural progression for airport companies that have gone through the processes of commercialization and then privatization. and tour operators. there are many perceived advantages of such a development such as marketing strength. of course. This could be the situation of the airport industry although the savings would probably not be very substantial. the Schiphol Group. The airline industry is a high-profile example of an industry which has been developing alliance and globalization strategies for a number of years. for example. For example. have claimed that a globalization objective is that much more difficult if the airport company is under public ownership and have used this argument to encourage privatization of the group. Benefits can include higher returns and increased shareholder value.g. brand loyalty. There is no guarantee that successful management practices at one airport will work in a similar manner at another airport. It is not. There certainly do not seem to be such obvious synergies in controlling a global group of airports as there are with airlines. and Vienna) which are seeking to become international companies. international expansion can provide the much needed finance for development in the home market and may safeguard the success of the core business. travel agents. the motivation for globalization is somewhat less well defined. too. and reduction in costs. Specifically for airports there may be distinct advantages in expanding internationally if their own core infrastructure (e. Financial growth in the home market may be hindered by a regulatory system which may limit the amount of revenue generated from aeronautical sources. and Amsterdam airports. it seems quite logical that the commercially minded airports might next seek to acquire other interests to expand and add value to their company. thereby placing less relevance on any one national economy and lessening exposure to downturns in individual economies. which are not responsible to private shareholders.

However. as with all collaborations. Airport alliances and co-operation The main driving force behind the globalization of airport networks has been airport privatization which has enabled a growing number of airports to be purchased outright or at least managed on a long-term basis by an external airport operator. In some cases this may be just a question of developing informal links. Too high a price may be paid. Standard commercial contracts could be agreed with core partners at the airports. skills and technology which can produce synergies and economies of scale. Unlike airline co-operation. Costs could also be saved by having a single head office and through centralizing many functions such as accounting and information technology. a change in the air transport regulatory system or the introduction of more stringent environmental legislation could have a fundamental impact on the way in which the airport operates. Joint training programmes could be arranged and there may be cost advantages through combined marketing. airport globalization also looks likely to occur as a result of greater co-operation between airport operators or through the establishment of airport alliances. alliances can enable the transfer of knowledge. particularly involving partners from different countries. can be helped by airport co-operation. which already exist for information exchange or marketing support. This seems inevitable.The changing nature of airports achieved with joint purchasing of equipment such as ramp buses and fire engines. As with any expansion. the advantages of being ‘big’ may help the airport company keep up to date with technology developments and the latest airport management tools and techniques around the world. As with other industries. They identified seven 47 . and through negotiation of more favourable insurance policies. a lack of common strategy or objectives. Schiphol and Fraport believed that there was scope for cooperation because the two airports were both European hubs but serving different airlines alliances. There may be some fundamental flaw in the business plan which has been put together. and financial resources. The Schiphol–Fraport ‘Pantares’ alliance. conflicts can also arise through incompatible vision. particularly if the bidding process is highly competitive. Co-operating in international projects can share both the risk and investment needed. and add value to their organizations – all of which. airport co-operation is likely to be encouraged by a desire to benefit from shared knowledge. In addition. Even if a government has relinquished all effective control of an airport to a private operator. expertise. There are also political risks. they were at similar levels of globalization and they shared the same strategic approach. or inherent cultural and business differences. theoretically. to a cover a broader scope of activities. which are particularly relevant to the airport industry given the industry’s high political profile. there are also many risks. which is primarily driven by a need to expand networks and increase market accessibility. particularly in the light of increased competition in the airline industry and more advanced globalization strategies. improve quality. This has meant that airports themselves face increased competition and are under greater pressure to reduce costs. In the future. they had complementary competencies. which was agreed in late 1999 was the first major alliance agreement witnessed by the airport industry.

For international or global airport companies. Tradeport. The companies have also formed a joint venture company. training and recruitment. at Hong Kong airport. the airports have agreed not to compete against each other on international contracts. Since Pantares was established Fraport has taken a share in Brisbane airport. 2001. and the alliance is operating a new logistics centre. however. Much of the focus in this area. product and technology development. 6 International projects: privatization projects. As part of the alliance partnership. 4 Real estate: site development at home and other airports. branding involves the use of similar signposting. 2000. financial risk sharing. Pantares Systems to serve the information technology and communications needs of the two organizations and to offer related services outside the alliance. Most passengers. but it will not be until the global airport companies have established a much stronger presence that a ‘global brand’ will be recognizable by most passengers. Other examples of co-operation include Schiphol assisting Fraport to improve its spend per passenger in the commercial areas. 2 Retail and passengers: retail business at home and international airports. e-business and intermodal strategies. colour schemes and interior design for the entire airport. 2002). From the airport operator’s point of view. has been on developing automated passenger control and passenger guidance (Fraport. marketing. project management. marketing. particularly leisure passengers who travel infrequently. 5 Information technology: system and equipment standardization. encouraged by the heightened security requirements because of 11 September. bidding for international projects. bidding for international projects. The merits of branding within the airport industry. For example. 2000): 1 Aviation ground services: ground and cargo handling logistic systems.Managing Airports areas where co-operation seemed possible (Endler. 3 Facility management: purchasing. BAA plc has traditionally used a common and constant brand image for its seven UK airports. are. environmental issues. however very questionable. Impact of airport globalization on users Passengers One of the major advantages of globalization for airlines and other companies is the advantage of being able to sell one common product or one global brand to the customer. Examples of this have existed for many years with national airport groups. 7 Other: marketing. would probably not be aware of any common branding and would find it very difficult to define any distinguishing features of a certain airport brand. Branding could make passengers feel more familiar with the airport services and facilities they use. project management and technical services. research. standardization of equipment and technology. there may be some advantage in aiming to provide a common brand image in that a well defined level of quality of service can be defined and guaranteed for all airports. 48 . Verboom.

check-in desks and other office space. For example. such as landing and passenger fees. The transfer of skills in the management and development of retail and other commercial facilities may increase non-aeronautical revenue and may reduce the airport’s reliance on aeronautical sources. quantity discounts on charging could be negotiated and there could be common agreements on the use of gates and other facilities. Chapter 5 describes how. for example. IATA has also expressed concerns that globalization could lead to management attention and funds being diverted away from core airports. Wiggins: developing the PlaneStation global branding concept The Wiggins Group is a property company. On the other hand. joint purchasing and shared development costs of new systems. while the direct airside charges. has acknowledged that airport globalization may bring beneficial economies of scale due to. An additional fear is that sophisticated systems not really necessary for certain smaller airports may be adopted merely because they are available (IATA. This is the idea behind the Wiggin’s Group expansion into airports. for example. not all relevant prices are regulated. 2000b). the availability of new sources of funding may enable the quality of airport facilities to be improved which would generally be welcomed by the airlines – as long as it does not push up airport charges. there could be benefits to an individual airline or airline alliance in operating out of more than one airport which is owned by a global airport company. founded in 1919 which became listed on the stock exchange in 1964. standard contracts could be agreed for the whole airport network. It is in favour of such developments if the resultant lower costs bring lower charges. However. particularly the airlines. For example Lufthansa – one of the airlines most affected by the Pantares agreements – has expressed concern that airport globalization will just lead to global airport groups exploiting their monopoly position which will bring no benefits to airlines (Gethin. from the UK Ministry of Defence. It has 49 . airport charge increases at Belfast International airport (owned by TBI) and Luton airport (operated as a concession by TBI and other partners) were bitterly opposed – notably by British Midland at Belfast and easyJet at Luton. with the Argentinian airports the airlines have claimed that there have been unreasonable increases in charges in the non-regulated areas such baggage handling. The airline industry body. in some cases. that prices will rise once privatization has occurred and profit maximization becomes the key business driving force and motivation. In the United Kingdom. In 1998 it bought Manston airport. the International Air Transport Association (IATA). for example. The airline industry does also not appear to be in total support of moves towards airport globalization. Moreover. which is situated 65 miles southeast of London. 1998). For instance. regulation has been introduced to control charges – but this may not always be satisfactory to users if.The changing nature of airports Airlines As with most industry privatizations there has been concern from users. 2001). have remained fixed by regulation (Gill.

9 PlaneStation airports operated by Wiggins in 2003 Airport London Manston Odense Pilsen Lahr Black Forest Schwerin-Parchim Cuneo-Levaldigi Ajman Borgond Location UK Denmark Czech Republic Southern Germany Northern Germany Northern Italy United Arab Emirates Hungary subsequently acquired long-term contracts at a number of other regional airports in Europe and also one in the United Arab Emirates (Table 2. 2002b). Wiggins believes that the power of the PlaneStation brand will significantly benefit the airports within this network and will bring the resources needed to improve their performance which have previously been unavailable under individual. These partnerships with the public sector often allow access to grants and infrastructure loans. which exist if an airport is taken over by a different operator. Wiggins believes that their smaller sized airports and more straightforward security operations will be a distinct advantage. the public or private operators of the airport have retained ownership whilst Wiggins has taken over full operational and development control. just-in-time assembly locations and for supporting all the freighter operations. Wiggins intends to use its network airports particularly to serve low cost and dedicated all freighter airlines who demand quick handling and rapid turnaround facilities which the PlaneStation airports can provide. The ideal airports are former military bases or those with disused or underutilized facilities with ample availability of surrounding land which can developed using the real estate experience of Wiggins. Other potential benefits include the general lack of congestion and availability of slots compared to alternative airports plus the ownership of adjacent land which is ideal for business park development. Wiggins expects that projects such as local community centres with shops. 2001. Wiggins is hoping to operate more airports in the future (Gethin.9). primarily because it found the political and regulatory obstacles. Tennessee in the United States but eventually withdrew its interest from this airport in 2003. were too great. It also tried to gain control of Smyrna airport near Nashville.Managing Airports Table 2.Wiggins therefore has a very different strategy to most of the other emerging global airport companies who tend to buy up airports which already are successful or appear to have great potential. With most of the Wiggins contracts. Wiggins claims that common standards and processes at all the network airports along with one single administrative system provides the potential for improving the quality and 50 . hotels and leisure facilities or business and light industrial activities will bring jobs. increased land values and generally considerable regional economic development to the surrounding areas of the airport in the network. At most Wiggins airports there is no or very little traffic when Wiggins gets involved. Specifically with increased security measures at major airports since 11 September. The overall objective is to develop a global network of over 20 regional airports under its so-called PlaneStation concept. public ownership.

E. H. Senegal. (1999). A. Airline Business. Communique Airport Business (2000). Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1998). Sydney syndrome. (1999). Bennett. 2nd edn. Airport Traffic Report. In Airport 2000: Trends for the New Millennium (N. Senegal. worldwide and in Africa. Wiggins believes that not only will the individual airports benefit from increased traffic as the result of being part of an airport network. Croes. Privatization. November/December. 58–61. 51 . Barker. Ashford. Aviation Strategy. Airport Finance. risk sharing.There will also be scope for the building of close relationships with airlines and other operators with. October. Routledge. (1997). Changes in airport management. March. 28. 8–9. Beesley. Institute of Air Transport Airport Management Symposium. Airport World. for example. November. HMSO. 46–58. Ashford. Institute of Air Transport Airport Management Symposium. (1999). (1999). Airport privatization: cleared to take off. Taking on the world. (1997). ed. will benefit from this new technology. Summer. Airline Business. Regulation and Deregulation. Global airport developers: risky business. Aviation Strategy (2000). Aviation Strategy. Aerlines. October. J. J. C. (1997). Collet. Ashford. 2002). 10–21. Ballantyne. Winter. M. (2002). ACI Europe. November. and Gosling. 28–30. Passengers. 36. References and further reading ACI Europe (1999). (1999). (1999). 8–9. but they will also have the ability to share best practice ideas across the network and to introduce new technology over the entire network which will reduce costs at each airport. N. (2000). R. Elsevier. Airport privatization – no stopping the juggernaut. Experiences with airport privatization. Beijing rides market downturn. Carre. simplified negotiation. Strategic Airport Planning. Private interest in India. Caves.The changing nature of airports effectiveness of the facilities offered to the airline operators and logistic organizations who plan to operate from a number of airports in the network. Possible forms of state intervention. and common tariffs. January.). April–May. T. Aviation Strategy (1999a). December. F. May. Aviation Strategy. which will simplify their travel experience whilst providing high levels of security and also from the familiarity and consistency which the global airport brand will bring (Lewin. How to sell an airport. June. 10–13. P. Jane’s Airport Review. particularly biometric systems. Bates. (1999). Beechener. 2nd edn. and Moore. 14–17. Aviation Strategy (1999b). J. G. Our best deal ever – AGI and London Luton. Department of the Environment.-D. Athens International Airport: Preopening Special Report. Jane’s Airport Review. Loughborough Airport Consultancy. Communique Airport Business (1998). A New Deal for Transport. Airport privatization: competition for management project intensifies. Sovereign. too. N.

Managing Airports

Deutsche Bank (1999). European Airports: Privatization Ahead. Deutsche Bank. Doganis, R. (1992). The Airport Business. Routledge. Endler, J. (2000). Global alliances and privatization. Tenth ACI Europe Annual Assembly, Rome, June. Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) (1997). Annual Report 1997. FAC. Federal Aviation Administration (2000). Fact Sheet: Stewart International Airport Privatization, 21 March. Feldman, J. (2001). Airports: sell, sell, Air Transport World, February, 65–8. Forbes, P (2002). Airport privatization – How should airport operators and investors react to changing market conditions? European Transport Conference, Cambridge, September. Frankfurt Airport (2000a). Flying into the 21st century: the Frankfurt airport authority is major partner in Terminal 3 project Manila International airport. Press release, 28 June. Frankfurt Airport (2000b). Annual Report 1999. Frankfurt Airport. Fraport (2002). Annual Report 2001, Fraport. Freathy, P. and O’Connell, F. (1998). European Airport Retailing. Macmillan. Gangl, S. (1994). Financing a partially-privatized airport. Airports as Business Enterprises Conference, April. Gangl, S. (1995). Going to market – Vienna Airport’s share flotation. In Sources of Finance for Airport Development in Europe (J. Amkreutz, ed.), ACI Europe. Gangl, S. (1998). Experiences of privatization. University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium, London, March. Gangl, S. (2002). The globalization of airport companies. University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium, March. General Accounting Office (GAO) (1996a). Funding Sources for Airport Development. GAO. General Accounting Office (GAO) (1996b). Airport Privatization: Issues Related to the Sale or Lease of US Commercial Airports. GAO. General Accounting Office (GAO) (1998). Funding of Airport Development. GAO. General Accounting Office (GAO) (1999). Annual funding as Much as $3 Billion Less than Planned Development. GAO. Gethin, S. (2001). Twist in the tale for Pantares, Jane’s Airport Review, September, 15. Gethin, S. (2002a). BAA faces a profit squeeze, Jane’s Airport Review, July–August, 10–11. Gethin, S. (2002b). Looking for the next PlaneStation, Jane’s Airport Review, July–August, 12. Gill, T. (1998). Stampede to market. Airline Business, April, 50–3. Graham, E. (1998). TBI buys Stockholm-Skavsta in Sweden’s first privatization. ACI Europe Communique, October, 8. Gray, S. (1998). SEA consortium prepares $2.1 billion Argentinian plan. ACI. Europe Communique, August–September, 7. Hanlon, J. P. (1999). Global Airlines, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann. Humphreys, I. (1999). Privatization and commercialization changes in UK airport ownership patterns. Journal of Transport Geography, 7, 121–34. International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2000a). World Air Transport Statistics, 6/44, IATA.
52

The changing nature of airports

International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2000b). Airport networks and airport cross ownership. ANSConf Working Paper No. 18, ICAO. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2000a). Privatization in the provision of airports and air navigation services. ANSConf Working Paper No. 6, ICAO. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2000b). Organisational aspects of the provision of airports and air navigation services. ANSConf Working Paper No. 18, ICAO. Jackson, P. M. and Price, C. P. (eds) (1994). Privatization and Regulation. Longman. Jane’s Airport Review (2000). Stockholm’s third airport. Jane’s Airport Review, March, 14. Knibb, D. (1999). Australia’s road to privatization. Airline Business, August, 40–1. Lambert, R. (1995). Birmingham’s public–private finance partnership. In Sources of Finance for Airport Development in Europe (J. Amkreutz, ed.), ACI Europe. Lewin, R. (2002). Developing a global network of airports. University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium, March. McCormick, C. (2000a). Private partners. Airports International, March, 36–41. McCormick, C. (2000b). US privatisation program to expand? Airports International, September, 9. Nichols, W. K., Koll, E., and Stevins, A. (1999). Airport internationalisation: the time is now, Airports International, June, 16–20. O’Connor, A. (2002). Cross equity deals win support, Jane’s Airport Review, May, 8–10. Orlando Sanford Airport Authority (1999). Sanford Airport Authority approves deal – TBI US to Operate Orlando Sanford airport’s domestic terminal. Press release, 30 August. Ott, J. (1998). Indianapolis serves as a privatization testbed. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 14 December, 52. Piling, M. (2002). Amsterdam: forward thinking, Airport World, August–September, 42–7. Poole, R. W. (1995). How to Privatize Orange County’s Airports. Policy study 194, Reason Foundation. Ricover, A. (1999). Airport privatization of Latin American airports. In Airport 2000: Trends for the New Millennium (N. Ashford, ed.), Sovereign. Schiphol Group (1999a). Schiphol Group and FAG seek close co-operation. Press release, 21 December. Schiphol Group (1999b). Dutch government gives go-ahead for further growth. Press release, 17 December. Schiphol Group (2000). Annual Report 1999. Schiphol Group. Schneiderbauer D., Feldman D., and Horrex, M. (1998). Global Airport Management: Strategic Challenges in an Emerging Industry. Mercer Management Consulting. TBI (1999). Interim Report 1999, TBI. TBI (2000). Annual Report 2000, TBI. TBI (2002). Annual Report 2002, TBI. UK Government (1986). Airports Act 1986. HMSO. Verboom, P. (2000). Schiphol Group: creating airportcities. Tenth ACI Europe Annual Assembly, Rome, June.
53

3
Airport economics and performance benchmarking
Industry profit levels
This chapter considers the economics of the airport industry. The modern-day commercial and business pressures being placed on most airports mean that a thorough understanding of the economics of airports is now, more than ever before, a fundamental prerequisite for all airport managers. The chapter begins by looking at profit levels within the industry and describing the revenue and cost structures. It then goes on to discuss some of the key factors which influence the economics of airports. This leads to a discussion of how economic performance can be measured and whether it is possible to produce a single efficiency measure for each airport. Table 3.1 shows the profit levels at thirty of the largest airports or airport groups in the world in 2001–02. All the airports produced an operating profit (i.e. profit before interest and tax) and most airports also recorded a net profit (i.e. after interest and tax payments are taken into account). The few exceptions were mostly North American airports and Zürich airport which were clearly significantly affected by the events of 11 September 2001 and the difficulties faced by the airlines during this time – particularly the failure of Swissair. Overall, the net profit margin, that is net profit as a percentage of revenues, for the 50 leading airport groups in 2001

Airport economics and performance benchmarking

was 11 per cent. In comparison, the 50 major airlines recorded a negative profit margin of 4 per cent (Pilling and O’Toole, 2002). A broader assessment of overall profitability can be obtained from the ACI which produces the most comprehensive global economic surveys. The 2001 survey covered 620 airports which collectively handled over 2.1 billion passengers, or about two thirds of all ACI members traffic in 2001 (ACI, 2002). The survey identified trends in airport economics by geographical region but some distortions may have arisen because of the composition of the sample used. This seemed to be particularly the case with the Africa/Middle East airport where the influence of the performance of a few large airports may have resulted in a disproportionate effect on the results of this region or with the Latin America/Caribbean airports where the Brazilian airports dominated the sample. Overall, the ACI survey found that in 2001 a net profit of US$ 630 million was made at all the airports which represented
Table 3.1 Profitability for 30 major airport operators, 2001–02 Total revenues (million US$) 2716.1 1535.8 1427.1 1416.9 1215.2 1111.8 955.1 676.6 632.7 543.2 510.9 493.0 485.9 485.4 481.0 475.9 467.1 460.4 450.7 414.9 392.1 372.0 334.0 319.0 314.6 287.1 286.9 274.1 274.1 267.4 Operating profit (million US$) 803.2 276.6 363.1 201.2 180.1 297.2 170.9 84.6 189.3 150.1 60.1 13.9 55.8 172.8 60.9 82.5 80.3 63.5 227.3 33.1 65.1 146.0 94.6 4.6 27.4 166.6 76.4 117.0 28.9 38.4 Net profit after tax (million US$) 461.9 90.6 336.4 90.4 6.3 N/A 145.9 30.3 163.8 N/A 33.0 1.3 3.4 183.9 114.8 11.3 23.6 16.8 25.8 65.6 10.4 30.0 8.9 21.5 N/A 80.5 59.4 75.0 79.4 7.4

Airport operator

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

BAA Fraport Port Authority of New York and New Jersey AENA Spanish Airports Aeroports de Paris New Tokyo International Airport Authority Kansai International Airport Company Hong Kong Airport Authority Schiphol Group City of Chicago Department of Aviation Flughafen Munchen Luftfartsverket Sweden SEA Aeroporti di Milano Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Los Angeles World Airports Miami-Dade County Aviation Department Aeroporti di Roma Norwegian Air Traffic and Airport Management City and County of Denver San Francisco Airports Commission Aer Rianta Irish Airports Manchester Airport Group Greater Toronto Airports Authority Unique Zürich Airport Washington Airports Authority Airports Division, Hawaii Flughafen Wien Massachusetts Port Authority Dallas/Fort Worth International Flughafen Dusseldorf

Source: Airline Business and annual reports.

55

Managing Airports

about 1.5 per cent of total revenues – down from about 2 per cent in 2000 – with the North American airports as a group making a loss of nearly 1 billion dollars after a modest profit of US$ 160 million in 2000. The overall net margin was much lower than for the 50 major airports because this survey covered many smaller airports which tend to be less profitable. Profits before tax, interest, depreciation and amortization (in international accounting terms known as EBITDA) were around US$ 12.6 billion which represented about a 30.0 per cent margin of total revenues in 2001, down from 32.4 per cent in 2000. The Asia/Pacific airports had the highest EBITDA margin of just over 43 per cent. Predictably, given the 11 September, 2001 events, the North American airports had the lowest margin of 18 per cent – although the profit levels of many US airports tend to be relatively low in most years because of the unique way in which they are financed.

Revenue and cost structures
Airport revenue is usually classified into two main categories: aeronautical (or aviation) and non-aeronautical (or commercial) revenues (Table 3.2). Aeronautical revenues are those sources of income that arise directly from the operation of aircraft and the processing of passengers and freight. Non-aeronautical revenues are those generated by activities that are not directly related to the operation of aircraft, notably income from commercial activities within the terminal and rents for terminal space and airport land. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has a long list of activities which can be classified as non-aeronautical including cattle farming, concrete-post manufacturing, baseball training camps, mannequins and models show, and pipeline inspection shows (ICAO, 1991)! Then there are a few categories of income that can be classified as either type of revenue. For example, handling revenues are usually treated as aeronautical revenues unless handling is undertaken by handling agents or airlines when the associated revenue (rent or fee based on turnover) is included under rents or concession revenue items. Income received by the airport from aircraft fuel companies or from airlines as a fuel throughput fee could be regarded as directly related to aircraft operations and hence an aeronautical revenue. Alternatively, this income could be considered as

Table 3.2 Airport operating revenue sources Aeronautical Landing fees Passenger fees Aircraft parking fees Handling fees (if handling is provided by the airport operator) Other aeronautical fees (air traffic control, lighting, airbridges etc.) Non-aeronautical Concessions Rents Direct sales (shops, catering and other services provided by the airport operator) Car park (if provided by the airport operator) Recharges (for gas, water, electricity etc.) Other non-aeronautical revenue (consultancy, visitor and business services, property development etc.)

56

1). Most of the non-aeronautical revenue comes from concessions and rents. The Asia/Pacific and European airports generated around half their revenues from non-aeronautical sources and are generally considered to the regions where airport non-aeronautical or commercial policies are the most developed. it was apparent that aeronautical revenues represented just under half of all revenues (Figure 3. in at a 57 .3 for 1983–2001. At some airports. From the 2001 ACI survey. landing and passenger fees are by far the most important aeronautical revenue sources. Overall. such as interest received and income earned from subsidiary companies. One of the most notable increases in commercial revenues has been with BAA plc airports – Chapter 6 outlines how this was achieved. 2002.1 Percentage share of aeronautical revenue at ACI airports by world region. mostly due to the lower income per capita.Airport economics and performance benchmarking commercial income and hence a non-aeronautical revenue.and tax-free goods in this year with the average 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 /L an be ib a ar ric C me A As Eu N ta To id M a/ ric Af ast E or ia p ro th /P l e er Am ac Aeronautical share of total revenue (%) ifi dl e c ic Figure 3. 2001 Source: ACI. the generally smaller sized airports which had less non-aeronautical opportunities. and because the non-aeronautical policies tended to be less developed than in many other parts of the world. are usually included under a different ‘non-operating’ revenue category. the increase in the proportion of non-aeronautical revenue over the 15 years from 1983 to 1998 had been considerable – for example. The table shows that aeronautical revenues account for around half the total revenues within Europe which is very similar to the results of the ACI survey. Revenues. The dominant trend up until 1998 was a decline in the importance of aeronautical revenues with a subsequent increase in reliance on non-aeronautical sources. at Copenhagen airport the share increased from 41 to 54 per cent and at Geneva airport it rose from 40 to 51 per cent. The situation changed in 1999 because of the impact of the abolition of EU duty. A breakdown of revenues for a sample of European airports is shown in Table 3. This not only reflected pressures from airlines and regulatory bodies to keep airport charge increases to a minimum but also the increased focus being placed on commercial activities. The North American airports had the lowest share of aeronautical revenues which reflects the low level of US airport charges because of the unique way in which these airports are financed. The African/Middle East and Latin American/Caribbean regions appeared to have the lowest share of non-aeronautical revenues.

4 40.6 23. there is no industry standard for the reporting of airport operating costs.1 45. From published accounts.6 43.9 41.0 55. however.0 39.1 100.Managing Airports Table 3. Within Europe.0 55.0 45.6 18. it is usually possible to identify the three separate cost items associated with labour.0 48.0 52.9 43. capital.0 36. Unlike with revenues.2 100.6 44.0 100. This value remained fairly constant in 2000 and 2001.9 24.6 39.2 36. labour costs account for an average 33 per cent of total costs with depreciation representing a further 24 per cent.9 44.1 23. 1983–2001 1983 Revenue shares (%) Aeronautical Non-aeronautical Total Cost Shares (%) Labour Depreciation Other Total Source: Annual reports.0 56.4 100.0 43. 2001 Airport Revenue shares (%) Aero Amsterdam Basel-Mulhouse Birmingham Brussels Copenhagen Dusseldorf Frankfurt Geneva Glasgow Milan London Gatwick London Heathrow Manchester Marseilles Paris Rome Oslo Vienna Zürich Source: Annual reports.0 100.8 42.9 100.2 42.0 34.6 100. Cost shares (%) Labour Depreciation Other Total 23 22 33 24 38 41 49 38 35 55 27 22 24 26 33 39 21 57 24 21 38 21 21 29 21 15 22 18 11 21 25 22 29 22 22 40 17 34 56 40 46 55 33 38 36 40 47 34 52 53 54 45 45 39 39 36 42 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Non-aero 53 55 36 38 44 33 30 52 38 28 59 60 44 56 56 38 49 25 48 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 47 45 64 62 56 67 70 48 62 72 41 40 56 44 44 62 51 75 52 non-aeronautical share declining slightly to around 44 per cent. Over the years the labour costs have decreased in importance (Table 3.6 100.0 32.5 44.0 34.3 Average revenue and cost structures at European airports.0 54.4 Revenue and cost structures at a selection of European airports.6 35. In part this is due to more 58 .4 100.0 Table 3.8 20.1 100.2 21.0 55.9 100.3).1 100.2 100.5 21. 1988 1993 1998 1999 2000 2001 58.5 100. and other operating costs.

4 shows these values for a number of European airports. or unit costs. again reflecting their heavy involvement in the labour-intensive handling activity. There has also been some limited research which shows that as airports get very large their unit costs start to rise again because the airport system becomes more and more complex. which is more costly to operate. with their aeronautical charges regulated. Many small airports experience poor utilization which will also push up unit costs. Düsseldorf. declines. By contrast. In 1999 an ICAO airport economics study found that costs per WLU or unit costs for airports of less than 300 000 WLUs averaged US$15.00 for airports between 2.4 for airports with WLUs between 300 000 and 2. These average values hide the variation between individual airports which in some cases in quite considerable. have much lower staff costs. There may also be higher depreciation charges due to additional investment at the airports to cope with the traffic growth and a more accurate representation of depreciation at some airports because of their transfer from public sector accounting procedures to more commercial practices. Some of these are more easily influenced by airport management than others. Doganis et al. 2000). Studies of British airports in the 1970s showed that unit costs. Frankfurt. The revenue figures reflect differences in strategies towards aeronautical and commercial activities and also differences in the functions carried out by the airport operator itself. As airports increase their traffic throughput the costs per unit of traffic. 2000). Studies of Australian and Spanish airports have produced similar findings (Assaily. Factors influencing costs and revenues There are many factors that affect an airport’s level and structure of costs and revenues. were much more dependent on commercial activities.. (Pels et al. which the airport operator only has limited control over. airports such as Basel-Mulhouse. measured in costs per passenger handled or per work load unit (a WLU is equivalent to one passenger or 100 kg of freight) fell dramatically as total traffic increased to around 1 or 1.5 million and 25 million (ICAO. Gatwick and Heathrow. the volume and nature of the traffic. 2000). for example with a number of different terminals. Table 3. the unit costs tended to flatten out and ceased to exhibit a strong relationship with airport size (Doganis and Thompson. The labour costs also vary quite considerably at airports. and Oslo which are not involved with so many activities. This suggests that there might be an optimal size of airport in economic terms – but as yet the evidence is far from conclusive.5 million WLUs and were US$8. 1997. Milan. For example. First. labour costs account for around half the total costs. At Vienna and Frankfurt. More complex analyses also suggest that airports experience economies of scale – with the effects being most significant for smaller airports (Gillen and Lall.5 million passengers or WLUs. were US$9. 1989. London Heathrow.. Then at a traffic level of around 3 million passengers or WLUs.. 1973). 1995). Pels et al.Airport economics and performance benchmarking outsourcing being undertaken by airport operators and in some cases a more productive labour force. 59 . It is likely that for small airports there will be certain fixed costs associated with the provision of infrastructure and services which will be incurred at the airport irrespective of the traffic levels. Amsterdam. can have a major impact on the airport’s economic performance. and Vienna in 2001 were heavily involved in handling.

as with the business airport London City which put leather seats in the departure lounge. 2000). In the extreme case. the cost associated with an international passenger is likely to be 1. For example. This is very different from airports such as London Heathrow or Amsterdam Schiphol which generate a relatively 60 . these passengers spend longer in the terminal. These passengers tend to spend more money at the airport on commercial facilities such as retail and catering which will push up unit revenues – particularly if they have access to duty. Likewise. which gives a cost multiple between international and EU traffic of 1. At the other extreme. this will clearly have resource implications. with no provision of airbridges. Charter passengers will not usually need certain facilities such as airline lounges which will influence the airport’s cost and revenue levels.and tax-free shopping. airports serving holiday destinations may have a problem with peakiness and uneven capacity utilization which may push up costs. Beyond the basic operational functions. Moreover. say. For example. All this will impact on both cost and revenue levels. There is no ‘typical’ airport when it comes to looking at the services and facilities an airport provides. SEA.36. different airports have little in common. Some airport operators will provide activities such as security. in Heathrow’s Terminal 1 it has been estimated that international passengers on average have 1. International passengers also have more luggage. cleaning. namely 1. a number of low-cost carriers such as Ryanair and EasyJet have expressed preferences for operating out of low-cost terminals with only basis facilities. The cost multiple for EU passengers is less. hub airports with a true ‘wave’ pattern of flights will have well-defined crests and troughs of traffic which will be more costly to handle than a more evenly spread distribution of flights. terminals may also be leased as is the situation in the United States and Australia. Airports operators are relatively free to choose their own physical and service standards which are considered desirable to provide an acceptable level of service to passengers although in practice many of the standards at airports are fairly similar. duty-free shops. More space for passengers than is strictly necessary may be deliberately provided at some airports which are keen to develop their retail and catering activities in order to increase their non-aeronautical revenue. BAA plc has estimated that for a hypothetical terminal of 8 million passenger capacity. while others will contract these out. The ICAO survey found that on average airports with more than 25 million passengers generated 58 per cent of their revenue from non-aeronautical sources compared with the sample average of 36 per cent.5 for domestic passengers. and heavy maintenance.3 bags compared with 0. handling. the Milan airport operator traditionally has been heavily involved in handling and generated over 50 per cent of gross revenues from this source. Charter passengers also have different spending patterns to scheduled terminal passenger as do transfer passengers at hub airports (a more detailed description of different spending patterns is given in Chapter 7). for a more exclusive product.20 (Toms. Nevertheless. air traffic control. car parking. Costs associated with international passengers tend to rise as this type of traffic requires more space in the terminal for customs and immigration.Managing Airports Larger airports are normally in a better position to provide a greater range of commercial facilities for passengers and other consumers and tend therefore to have a greater reliance on non-aeronautical revenues. if an airport does decide to aim.62 times greater than the cost of domestic passengers. in order to keep down the cost of airport charges.

the systematic monitoring and comparing of airport economic performance was not a widely practised activity within the airport industry. locational factors may also effect the cost and quality of labour and the availability of capital for investment.Airport economics and performance benchmarking small amount of revenues from this activity in the form of rents and concession fees paid by the airlines and handling agents. For example. An airport may be forced to close at night even if there is sufficient demand to make night flying feasible. imposed to reduce noise or other adverse impacts of air transport. weather-related expenses. Moreover. The ICAO 1999 economic survey found that one-third of airports did not show realistic costs associated with depreciation and interest. Measuring economic performance Growing interest in performance assessment Until the 1980s. the capital costs will reduce and utilization will hopefully improve. When major developments have taken place. with many public sector airports. security or fire and rescue. In some cases. Economic comparisons in any industry have to acknowledge the accounting policies adopted by individual operators. for example. This will have an impact on any comparative analysis of net profit levels. being exempt from most business taxes. to find that the airport’s land will not be considered to be an airport’s asset and hence will not appear in any balance sheet. Location is also likely to influence the actual layout and design of the airport and the positioning of both airfield and terminal facilities. since investment at airports tends to be large and ‘lumpy’ rather than continuous and gradual. BAA plc depreciates runways for up to 100 years while Amsterdam airport uses 30–40 and AdP uses just 10–20 years. may also mean that the airport cannot make the most efficient use of all resources. For example. airports will be subject to different taxation regimes. In addition. such as snow removal and deicing facilities. In a more general sense. Later in the cycle. With government-owned airports it is possible. but because of wind conditions or some other particular climatic or geographic characteristic. an airport may require two or more runways not to meet traffic needs. The ownership patterns can also influence other factors such as funding arrangements and the cost of capital. an airport’s performance is likely to depend very much on where it is positioned in the investment life cycle. There are many other factors dependent on an airport’s location and geographic situation which. the situation may be even more complicated as the government may choose to pay for the provision of certain services. This can largely be attributed to insufficient commercial and business pressures for 61 . Within the airport industry accounting procedures vary quite considerably particularly since some airports adopt government or public authority accounting methods rather than commercial practices. to a large extent. will only be incurred at certain airports. as is typically the case with the provision of policing. for instance those in the United States. capital costs are likely to be high and poor utilization may push up the operating costs. will be beyond the airport operator’s specific control. For instance. Environmental limits. Views related to how assets should be depreciated differ.

the ACI-Europe Economics Committee started work on producing comparative airport performance indicators for its member airlines.g. Irish Commission for Aviation Regulation. baggage delivery. only further discouraged most airports from seriously attempting to analyse their comparative performance. what is the best organizational framework for an airport and whether airports operated as part of national networks or systems perform better than individual airports. As airports become more commercially oriented. Clearly any decision on service levels or operational procedures will greatly influence an airport’s cost and manning levels and vice versa. Such organizations will have a different ultimate objective for comparing performance and. The growing acceptance of airport performance monitoring is further illustrated by various international industry bodies showing an interest in such activities. Economic regulators of privatized or autonomously managed airports also have good reason to monitor airport performance to ensure that users are being fairly charged and that the airports are run efficiently and increasingly a number of regulators have commissioned airport benchmarking studies (e. in 1991. 2001. CAA. have an interest in identifying which airports are being inefficiently managed – particularly to add substance to any lobby against increases in user charges. thus. ICAO listed 10 indicators which it identified as being some of the key measures for assessing economic performance (ICAO. hence. they have been keen to identify the strong performers in the industry and adopt what are seen as best practices. are anxious to identify possible business opportunities and to ensure that their chosen airport investments continue to perform well. The difficulties involved with producing meaningful comparisons. equipment availability. a growing recognition of the value of continuous performance appraisal within the airport industry. Comparative performance analysis can also give valuable insight into issues such as whether privatized airports are more efficiently run than public sector airports. These noneconomic areas are considered in detail in the next chapter but the inter-relationships between these different aspects of performance must be recognized. such as varying involvement in airport activities and different accounting policies. see National Economic Research Associates. see also Chapter 5). and so on. 1991). Senior managers can use performance measures to help them define goals and targets. 2002. terminal processing times.Managing Airports airports and the general lack of experience of benchmarking techniques within the public sector as a whole. typically through passenger surveys. 62 . In addition consumer satisfaction levels also need to be assessed. For example. Economic performance appraisal is. of course. There are a wide range of operational activities which need to monitored by looking at measures relating to airside delays. are likely to view the findings from a different perspective. directly or indirectly. Airlines. traditionally much more used to using financial ratios and other benchmarking techniques than airport operators. There is. now operating in a much more cost-conscious and competitive environment. 2001. Many other organizations external to the airport sector are also showing a keen interest in using performance measures to compare achievements between airports. With airport commercialization and privatization has come a marked interest in performance comparisons and benchmarking. only one aspect of airport performance which needs to be assessed. with the airport industry. Investors and bankers. In the late 1990s. Analysing an airport’s economic performance has therefore become an important task for many of those involved.

namely employee wages and salaries. Any part-time and temporary staff should be converted to full-time equivalents. There is the additional problem that there are even different costs and revenues associated with different passenger types. the most notable examples being international and domestic passengers and terminal and transfer passengers. its role as a retail facility. To capture the effect of the cost of labour as well as productivity per head. daily. These will. The WLU. Ideally. regulation and government interference and. Physically. the labour input can also be measured in financial terms. The financial measurement of output is relatively straightforward and can be measured by considering the total revenues generated. sometimes. however. however. These measures do not cover all aspects of an airport. the WLU formula should. and freight (Vallint. one WLU one passenger or 100 kg of freight). Some argue. An alternative scaling parameter is the relative prices of the outputs but this assumes a close relationship between price and cost which is not usually the case because of market imperfections. This relationship can be expressed in both financial and physical terms. reflect the relative importance or value of the different outputs and. The WLU originated from the airline industry and uses a weight criteria for combining these two types of traffic (i. Determining a reliable measure of the capital input is much more difficult. namely aircraft movements. but they do capture the key outputs.e. Capacity can be measured on an hourly. As with other businesses. the output of an airport can be assessed in three ways: in terms of quantities of aircraft. capital input is measured by the production capability or capacity of the system. 2000) has suggested 63 . such as the WLU. or annual basis.Airport economics and performance benchmarking Performance concepts Performance measures analyse the relationship between inputs and outputs at an airport. terminal. labour and capital are the major inputs of the airport system. The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL. The capacity of the runways. reflect the accounting policies of the specific airport and may not always be closely related to its economic production capability. Depreciation or asset values can be used to measure the financial capital input. include an aircraft movement element. although probably the most widely accepted aggregate measure. passengers. this suggests the use of an output measure which combines the two. 1998). is a rather arbitrary method of linking the two outputs since the same weight of passengers and freight does not involve using the same resources. Since most airports handle both passengers and freight. that the focus should be on passenger numbers since freight handling at airports is very much an airline activity and has little impact on an airport’s economic performance. At an airport this cannot be assessed by one measure. In physical terms. There has been some research undertaken in this area to investigate whether a more appropriate output measure can be found which takes into account all three key outputs of an airport. cross-subsidies between different traffic. perhaps. for example. and so on all have to be considered. The simplest physical measure of the labour input is the total number of employees. Costs or employee numbers associated with the different outputs could theoretically be used to determine the scaling factor but there is the major problem of joint costs or joint tasks undertaken by the staff. The use of aircraft movements is not ideal as such measures will not differentiate between different sizes and different types of aircraft. passengers or freight. therefore. gates.

Managing Airports

that the use of the airport throughput unit (ATU) which combines output measures of WLUs per ATM and WLUs and is defined as:

ATUs

(WLUs)2 ATMs

(WLUs)

(WLUs) ATMs

ATUs have subsequently been adopted in TRL’s more recent performance assessments and have also been used by IATA (TRL, 2002). To summarize, performance measures or indicators are all about relating one or more of the outputs to one or more inputs. By using a number of these indicators, an airport can assess different aspects of its performance and identify where its strengths and weaknesses lie. These indicators can be grouped into certain categories such as cost-efficiency, labour and capital productivity, revenue generation and commercial performance, and profitability. In addition to these input : output ratios, a few other key measures such as the share of revenue from aeronautical sources or the percentage of costs which are allocated to staff can give further insights into comparative performance. There are around fifteen to twenty indicators which are commonly used (Ashford and Moore, 1999; Doganis, 1992; Humphreys and Francis, 2000). Table 3.5 presents the most popular indicators. Some of these have been used for the analysis of specific markets such as France (Assaily, 1989), Australia (Doganis et al., 1994) or the UK (CRI, 2002) or more generally to compare airport performance within Europe (Doganis and Graham, 1987; Doganis et al., 1995; Graham and Lobbenberg, 1995) or around the world (TRL, 2002). In 2000, a survey of 200 of the world’s largest airports was undertaken by Loughborough University and the UK
Table 3.5 Performance indicators commonly used to assess economic performance 1 Cost efficiency Costs excluding depreciation per WLU Costs including depreciation per WLU Depreciation costs per WLU Labour costs per WLU Depreciation share of operating costs Labour share of operating costs 2 Labour productivity WLU per employee Revenues per employee 3 Capital productivity WLU/ total assets Revenues/total assets Total assets per employee 4 Revenue generation Revenues per WLU Aeronautical revenues per WLU Non-aeronautical revenues per WLU Aeronautical share of total revenues 5 Commercial performance Concession plus rental revenues per passenger Concession revenues per passenger 6 Profitability Revenues: costs ratio Operating profit excluding depreciation per WLU Operating profit including depreciation per WLU Operating profit including/excluding depreciation/total assets Net retained profit after interest and taxation per WLU

Notes: 1 Only operating revenues and cost have been included (i.e. interest, extraordinary items, taxation, and dividends are excluded) with the exception of last indicator (net retained profit after interest and taxation per WLU) 2 Some analysts use passenger numbers rather than WLUs and may include aircraft movements as an airport output measure as well.

64

Airport economics and performance benchmarking

Open University to investigate how airports themselves were measuring their performance (Francis et al., 2001). Some of the most popular measures used were found to be cost per passenger and total, aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenue per passenger whilst revenue per WLU, for example, was a less used indicator. While airport managers will be very keen to understand how efficiently the airport is using its infrastructure and how cost-effectively it is doing so, the financial sector will be more focused on ratios related to the business potential of the airport such as profit levels, liquidity ratios and capital expenditure levels. In the international financial markets, profit excluding depreciation is known as EBITDA and profit including depreciation is known as EBIT. Another indicator which can be used is the EBITDA or EBIT margin which is earnings expressed as a percentage of revenue. Operating profit:total assets is commonly referred to as return on capital employed (ROCE) or return on assets. Putting the traditional indicators in these financial terms enables comparisons to be easily made with other business sectors. Other standard financial ratios such as the interest cover (EBIT:interest) the dividend cover (post-tax profit/dividends), or gearing (debt as a share of shareholders funds) can be used to assess the financial well-being and capital structure of the airport company. Capital expenditure (Capex) per WLU, employee, or revenues can also give an indication as to the amount of investment which is taking place. For the few publicly quoted airport companies such as BAA plc and Vienna, additional indicators associated with the value of the company can be used. A number of these ratios relate the enterprise value (EV), which shows the market value of the company’s core businesses, to sales, earnings or throughput (e.g. EV:total revenues; EV : EBITDA; EV : EBIT; EV : WLU). Reference has already been made to these ‘value’ ratios in Chapter 2 when privatization trends were considered. The price earnings ratio (PER), which shows the relationship between the price of the share and earnings attributable to that share, can also be used (Vogel, 1997; ABN AMRO, 1998; WDR, 1998). The information needed for these basic performance indicators is normally available from sources in the public domain, such as published reports and accounts. More detailed and disaggregate performance measures can usually only be produced internally within an airport unless airports agree to voluntarily provide additional information. For this reason London, Paris, and Amsterdam airports in Europe have an agreement to swap data on a regular basis. The availability of more disaggregate data enables more specialized comparative analyses to be undertaken for different areas of operation. For example, indicators commonly used by the retail industry such as sales per square metre of space and sales by location and type of outlet can be applied to airport commercial areas (ICAA, 1985; CAS, 1998).

Inter-airport performance
Producing meaningful inter-airport performance indicators is fraught with difficulties because of serious problems of comparability – particularly due to the varying range of activities undertaken by airport operators themselves. Comparing indicators from the raw data can give misleading impressions as airports involved with more activities would inevitably have higher cost and revenues levels. This problem can be overcome by standardizing or normalizing the airport data so that each airport’s performance is presented as if it undertook a uniform set of
65

Managing Airports

activities by taking into account the typical profit margins associated with each separate airport activity. For example, if an airport operator undertakes ground handling activities itself, the assumed costs, revenues and staff numbers associated with this can be deducted in order to make the data more comparable with airports with no involvement with this activity. A hypothetical concession income from handling agents can then be added to the airport’s revenues. Similar adjustments can be made for car parking and other commercial activities. Whilst there will obviously be an element of subjectivity in the assumptions which are made, a sensitivity analyses of adjusted standardized data for a sample of 29 global airports in 1999–2000 showed that, for example, total costs were not very sensitive to the assumed profitability of the various activities which required adjustments, with the exception of ground handling (National Economic Research Associates, 2001). Ideally, the accounts of each airport could also be adjusted to conform to a common treatment of depreciation, asset values and so on as well, but normally this is too difficult a task. It is never possible to achieve total comparability between airports but at least making adjustments when large discrepancies exist enables more meaningful assessments to be made. The measures must be viewed as ‘indicators’ of performance to be used as a management tool to aid performance improvement, rather than as precise and accurate absolute values of economic performance. Another issue to be faced in comparing airport performance is the difference in cost of living between countries. Official exchange rates may not be a close reflection of relative prices at different airports in different countries. This problem can be addressed by using purchasing power parity exchange rates, rather than market exchange rates. Purchasing power parity exchange rates are calculated by dividing the cost of a given basket of goods in one currency by the cost of the same basket of goods in another country. So, effectively, they convert currencies on the basis of equalizing buying power rather than on the basis of prevailing market conditions. They also overcome problems of currency fluctuations during the period under investigation.

European comparisons
To illustrate how individual airport performance may be measured on an inter-airport basis, a selection of the three indicators have been calculated for a sample of European airports. The 16 airports represent a cross-section, from the largest European airport, London Heathrow, to smaller airports such as Marseille and Birmingham . The airports come from seven different countries, five of which are within the EU. The sample includes privately owned airports such as Glasgow, partially privatized airports such as Copenhagen, publicly owned but independent corporations such as Amsterdam and airports run as concessions such as Nice. The sample also includes the unique bi-national airport of Basel-Mulhouse, the smallest airport, which has two check-in concourses and arrivals halls, one of each in France and Switzerland. The data has been normalized and converted into purchasing power parities. It may be seen from Figure 3.2, which shows the costs per WLU, that even when the data is normalized that the values for each airport are very different, with some of the lower cost airports having almost half the costs of higher-cost airports. The revenue figures are as varied and the ranking of the airports is fairly similar – which is hardly surprising given that all the airports are profitable (Figure 3.3). There is also a wide spread of values of WLU per employee with
66

Airport economics and performance benchmarking

20 18 16 Cost per WLU (Euros) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
o sl O a ev en G k ic w at G w ro th ea h ric Zu t ur kf an Fr am gh in H e n ic ge N ha en op m C da er st Am e ill se ar M na en f Vi or ld se us D ow sg la G M
25 20 Revenue (Euros) 15 10 5 0
O G Bi rm in gh am H ea th ro w M an ch Fr an es te r Ba Vi G G N M Am D Zu C ic us op sl en at la ar en ric se e o st sg w se se en ev na kf h er l ic ow

Figure 3.2 Costs per WLU for European airports, 2001
Source: Annual accounts.

Figure 3.3 Revenue per WLU for European airports, 2001
Source: Annual accounts.

some of the large airports such as Heathrow and Amsterdam achieving high labour productivity while at other large airports such as Frankfurt and Manchester the staff do not seem to be so productive (Figure 3.4).

The global picture
A similar methodology is used in the annual global study of performance which is undertaken by the TRL. The study looks at 35 different indicators. One of these indicators, total revenue per employee, is shown in Figure 3.5 for the global sample of airports. This indicator combines the effects of both staff productivity and the revenue generation ability of the airport. Most of the airports with high values have larger than average revenue-earning capabilities, with the exception of Vancouver and
67

l se r te Ba es ch an

Bi

rm

ille

ur t

ld

a

ha

k

da m

or f

ge n

Managing Airports

30 000 25 000

WLU per employee

20 000 15 000 10 000 5 000 0
o sl O m en G Am st ea H th e ic N Zu ric h M ar se at G op C en s la G us D Ba se rm Bi M an en Vi Fr an k ic w se ev ch na g in go kf er da l ro w ille o ld ur a n ha ge

es

Figure 3.4 WLU per employee for European airports, 2001
Source: Annual accounts.

Calgary where there are flexible working practices which brings down staff numbers. The Japanese airports of Osaka Kansai and Toyko Narita (not shown in the Figure 3.5) have even higher index values of 657 and 399, which is primarily the result of very high aeronautical revenues and also higher than average non-aeronautical revenues. Indeed, over the years these two airports have come under considerable criticism from the airline industry regarding the higher level of their airport charges.

w

ha

t

te

rf

m

r

A single efficiency measure?
The performance measures in Table 3.5 are partial measures in that they give an indication of performance which relates specifically to the inputs and outputs that have been chosen. They can highlight strengths and weaknesses in certain areas but they cannot give an overall picture or identify the ‘best in class’. This shortcoming can be overcome by investigating the relationship between the combined inputs and combined outputs to produce a single efficiency measure. In contrast to other transport operations and public sector organizations there has been little exploration of the use of such methodologies until the 1990s, with the airport sector preferring to concentrate mostly on partial measures (Lemaitre, 1998). There are various different ways in which overall efficiency can be assessed (CAA, 2000). A parametric or statistical approach can be adopted by using stochastic frontier analysis. This method involves the estimation of a ‘frontier’ and the airport is only efficient if it operates on the frontier. The model is based on the estimation of a production or cost function which recognizes several variables influencing performance. Examples of this approach include an assessment of the performance of BAA plc airports and a sample of European airports (Tolofari, 1989; Pels et al., 2000). Alternatively, a non-parametric index numbers approach, called Tornqvist total factor productivity (TFP), can be used. This requires the aggregation of all outputs into a weighted outputs index and all inputs into a weighted input index. The prices of the inputs and outputs are the weights which are applied to the quantities of outputs and inputs. Such a technique has been used to assess the performance of Australian airports (PSA, 1993; Hooper and Hensher, 1998).
68

2000–01 North America Europe Asia/Pacific st up ro pe G da ts Bu A or S Airp AC sh i nn Fi up A ro AN g G n rli Be rio a nt O A N t AE ur kf a an ta m Fr ian i Ro p r R ti d ou Ae por n Gr ro age rts Ae nh rpo e Ai op C ish r ed ste Sw he c m ris a an a M gh P in de rm rts Bi po up ro les ro Ae ng G A ts s or Lo a p ev Air en n G iia sco a i aw nc H Fra n Sa a n en Vi h c up e ui r M Gro Ha A O’ BA go ca hi olm ick C kh atw oc G St on es nd ne ull Lo our n D b to el M hing p as W h rou ric l G Zu ho p hi e Sc an b is d Br n la ck l Au na io rth at N Pe i m ton ia M hing as W o sl O ey dn Sy o nt ro re row To apo ath e ng H Si on nd u Lo olul on H ry ga r al ve C ou ng Ko 69 . average=100) 100 0 Va nc Figure 3.H on g Source: TRL.5 Revenue per employee for world airports. 50 250 200 150 Revenue per employee (index value.

6 0.4 North America Europe Asia/Pacific t ur kf an Fr h ic rts un M irpo A ai Th o nd n o rla O ngt hi as W t i ro i et D nat n ci m in C rda e st Am al tre on th M o or nt W ro rt To Fo o s/ sc la al nci D a Fr n Sa o g ca hi C on st g ou H Kon g on u H ul ol r te ob H es ch is l an M apo ne in re M o ap n ng ge Si ha en op C i m ia M y r ga al C ka sa er O uv o nc s Va gle An s Lo h ric Zu y e dn Sy on st Bo tle at Se l ou 1.6 Total factor productivity for world airports.8 0. Total factor productivity (index value. 1999 1.4 0.Se Figure 3. Vancouver = 1) .2 1 0 70 Source: ATRS.2 0.

ATUs per unit of asset value. TRL. which was adjusted to eliminate the effects of airport size and the proportion of international traffic characteristics is shown in Figure 3. A linear programming technique. ATUs per employee. Air Transport Research Society (2002). 71 . aeronautical revenues per ATM. Frankfurt and Munich performed particularly poorly which must partly be the result of these airports’ direct involvement in ground handling activities. The overall TFP measure. concession revenues per passenger. Airport Benchmarking Report. N. European Airports Review. (1989). 2002). Europe and North America. 2002). Parker (1999) also used DEA to study BAA plc and concluded that there has been no noticeable change in efficiency since privatization. Airport Finance. A production function was adopted to develop the so-called endogenous-weight TFP method which was used in this research. also produces a weighted output index relative to a weighted input index similar to the non-parametric TFP measure. By contrast. ABN AMRO. 2nd edn. Assaily. Institute of Air Transport. the data was not adjusted to take account of involvement in different activities unlike the other data sets which have already been shown. (1999). ATRS. ACI Airport Economics Survey 2001. The key advantage of DEA is that the weights for the inputs and outputs are not predetermined but instead are the result of the programming procedure. ACI. For each measure airports are measured according to how they perform relative to other airports – with a score of 1 for best performer and 0 for worst performer.6. CAS. Centre for Airport Studies (CAS) (1998). 1999. The most efficient airport appeared to be Seoul’s Gimpo which outsourced a number of activities and was congested with a high utilisation rate. called data envelopment analysis (DEA). C. DEA techniques have been used to undertake a comparison of the performance of 25 European and 12 Australian airports with the results showing that generally the Australian airports on average achieved higher efficiency scores than was the case for European airports (Graham and Holvad. A multi-attribute approach has also been used to assess airport performance. C. Gillen and Lall (1997) and Vasigh and Hamzaee (2000) used DEA to assess US airports and Martin and Roman (2000) used it with Spanish airports. Airport Retail Survey 1998 Edition.Airport economics and performance benchmarking One of the most comprehensive studies of total factor productivity in the airport sector was undertaken by the Air Transport Research Society (ATRS) with its Global Airport Benchmarking Report (ATRS. References and further reading ABN AMRO (1998). Ashford. The weighted sum of these scores gives an overall summary efficiency measure. namely: EBITDA. and operating costs per passenger (Jessop. This looked at partial and total measures of various aspects of performance for up to 70 airports in Asia Pacific. Airport Productivity. Loughborough Airport Consultancy. This method has been used with a sample of around thirty five global airports with six performance measures. This combines a number of partial performance measures as a weighted sum of inputs. Airport Council International (ACI) (2002). DEA is therefore a more attractive technique than the Tornqvist TFP because it has less demanding data requirements. 1997). and Moore. However.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (1991). R. A. Cranfield University. The use of benchmarking in airport reviews. (1998). Journal of Air Transport Management. Cranfield University. Gillen. A. Martin. A.Managing Airports Centre for Regulated Industries (CRI) (2002). T. Transport Studies Group Research Report 1. Barcelona. Fry. Lemaitre. Routledge. Jessop. Vancouver. and Roman. Irish Commission for Aviation Regulation (2001). Commission recettes extra-aeronautiques. The development of performance indicators at airports. and Lobbenberg. An application of DEA to measure the efficiency of Spanish Airports prior to privatization. Irish Commission for Aviation Regulation. Hooper. and Humphreys I. Doganis. The Economics of British Airports. R. Financial situation of airports and air navigation services. 72 . R. International Civil Airports Association (ICAA) (1985). P. Open University Business School Working Paper 01/4. Graham. CAA. ICAO. 1703. (1997). Doc. and Thompson. Francis. and Graham. A. Report on the reasons for the determination.. May. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2000). Traditional Airport Performance Indicators.. The Economic Performance of European Airports. A. (1998). Institute of Transport Studies Working Paper ITS-WP-98-2. 149–57. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2002) Manchester Airport’s price cap. ANSConf Working Paper No. J. (1992). Monash University. Airport Management: The Role of Performance Indicators. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2000). Graham. Vancouver. University of Westminster (formerly Polytechnic of Central London). Doganis. G. Transportation Research Board. S. ICAO. A. Graham. EURO XV/INFORMS Joint International Conference. (1994). R. 3. Air Transport Research Group Conference. R. no. Airports Statistics 2000/2001. A Comparative Study of Value for Money at Australian and European Airports. and Holvad. Vienna. 2003–2008: CAA recommendations to the Competition Commission. A. (2000). Doganis. Open University.. July. Airports International. A. F. (2000). CRI. and Hensher. 7.. 12–14. (1995). Efficiency variations for European and Australian airports. G. Doganis. and Lobbenberg. Doganis. Department of Air Transport Research Report 3. D. A multiattribute assessment of airport performance. and Lobbenberg. Humphreys. D. and Lall. ICAA. and Francis. Measuring Total Factor Productivity of Airports – An Index Number Approach. (1987). A. July. (1995). Transport Studies Group Research Report 13. The Airport Business. A. (1997). Benchmarking European airports. CAA. A. Consultation paper. (1973). Developing measures of airport productivity and performance: an application of data envelopment analysis.. C. First Air Transport Research Group Conference. (2001). Twenty-fifth Euro Working Group on Financial Modelling of the Institut für Finanzierung und Finanzmarkte. Graham. I. An International Survey of Performance Measurement in Airports. G. November. (1999). 9562. University of Westminster (formerly Polytechnic of Central London). J. July.. Airport Economics Manual.

Prices Surveillance Authority (PSA) (1993). The Netherlands. STM. 38–39. Unpublished MBA thesis. K. Airports Review 1998. The suitability of the work load unit as a measure of airport output. R. Symonds Travers Morgan (STM) (1998). P. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. September. Tolofari. Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) (2000). Pilling. Review of Airport Performance 1998. Critique of cost benchmarking. M. and O’Toole. (1999). M. R. Nijkamp. Privatization of European commercial airports: motivations. July. Fourth Air Transport Research Group Conference. (2000). Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) (2002). B. 73 . and Hamzaee. University of Westminster. (2002).. CAA Workshop on Benchmarking of Airports: Methodologies. Department of Transport Technology. and Rietveld. 33(2). TRL. Airports: gloves off. Vallint. Airport Cost and Productivity Analysis: Summary of Research Results. Airline Business. (1997). Pels. July. P. valuations and implications. S. (1989). NERA. H. Loughborough University. Parker. Warburg Dillon Read (WDR) (1998). Inquiry into the Aeronautical and Non-aeronautical Charges of the Federal Airports Corporation. The performance of BAA before and after privatization: a DEA study. Airport efficiency: an empirical analysis of the US commercial airports. Unpublished MSc transport thesis. Problems and Relevance to Economic Regulation. The Netherlands. PSA. The Application of Benchmarking to Airports Phase 1: Date Collection and Assessment.. (2000). Emery-Riddle University. Vasigh. WDR. London. E. December.Airport economics and performance benchmarking National Economic Research Associates (2001). TRL. Airport Performance Indicators 2000. Fourth Air Transport Research Group Conference. (1998). (2000). 133–46. Inefficiencies and scale economies of European airport operations. Airport Performance Indicators 2002. Toms. D. Vogel. J.

such as the London and Australian airports. Different dimensions of service were defined and customer satisfaction. Airports which had become regulated in their post-privatization stage. together with increased competition between airports. privatization. Structural changes such as commercialization. also found that their service . and globalization. New approaches such as total quality management and continuous improvement programmes began to be applied by an increasing number of service industries (Lockwood and Wright. encouraged airports to place more emphasis on quality.4 Service quality and its measurement Increasing emphasis on quality The 1980s saw many service industries placing increased emphasis on managing quality. which had evolved from manufacturing industries and had been based on the conformance to standards defined by operations management. Traditional ideas of quality. Quality management began to be viewed as an overall process which involved everybody from top management down to junior staff rather than just to do with concentrating on the employee customer interaction. was assessed. The airport industry was not immune to this ‘quality revolution’ which was taking place – although it was rather late in adopting some of the principles. This required close consideration of what the customers wanted and how their needs could be met. began to be replaced by customer-focused notions. considered to be the gap between perceived and expected service. 1999).

pressure was coming from the travelling public who were becoming more experienced and demanding consumers of the airport product. In 2000. Moreover. and other activities. Subsequently. very little segmentation has taken place at airports. most of the time airports still tend to offer one overall product which has to appeal to a very heterogeneous collection of passengers. customs and immigration officials. shower facilities. there were separate areas for refreshments. This lounge. In effect. a reserved premium short-stay car parking space. These different bodies may have different ultimate objectives and conflicting views on what determines satisfactory or good service (Lemer. Some passengers may want to get through the airport as quickly as possible 75 . shoe shine. electronic games. In this lounge. It is not just the airlines which are providing such services now. Likewise. 1992). In spite of these developments. express security clearance. the airport operator only has partial control of all the processes which make up the final product. consisted of three seating areas. Airports tend to serve passengers with very different expectations – and so it is very difficult to please everybody! Traditionally. and hot and cold drinks. There was the ‘hot desk’ business area where office facilities including internet access were available. a terminal will look and feel very different on a quiet Tuesday in winter compared to a busy summer Saturday in the school holidays. currency exchange at reduced rates. Areas of responsibility. The third area was the ‘oasis of calm’ with comfortable seating and a calm water feature! Another interesting concept launched by KLM ground services at London Heathrow in 2001 was the ‘Holideck’ which was the first full-scale lounge to cater for families with children. Then there was the ‘comfort zone’ where shops and catering facilities were available. London Stansted launched an interesting airport upgrade product on its website which meant that for a fee of £20. London Heathrow opened its first pay-as-you-go lounge which gave passengers. The expanding use of airline lounges has also helped to separate business and leisure travellers. Airports have the additional problem that the overall service is produced as a result of the combined activities of various different organization such as airlines. have to be very clearly identified and the airport operator must define a common goal for all as regards service quality. a number of other airport operators have opened pay-as-you-go lounges. With most service industries there is a particular problem with measuring the quality of service because of the characteristic uneven spread of demand. With many airports. passenger flows in the early morning or evening at an airport dominated by short-haul business traffic will be considerably greater than at other times of the day. The level of segmentation has now increased with more and more businesses travellers having access to fasttrack systems which guide them swiftly through various processes such as immigration and customs. for a £25 entrance. with the most notable differentiation being separate check-in for economy and business-class passengers and remote stands rather than air-bridges for passengers travelling on charter or low-cost airlines. therefore. This is bound to play a major role in influencing the passenger’s perception of the quality of service provided.Service quality and its measurement quality became the subject of increased scrutiny. a clothes valet. Another example was Manchester airport which opened a new premier lounge in its Terminal 2 in 2000. passengers could have access to a special lounge. and a range of other additional offers. cartoons. toys. for instance. concessionaires and so on. which had an entrance fee of £15. In 1999. handling agents. and provide other services such as valet parking.

escalators and trolleys.1 Service standards used by Manchester airport Space Queuing space Holding lounge 0.Managing Airports with a minimum of distractions while others enjoy the opportunity of being able to shop and take refreshments. Some airports have started to look at how they can keep their passengers entertained as they wait.6 m2 per passenger without baggage or accompanying visitor 0. and operational research surveys of factors such as queue length. The advantages of these measures is that they are precise and easy to understand (Maiden. At Amsterdam airport. there is a manager of Entertainment and Services who is in charge of these activities. The standards are set and revised in the light of customer levels of satisfaction by surveying passengers to find out. waiting time.1. when they become Table 4. Actors have been employed to entertain passengers waiting in security checks and there is live music every Friday afternoon.9 m2 standing passengers 20% space allowance for circulation excluding major through corridors Check-in desks Scheduled services Sufficient check-in desks will be provided to allow handling agents to offer a multi-class service.2 m2 per passenger seated and 0. To be accurate. peak periods less than 5 minutes for 80% of passengers Charter services Sufficient check-in desks will be provided to allow a minimum of 1 check-in desk per 130 passengers at peak periods Seating Concourse Departure lounge Seating will be provided for 25% of people present including general catering areas Seating will be provided for 75% of people present including general catering areas 76 . Objective indicators measure the service delivered and can cover areas such as flight delays. Measuring the quality of service Quality of service can be assessed with both objective and subjective measures. for example. an area of particular concern as regards the quality of service has become the queuing and waiting processes. say. these surveys need to be undertaken regularly and at varying time periods when different volumes and types of passengers are being processed through the airport. The CNN airport network is shown 24 hours a day on 80 screens around the terminal and there are also educational touch screens throughout the airport for the children (Airport World. 2002). 2000). With growing congestion at airports and increased emphasis on security because of 11 September 2001. An example of the service standards used by Manchester airport is given in Table 4. ‘Mystery shoppers’ who sample the airport product by anonymously pretending to be passengers can also be used. and baggage reclaim time. They can also link into the passenger service standards which many airports adopt. space provision. availability of lifts.6 m2 per passenger with baggage or awaiting reclaim 1. Also a sufficient number to achieve queuing times of less than 3 minutes for 95% or.

80% will queue for less than 5 minutes The acceptable queuing times have been detailed by HM immigration services. i. Last bags within 35 minutes of arrival time on 90% of occasions Domestic flights – first bag within 12 minutes of arrival time on 90% of occasions.e. 77 . and air-bridges to be 98% including planned maintenance Target availability for all operations vehicles to be 92% including planned maintenance Source: Competition Commission (2002b). Gate areas where departures are predominately short-haul international or domestic scheduled flights may be reduced to a figure of 65% Given present security regulations 95% of passengers will queue for less than 3 minutes or at peak periods. Last bag within 15 minutes of arrival time on 90% of occasions Baggage trolleys Target availability for total system to be 98% Trolleys to be available for all passengers who require one Vehicles and plants Target availability for all lifts.Service quality and its measurement Table 4. Maximum queuing times under normal operating circumstances are as follows: UK passports – 15 minutes EC passports – 20 minutes Other passports – 30 minutes Passengers should queue for less than 3 minutes after collection of their hand baggage from security check A maximum of 5% of passengers in any one year to be handled on remote stand Minimum connection times: International to international – 45 minutes International to domestic – 45 minutes Domestic to international – 45 minutes Domestic to domestic – 30 minutes (maximum) No customer is to wait on average more than 5 minutes for a courtesy coach A maximum queuing of 3 minutes for customers at any pay station An automated failure of less than 5%. escalators.1 (Continued ) Seating will be provided for 70% of people present. less than 5% of car park users should arrive at the barriers with invalid out tickets To provide a level of service at least comparable with off airport parking companies Gate lounges Security Outbound control Immigration Arrivals Departures Bussing Connection/ transfer times Car parking Courtesy coach Pay stations Barriers Level of service Equipment Baggage processing Outbound: baggage acceptance process can always proceed by take away belts immediately accepting baggage into the system Inbound: international flights – 90% of first bags to be delivered within 20 minutes of declared arrival time. passenger conveyors.

comment/complaints cards and customer surveys. Also. if passenger profile information is collected. Rome. For instance. ACI investigated quality of service measurement at airports through a survey of its members (ACI. Subjective measures. it is not systematic enough to be used for quality improvement programmes or target-setting. a passenger’s perception of the time that they have spent waiting in a queue may be very different from the actual waiting time. Consumer surveys are more suitable. There are two key types of subjective measures. however. These measures will enable the quality of service to be assessed through the eyes of users rather than airport management. Houston. of course. and Tokyo to some very small regional airports. Dallas. Paris. These objective measures can only cover a limited range of issues and service dimensions. lifts. and their opinion of them in terms of comfort. and most appropriate place to survey. conveyors. assured and satisfied with their use of the equipment. Some of the most popular objective measures were related to the availability of trolleys. As with all the service measures. Sydney. Direct observations or camera shots can also be used to assess real-life situations when queue lengths start to have a negative impact on passenger behaviour. In 1998. While such a system may be able to identify a weakness which can be rectified swiftly. Departing passenger may be keen to participate while waiting in their departure lounge having completed all the major essential processes. Baggage delivery was also measured by a large number of 78 . The main drawback of surveys is. interview time. Copenhagen. escalators. If the comments are favourable they may provide a positive public relations opportunity. Both criteria were adopted by 32 per cent of all the airports. cleanliness. but tired arriving passengers may be less co-operative – being anxious to find their luggage and return home. Similarly. moving walkways. looking at passenger satisfaction ratings. has very little control over this type of feedback. congestion. they cannot tell whether consumers feel safe. The airport operator. are also needed. All geographical regions were fairly well represented except for South America. 2000). the airport is faced with the dilemma that not all types of passenger groups will have the same expectations and so a compromise standard in most cases has to be reached. attitudes and experiences of travellers. Amsterdam. The assessment of waiting time and queue length at check-in. Johannesburg. while 62 per cent used subjective criteria. Comment cards are cheap and immediate. Typically. One hundred and twenty airports responded with the sample ranging from large airports such as Cairo. Hong Kong. Fortythree per cent of respondents said that they used objective criteria. The comments will not come from a representative sample of travellers at airports and will usually only record extreme views since customers will not be motivated to comment unless they feel very strongly about their experience at the airport. such surveys will ask passengers about their usage of facilities and services. Frankfurt. while they can measure the reliability of equipment. Focus groups may also be used to investigate important or topical issues in greater detail. the survey findings can be used to investigate relationships between usage and satisfaction of services with demographics. and taxi services. Clearly consideration has to be given to the sample size. 2000). and so on. their high cost.Managing Airports dissatisfied with the waiting time that they experience. security and immigration was a fairly common practice. value for money. Chicago. The results are also not so immediate as comment cards and may require careful interpretation (Maiden.

mostly as a public relations exercise. With any performance analysis.) Baggage delivery Ground access Delivery time Taxi availability/waiting time Source: ACI (2000). post offices.2 Criteria most frequently used to measure quality of service at ACI airports Airport process General Objective criteria Response to/analysis of complaints/mail comments Availability of lifts/escalators/ moving walkways etc Availability of trolleys Cleanliness Subjective criteria Overall customer satisfaction in terms of attractiveness/ convenience/quality Flight information displays. Some airports publish summaries of their results. the results should be made available to all interested parties so that corrective action can be taken and targets can be set.3 reproduces the survey results from BAA plc’s annual report of 2001–02 for the London airports. The quality of survey monitor (QSM) is based on a sample of over 60 000 passengers for the UK airports and uses a rating scale which gives a value of 5 for an excellent score and 1 when the aspect of service is considered extremely poor. information desk/telephone service Check-in Security check Immigration Catering Quality of public announcements Terminal atmosphere/temperature Availability/quality of trolleys Cleanliness (especially toilets) Seating areas Telecommunication facilities Security/airport safety Overall satisfaction Waiting time/queue Waiting time/queue Waiting time/queue Overall satisfaction Overall satisfaction Quality of goods Value for money Choice Overall satisfaction Range of goods Value for money Staff courtesy Overall satisfaction Waiting/delivery time Overall satisfaction: ground access/public transport Shops. 79 . Analysis of complaints and comments was viewed as important as well.Service quality and its measurement airports. as was cleanliness. etc.2). Whilst Heathrow and Gatwick generally improved their Table 4. Table 4. commercial services (banks. The subjective measures which were identified considered overall satisfaction with all the general processes at the airport together with more detailed measurements looking at specific service dimensions (Table 4.

Variance 0.6 4. 1998).1 0.Managing Airports position in 2001–02. While most of the focus in the past with quality monitoring has been within internal performance.1 0.8 3. Also certain airports such as small airports and single terminal airports tend to inherently perform better in quality of service surveys. Some of the questions are related to what is called ‘Airport Service’ which are the services provided by the airport operator.1 0.0 3.9 Variance 0. and female passengers (Maiden.6 4.3 Summary of QSM scores 2001–02 at BAA London airports Heathrow 2001–02 Cleanliness Mechanical assistance Procedures Comfort Congestion BAA staff 3. IATA has undertaken quality of service passenger surveys for a sample of airports around the world.0 3. 4 Gatwick 2001–02 3.8 3. Table 4.5 3.1 Extremely poor. Since 1993.8 4.9 3.9 4.1 Good. first-time users.1 – – Excellent. Systems of performance measures at airports can be defined from different management perspectives such as the financial perspective. It is worth reiterating that service quality is just one area of performance at an airport which should be assessed alongside economic or financial efficiency.1 0. 80 .1 – – 0.9 4. 3 Average. business travellers. the operational perspective (the objective quality measures) and the marketing perspective (the subjective quality measures) (Lemaitre.0 3. such as Naples and Melbourne. Some passenger types are likely to complain more than others.8 3. Such an exercise is particularly problematic because of the lack of consistency or common format of each airport’s consumer survey.1 – – Poor. This global airport monitor survey began with just over 30 airports and a sample size of 40 000 passengers but now covers 52 airports and over 80 000 passengers.0 3.9 3.2 – Note: Rating scale: 5 Source: BAA (2002). For example in the United Kingdom. frequent travellers.1 – 0. the rapid growth at Stansted due to the low-cost airlines put pressure on the facilities and caused a decline in four out of the six key service dimensions. airports are now appreciating that it is equally important to make international comparisons and to benchmark themselves against other airports – just as with economic performance analysis. An airport’s performance in any one of these four areas will inevitably be linked to its performance in other areas – so none of the performance monitoring systems should be considered in isolation. The environmental perspective and the measurement of environmental good practice are also becoming increasingly important. and male passengers tend to be far more critical than foreign leisure travellers. 2 Stansted Variance 0.1 0. 1 2001–02 4. BAA plc also uses its QSM at the international airports where it has an involvement. This is not just because smaller airports seem more personal but also because they are usually served by smaller national or regional populations which may view their airport as a local asset and have a much greater pride in it. 2002).

4 Overall passenger satisfaction levels: best performing airports from IATA’s 2001 global airport monitor by size of airport Airports 25 million annual passengers 1 2 3 4 5 Singapore Hong Kong Minneapolis Amsterdam Atlanta/Seattle Airports 15–25 million annual passengers 1 2 3 4 5 Sydney Copenhagen Manchester Vancouver Zürich Airports 15 million annual passengers 1 2 3 4 5 Helsinki Vienna Birmingham Oslo Geneva Source: Radia and Morris (2002). 2002a). The 2001 IATA survey identified the three highest rated service items for the top three airports of each different size category and found that way-finding. and Vancouver were noted for their significant improvements in rankings. Dubai was not included in the study and Singapore Changi was first amongst the airports which handled over 25 million passengers. Düsseldorf. 2002). in 2001. Dubai achieved the overall highest ranking in the survey followed by Singapore Changi and Copenhagen. Zürich. that it depends on which airlines participate in the Table 4. The more detailed IATA survey information can indicate to the airport how it is performing as regards different market segments and each service element or dimension. However some airports do feel that the sample size is too small. Copenhagen. Then there are ‘Airline Service’ questions which are services associated with airline activities which can be provided by airlines. for example. 81 . handling agents or the airport operator itself.4). as is demographic data in order to give a greater insight into the satisfaction levels of the different market segments. In 2002. Travel profile information such as purpose. and Copenhagen scored highest in the courtesy/helpfulness of airport staff category (Competition Commission. and courtesy of airport staff was very important. Madrid. The BAA QSM has also found that way-finding is the most important individual service element that links with the overall satisfaction scores (Maiden. The least important services were eating and parking facilities. flight information schemes. These cover areas such as the efficiency and experience of check-in or the efficiency and punctuality of boarding. For European airports. Its role in airport marketing has become important. Other airports such as San Francisco. Helsinki was ranked first by business travellers whilst Copenhagen had the highest ratings from leisure passengers. Manchester. In 2001.Service quality and its measurement airport concessionaires and tenants and includes such measures as ease of finding one’s way through the airport and quality of the shopping and washroom facilities. The regularity with which the IATA survey is undertaken has meant that it has been generally accepted within the industry. with airports which perform well using the findings to publicize and sell their airport to their customers. class and frequency of travel and transfer details is also collected. Sydney had the highest overall rankings for airports with 15–25 million passengers and Helsinki was ranked top amongst the smaller airports (Table 4. and Amsterdam airports were considered ‘best in class’ as regards ground transport to and from the airport whilst Helsinki. Stockholm. Birmingham.

the effectiveness of the building security and BAA plc’s speed of response. One rare example was a study undertaken by Adler and Berechman (2000) which looked at airline factors such as delays. The information obtained from the airlines was used in a data envelopment analysis to rank airports relative to their quality level. Service level agreements A key airport customer is clearly the airlines – in fact many airlines will argue that they are the only true customers at the airport! However. or just a ‘best endeavours’ commitment based on performance targets. They have two types of surveys. for instance. The agreement requires the service to be quantified and the acceptance of minimum levels – taking into account the interests of both parties (Van Looy et al. Such SLAs can be incorporated into more broader use agreements or strategic partnership agreements (SPAs) between airports and airlines (see Chapter 5) (Cruickshank. the Airports Council International (ACI) has been looking at the option of developing its own worldwide survey (ACI. visitors. BAA plc aims to resolve 95 per cent of all faults within four working hours and to issue 95 per cent of draft standard tenancy documents within 5 days of terms being agreed (Le Marquand. and the reliability of air traffic control for a sample of 26 airports in Western Europe. informal meetings. handling agents. North America. cost of local labour force. and hospitality events. the effectiveness of the heating. Individual airport operators obviously need to consider all their customers. In addition there is also an occupier survey which deals with the actual user of the property. For example. A tenant survey involves interviewing the property managers of each organization to assess the managers’ views on whether they think their needs are met. and there is a growing interest in the air transport industry to use such agreements in order to formalize service provision between airport operators and airlines and other key users. the image of the building. Research into the airlines’ point of view is less common.. 82 . including passengers. As a result. freight forwarders. 1996). and so on. Areas covered include quality and cleanliness of common areas. 2002). 2000. Performance targets are set. This problem can be overcome by having service level agreements (SLAs). and the Far East. These agreements can be contractural and incentivized. airlines. There has been increased use of SLAs in the service industries in recent years. 2000). focus groups. IATA.Managing Airports survey and that it lacks sufficient detail. for airline customers the exact quality of service for facilities which are covered by airport charges is rarely specified. the efficiency of the relevant BAA plc processes. based on penalty payments for poor performance. runway capacity. 1998). In general terms. At BAA plc airports. feedback from their tenants is assessed through formal surveys. the quality and value for money of the accommodation and the overall performance of BAA plc as a landlord. these are arrangements between the service provider and its customers. SLAs can involve a one-way commitment when the airport aims to achieve defined service quality levels or a two-way reciprocal commitment when both parties in the agreement aim to achieve service quality levels. concessionaires. 1998). Most comparative studies of airport quality look at quality from a passenger’s point of view (Lemaitre.

and the availability of ‘people movers’ (Table 4. 1996). and Manchester airport and its other external providers (Competition Commission. The basic GSSs are shown in Table 4. 2002a).6. For a number of reasons these did not prove to be a success. there were effectively multilateral agreements with all the airlines. In the late 1990s. Manchester airport and its ground handling agents. The agreements were one-way best endeavours types based on agreed minimum service levels and targets. transits. The aim of the GSSs was to provide a framework for monitoring service delivery and to establish appropriate levels of rebates to the airlines should satisfactory standards of service delivery not be achieved. levels of quality (Monopolies and Mergers Commission. and Stansted. Manchester airport also began experimenting with best endeavours SLAs in the late 1990s – again partly due to regulatory pressures. Manchester airport developed some new-style incentivized SLAs or so-called Generic Service Standards (GSS) with the airlines. or reductions in. 2002b). BAA has abandoned this target at Heathrow and Gatwick. The areas covered were stand availability. jetty availability.5 BAA London airport ‘best endeavours’ service level targets. excalators. In addition BAA tried to introduce a SLA related to connecting passengers but this proved difficult because of the joint responsibility of both airlines and airport in this area (Competition Commission. ACI particularly has stressed the need for Table 4. To support these primary agreements it was aimed to have secondary agreements covering Manchester airport and its other subsidiary companies. 1999 Heathrow Stand availability (%) Jetty availability (%) Security queues length less than 10 minutes (%) People movers:a Availability (%) Mean time to repairb Transits (hours) Other (hours) 99 98 95 98–99 1 2 Gatwick 98 98 95 97–99 1 2 Stansted 98 98 95 97–99 1 5 Notes: a Includes passenger conveyors. Gatwick. Targets vary for different equipment. They were not legally binding and no penalty payments had to be made for poor performance. Although all these SLAs were initially negotiated between BAA and BA. security queuing.5). Incentivized SLAs have also been introduced at Heathrow for the departures baggage systems in Terminal 1 and 4. By early 2000. Various other airports have also looked at SLAs and ACI and IATA have been working together to develop a common thinking on SLAs. However in response to the regulatory review which was undertaken in 2002.Service quality and its measurement One airport operator to introduce SLAs is BAA plc. BAA plc began developing SLAs with BA and by 1999 four SLAs were in place at London Heathrow. This has been partly due to pressure from the regulatory body which felt that the absence of quality standards in the regulatory regime could mean that the price cap imposed on the airports might produce inadequate. Source: CAA (2000a). for the transfer baggage systems and for the baggage tunnel between these terminals. b 83 .

will be available for arriving aircraft on 100% of occasions Coaches to be available for planned transport to/from remote stands for 1005 of critical operational periods as follows: 1 Domestic departures – coaches at gate at 30 minutes to estimated time of departure (ETD) 2 International departures – coaches at gate at 60 minutes to ETD or 60 minutes for wide-bodied aircraft 3 All arriving passengers to be coached within 25 minutes of the aircraft arriving on stand and the steps being positioned FEGP that is provided on stands will be available for 100% of critical operational period Compensation/rebate 100% rebate of check-in desk charge 100% rebate of baggage sortation charge Rebate of 10% of passenger security charge will be given for each passenger who queues more than 4 minutes All airlines that are allocated airbridgeserved stands where the airbridge is not available will be compensated by £25 per movement If an aircraft waits more than 15 minutes for a suitable stand there will be a 7. To be agreed Airlines will be required to use FEGP where it is supplied. If FEGP is required but not available the following penalties will apply: Rebate of the FEGP charges that the aircraft would have incurred had the FEGP been available To be agreed .Table 4. including marshalling and lighting.5% rebate of the runway charge If coaches late for a pre-planned arriving or departing flight the following rebate will apply: 1 Coach up to 5 minutes late – no rebate 2 Coach delayed for 5–10 minutes – rebate of 50% of coaching cost 3 Coach delayed more than 10 minutes – rebate of 100% of coaching cost Stand availability Airside coaching operations Fixed electrical ground power (FEGP) Outbound baggage system Source: Competition Commission (2002b).6 GSSs agreed at Manchester airport in 2002 Service level target Check-in desks Inbound baggage Outbound security queuing Airbridge availability In-feed baggage belt to be available for 100% of critical operational periods Baggage reclaim carousels to be available for 100% of critical operational periods Queue for security will be no longer than 4 minutes at any time Airbridges on pier-served stands to be available for 100% of critical operational periods An aircraft stand.

Service quality and its measurement balance with incentivized models. 2002a). At the day-to-day level. bad weather or technical problems with the aircraft). Airports which are operating close to their runway capacity are therefore likely to impose additional delays on flights and exacerbate delays originating from other causes. It is therefore inevitable that aircraft will deviate from the published schedule. Congestion within the terminals may lead to passengers who have checked in failing to reach the aircraft in time thus delaying departure. that airport operators often prefer not to focus on. as with passengers. A good example of this is the rebate given at some airports for remote stands which involve transferring the passengers by bus to the aircraft. If there are insufficient stands available. This may be because there are many factors that lead to flights being delayed which are outside the airport operator’s remit (e. Considerable friction has arisen between both EasyJet and its airport base. arriving aircraft may be held on the taxiways or apron before they are able to unload. for example. and Ryanair and its airport base. is that they all have different demands of service quality. flights may also be held awaiting crew or transfer passengers. this may be an airline operational decision to await the availability of a preferred gate or avoid bussing passengers from a remote stand. where airports can be penalized for underperformance but should also be rewarded for overperformance (ACI. The airlines can take account of expected queuing times related to shortages of airport runway capacity in planning their schedule. however. is the level of delays. Luton. In the United States. Maximum runway throughput can only be achieved with queuing of aircraft (on the ground for departing flights or through speed control and ‘stacks’ in the air for arriving flights) so that there is always an aircraft ready to use the runway. Some airlines may be prepared to pay more for premium service whereas others may be willing to accept lower service levels in return for lower airport charges. Many of the new low-cost carriers have shown that they are prepared to accept a trade-off between service standards and cost by choosing to fly from airports with a less-developed product. Such an arrangement. One of the problems with airline customers. This enables them to maintain 85 . Level of delays A crucial measure of airport performance for airlines and passengers. en route air traffic control. These problems could be overcome by identifying a standard quality product and then also by having additional individual agreements with different airlines which want lower or higher service levels. airports have the opportunity to expand or upgrade facilities to address these problems. In the longer term. when the airlines complained of paying for airport facilities which they do not want. 2000c. 2002). Shortcomings in terminal capacity can also delay aircraft. it is common practice for the last flight of the day from a hub to be held much longer than earlier ones as it does not present reactionary problems for subsequent flights and enables as many passengers as possible to get home that night.g. creating a knock-on of delays from one flight to another. has been favoured by the UK CAA (CAA. An airport with spare runway capacity has more scope to accommodate delayed aircraft without disrupting other flights and may be able to avoid queuing aircraft in most cases. Dublin. which adds an unpredictable element to the time at which any given flight will wish to use the runway.

but at the expense of longer scheduled flight times and the resultant increase in costs from poorer utilization of aircraft and crew.Managing Airports a similar level of punctuality performance at congested airports. This means that Ryanair can accomplish four round trips per day with one aircraft but the same aircraft could manage only three round trips if operating on the Frankfurt–Gatwick route.8 shows delay figures for 2002 which were at a lower level than in the last 4 years primarily since traffic was reduced because of events of 11 September 2001. Source: OAG Flight Guide/ABC World Airways Guide. Table 4. this must be due primarily to airport-related delays on a sector where the actual flying time is only about 1 hour.7). Table 4. The London and Paris airports came next. therefore. As a slightly faster aircraft type is now being operated.7 Increasing scheduled journey times at congested airports From To Milesa Year Depart Arrive Aircraft type Sector time (hours : minutes) 1 : 25 1 : 50 1 : 20 1 : 25 Frankfurt (FRA) Frankfurt (FRA) Frankfurt (HHN) Copenhagen (CPH) London (LGW) London (LGW) London (STN) Amsterdam (AMS) 396 396 396 393 1982 0735 2000 0725 2000 0940 2000 0900 0800 0815 1000 1025 BAe1-11 B737 B737 B737 Note: a IATA ticketed point mileage. This means that published comparisons of schedule performance tend to understate the total time wasted compared with the theoretical minimum journey time and airlines can improve their punctuality performance by extending their scheduled journey times. The worst affected airports were Madrid and Rome with a third of the flights significantly delayed. Frankfurt was better with less than one-fifth of flights delayed more than 15 minutes. Comparisons between airports and airlines. There is thus a penalty of about a quarter in aircraft and crew costs from operating to the more congested major airports. have to be treated with caution. using secondary airports at each end and scheduled for 1 hour 20 minutes. If one compares the Copenhagen–Amsterdam route of the same distance but with less congested airports this is still scheduled for 1 hour 25 minutes. scheduled for 1 hour 25 minutes in 1982 had increased to 1 hour 50 minutes by the year 2000 (Table 4. Ryanair’s low-cost alternative on the Frankfurt–London route is a Hahn–Stansted service. 86 . The Scandinavian airports had the best punctuality as well as Brussels where traffic levels were very much depressed due to the demise of Sabena. Airlines thus include a contingency allowance for delays in their schedule. If one considers the Frankfurt–London Gatwick route it can be seen that a morning flight from Frankfurt to Gatwick.

6 13. London Gatwick.2 28. namely the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Competition Commission. Service quality and regulation at UK airports When the British airport regulatory system was established following the privatization of BAA in 1987.3 26.2 18. there was no formal regulation related to quality of service – although it was clearly recognized that a price cap could produce a strong incentive to cut service levels. and delays (QD).9 15. The components of the Q factor as proposed by the CAA. BA.2 14.0 14. It was not until 2002. and Manchester as regards the lack of formal quality of services requirements linked to pricing was against the public interest.4 16.5 17.0 27.6 21. to passengers (QP). BAA.8 15. for example in the reviews undertaken in 1996–7.6 11.8 21.8 26. and the major carrier at Heathrow and Gatwick.). 2002 Airport % departures delayed more than 15 minutes 30.4 25.3 23.9.6 Madrid Rome London LGW Paris CDG London LHR Paris Orly Milan MXP Amsterdam Munich Zürich Frankfurt Vienna Copenhagen Brussels Stockholm Helsinki Oslo Source: Association of European Airlines (2003).7 15. It was suggested that the standards of service should include measures of quality of service to airlines (QA.7 25.1 25.Service quality and its measurement Table 4.5 18. The CAA initially recommended a ‘Q’ factor for Heathrow and Gatwick under which the price cap would vary according to performance against a number of measures of service quality.5 18. both recommended that this situation should change as it was considered that the current situation at London Heathrow. it was recommended that the airports should look at SLAs as a means to improving their quality of service. However during each five yearly regulatory review of BAA London airports and Manchester airport.8 Delays at major European airports on intra-European scheduled services.8 12.0 16.8 11.5 % arrivals delayed more than 15 minutes 26.9 26. when the two UK regulators. service quality has come under close scrutiny and.1 19.2 24.8 29. are shown in Table 4.2 15. The CAA recommended that up to 3 per cent of the regulated charges should be subject to meeting these particular standards of service. 87 .9 12.0 23.

BAA argued that the Q factor was unnecessary and queried the inclusion of the delay factor because it was difficult to measure and largely outside the control of BAA. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ % fully equipped availability % fully equipped availability % passengers pier served Serviceability vs agreed target % serviceability Cars available Waiting time 10 minutes Baggage carousel serviceability % serviceability % serviceability Measure excluded Monthly QSM score Monthly QSM score Monthly QSM score Monthly QSM score 98% 97% 90% 98% 98% N/A 95% 98% To be decided To be decided $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3.Managing Airports Table 4. On the other hand.8 4.9 Proposed service quality elements to be included in the regulation of BAA London airports Initial views of key organizations: CAA BAA BA CAA draft recommended performance measure Target value: Heathrow QA Stand availability Jetty availability Pier service Fixed electrical ground power People movers Transit system Security queues Arrivals reclaim Runways Taxiways Departure baggage QP Departure lounge seat availability Cleanliness Way-finding Flight information QD Delay ($ to be used. the CAA accepted the alternative Competition Commission recommendation of a system of rebates to users rather than price cap adjustments. It also argued that FEGP should be excluded because this was not covered by regulated airport charges. In addition.6 3.0 To be decided not to be used) Source: Competition Commission (2002a) and Civil Aviation Authority (2003). BA felt that the 3 per cent figure for the Q factor should be increased to as much as ten per cent but objected to the inclusion of the passenger measures primarily because they would come from the BAA’s own QSM which BA felt would bias the results. Subsequently. BAA claimed that baggage measures would be unnecessary as incentivized agreements were being developed in this area. and pier service should be excluded because BAA did not undertake stand allocation.7 3. The maximum impact of these rebates was recommended to be 2 per cent of the regulated airport charge revenue initially increasing 88 . with the rebates being purely negative with no reward to the airport for performance above the standard set.

Post-privatization experience in Australia When the Australian airports were privatized in 1997 and 1998 (see Chapter 2).This could well have been an issue since the airports were not only having to produce commercial returns to satisfy private investors.The services to airlines measures would largely be based on the existing SLAs with the passengers services being based on BAA’s QSM. The Airports Act 1996 provided for the regulator. Perth.6). Australian Customs Surveys and Airservices Australia. and security clearances. It was apparent that passengers were most satisfied with the gate lounges. Adelaide. 1998a). Melbourne. Brisbane airport has developed a new pricing regime with its airline customers which is a legally binding 5-year agreement. the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). taxiways) than the terminal facilities. Canberra.This was in order to prevent the airport operators underinvesting and lowering the quality of services provided. It also made specific quality reporting requirements unlike the UK situation immediately after privatization. In addition.10 and 4. The airlines were generally more satisfied with the airfield facilities (runways.The CAA also decided that regular independent audits of the QSM should be undertaken to ensure that the methodology was in accord with best market practices and that representative samples were used. 2002). Part of this agreement relates to a service charter and 89 . the airport operator.1 and Tables 4. The monitoring concentrated on facilities or services provided by. and least pleased with inbound government inspection and airport access. the ACCC also undertook surveys among airlines. By way of illustration. in 2002 the Federal Government replaced price regulation with price monitoring at the major airports (Sydney. This covered aeronautical charges and financial accounting reporting. the summary results of this quality assessment for Brisbane airport in 2001–02 are presented in Figure 4.Service quality and its measurement to 3 per cent after 2 years.The CAA and Competition Commission also decided on a system of rebates at Manchester airport which could be based on the new-style GSSs which the airport has developed (see Table 4.The quality-monitoring programme in Australia was introduced to assist in the review of prices at the airports. to improve transparency of airport performance and to discourage operators from abusing their market power by providing unsatisfactory standards. It stipulated that records had to be kept in relation to quality of service and that the ACCC should publish the results of the quality of service monitoring exercise (ACCC. 1998b). but also were being faced with declining aeronautical charges because of post-privatization economic regulation (ACCC. To compensate for the lack of formal regulation. aprons. the air traffic control agency. or strongly influenced by.11. to monitor the quality of services against criteria defined by the ACCC. As discussed in Chapter 4. Brisbane. The regulation reports of the airports showed the quality of service information which was provided through passenger perception surveys and they also published ‘static indicators’ as was required by the Airport Act 1996. and Darwin) and decided that these airports would continue to have their quality monitored – although some changes to the detailed measurements have been suggested (ACCC. a regulatory framework comprising a package of measures was introduced. baggage trolleys.

Cathay Pacific Airways. and Singapore Airlines.Managing Airports Check-in Government inspection waiting time inbound Government inspection – customs and outbound Security clearance Gate lounges Baggage Baggage trolleys Flight information displays Washrooms Car parking – waiting time Car parking – standard and availability Airport access Airport access – space provided for taxis 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 Satisfaction level (%) 82 84 86 88 Figure 4. Eva Airways.1 Passenger survey results at Brisbane airport. 2001–02 Aspect Very poor Poor Satisfactory 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 1 1 4 3 3 3 1 Good 5 5 5 7 5 5 6 5 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 6 Excellent 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 Availability Standard Aprons Availability Standard Taxiways Availability Standard Gates Availability Standard Aerobridges Availability Standard Ground service Availability Standard Flight equipment Availability Standard Check-in facilities Availability Standard Baggage Availability processing Standard Addressing airline concerns 1 Note: a Air New Zealand.10 Facility Runways Survey results of seven major airlinesa at Brisbane airport. Source: ACCC (2003). Royal Brunei. Qantas Airways. Table 4. Japan Airlines. Malaysian Airlines. 90 . 2001–02 Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Service quality and its measurement
Table 4.11 Indicator Number of international aircraft parking bays Number of aerobridges Percentage of passengers (embarking) using an aerobridge Percentage of passengers (disembarking) using an aerobridge Number of check-in desks Number of baggage inspection desks Number of inbound immigration desks Number of outbound immigration desks Number of security clearance systems Number of seats in gate lounges Capacity of outbound baggage handling equipment (bags per hour) Capacity of inbound baggage reclaim system (bags per hour) Throughput of the car park per year
Source: ACCC (2003).

Static quality indicators at Brisbane airport, 2001–02 Value 13 10 99.2% 99.1% 54 24 26 20 4 1 522 6 000 9 000 1 916 264

Brisbane airport’s continued commitment to the measuring of quality services along the lines of the ACCC monitoring.

Quality management at airports
At an increasing number of airports, measuring quality of service is just part of the overall quality management system which has become all about the continuous process of identifying customers needs, assessing their level of satisfaction and taking corrective action when necessary. All employees and all processes are considered to contribute to the long-term success of this system. Effective total quality management is now considered to be key element in many services businesses and is viewed as giving companies a competitive edge and a way to increase customer confidence. Potential benefits include increased employee motivation, enhanced communication and teamwork within the organization and increased productivity and efficiency. Theoretically, the ‘cost of quality’ does not have to be expensive as good quality management through quality appraisal and prevention schemes aim to minimize the costly situation when the service is unacceptable and has to be rectified (Lockwood and Wright, 1999). A wide range of different quality approached have been adopted by various airports. For example, in 1998 Nice airport launched a quality policy based on the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) scheme of reference for their total quality management approach which was based on four priorities (Nice Cote D’Azur airport, 2002): 1 Objective quality indicators: 28 objective indicators were monitored each month and a quality representatives committee analysed all the services offered to passengers.
91

Managing Airports

2 Customer satisfaction measures: Customer satisfaction measures were taken at least once yearly from passengers, airlines, on-site services providers and administration bodies, companies of the region, and local residents. 3 Quality certification: It was the objective to formally certify the quality system of various areas of the airport’s operation. In 2001, this occurred with the commercial flight handling, the passenger services and the access and parking areas. 4 Benchmarking and local airport quality committee: The local airport quality committee was set up to jointly promote quality and comprised of airlines, the chamber of commerce, government services such as the CAA, police and customs, shops, and rental companies. Working parties were established to report twice yearly to the committee with research and benchmarking results related to specific areas and to recommend improvements. A similar example to this airport quality committee is the Passenger Services Council which was established at Dublin airport in 2002. This is concerned with service standards for passengers, people accompanying or meeting passengers and other visitors. It has an independent chairman and members representing passengers, persons with special needs, business travellers, the travel trade, and the airport operator (Aer Rianta, 2002). In some cases, airports have chosen to certify their quality system and gain external recognition by using the International Standards Organization’s (ISO’s) ISO 9000 family of standards. ISO 9001 is the most comprehensive standard and it covers the following elements: management responsibility; quality system; contract review; design control; document and data control; purchasing; customer supplied product; product identification and traceability; process control; inspection and testing; inspection, measuring and test equipment; inspection and test status; control of non-conforming product; corrective and preventive action; handling, storage, packaging and delivery; quality record; internal quality audits; training; and servicing and statistical techniques. ISO 9002 does not include the design requirements. ISO 9003 has the least requirements as it concentrates very much on the final inspection and test. The ISO standard does not tell the airports how they should set up their system but simply gives guidance on the elements which should be included. Certification involves inspection by an independent registration body (ACI, 2000). There are diverse examples of services at airports which have been certified. The Milan Airport company SEA had its ramp operations and baggage handling certified with ISO 9001 in 1997, followed by the security and emergency areas in 1998 and cargo areas in 2001. In 2001, Marseille gained ISO 9001 certification for its public reception and information centre, its operations co-ordination centre and its technical co-ordination centre whilst Geneva was similarly accredited in 2001 for its operations, passenger and security divisions, Frankfurt airport has ISO 9001 for its handling services, whilst Singapore airport has it for its training processes. Vienna airport was the first airport to receive ISO 9001 creditation for the total organization. More recently in 2002, Sharjah is an example of an airport which has been accredited in many areas of operation namely ground handling; management information systems; travel agency; freight handling; administration and commercial; aircraft maintenance, engineering and development; purchasing control stores; and ground services, equipment and vehicle maintenance. Examples of
92

Service quality and its measurement

ISO 9002 accretitation include centralized technical management at Brussels airport, the aircraft noise monitoring system at Aeroport de Paris (AdP) and the emergency services at Singapore airport. The ACI survey of quality of service asked airports about whether they had any ISO certification for their services. Out of 120 airports, only seventeen had ISO certified services – 10 of which were in Europe. ISO 9002 was the most popular. A further 24 airports were planning to be certified in the future. Four airports had equivalent quality systems such as the Malcolm Baldridge Award in North America but the majority, 75, of airports had no services certified. Another survey of the top 200 busiest passenger airports found a fairly similar result – namely that 23 per cent of the airports had quality certification (Francis et al., 2002). There is a considerable debate as to the merits of becoming ISO certified. As well as giving external recognition and guarantees, certification is often thought to help improve the quality management system of an organization by clearly identifying roles, responsibilities, and processes within the business and encouraging a quality culture. However, the certification process is a costly one, requiring much paperwork and extra workload. For example, when Munich airport was preparing for certification of its terminal and passenger services department in 1998, it prepared a very detailed 104-page quality manual which identified all the responsibilities and processes associated with the 214 employees within the department to do with activities such as information services, telephone exchange, VIP special handling services and other services such left luggage, dry cleaning, sale of underground train tickets, and so on (Penner, 1999). One of the fundamental principles of the ISO certification concept is that every process should be written down and regularly updated. This procedure is often criticized as being more suitable to the manufacturing industries, where it originated, rather than the services industries where many process are more difficult to formally identify and more flexibility is preferred.

Total quality management at Vienna airport
Vienna airport is a partially privatized airport which handled nearly 12 million passengers in 2001 (see case study in Chapter 2). It is worthy of consideration in relation to quality issues since it has been a leading airport in the implementation of total quality management (TQM) systems. In 1995, it was the first airport in the world to gain ISO 9001 certification for its entire airport operations. This required the culture of the airport company to be changed. The TQM philosophy, such as the focus on customer and employee satisfaction and the continuous improvement of all airport processes, was communicated to all staff through a series of training courses, workshops, meetings, and informal discussions. In 1997, the airport re-organized its processes to be more focused on customer needs and efficiency. This entailed introducing a new organizational structure. One of the central service divisions or corporate units, which supported the business and service units of the organization, was made responsible for TQM. The TQM corporate unit was to be involved with supporting the management board, heads of departments, middle management and all staff in achieving their quality-related goals.The overall quality policy and evaluation of the quality management systems, 93

Managing Airports as with all total-quality focused companies, was given highest priority and was made direct responsibility of the management board. In addition, TQM co-ordinators were appointed to each business, service and corporate units to facilitate communication with the TQM unit and to look after the quality management system in their area of expertise. A number of different elements are incorporated into Vienna airport’s TQM model and corporate philosophy. An effective targeting system is considered crucial for all employees. The airport aims to keep all employees informed about the targets, such as how and why they were formulated and current progress, through various communication channels including the airport’s intranet. In fact, staff knowledge of all TQM developments is considered to be very important and the airport uses a variety of different methods for communicating information – ranging from the intranet and TQM newsletter to TQM workshops and annual forums. Within TQM philosophy, a high degree of staff motivation and satisfaction is considered to be essential. With this in mind, a nursery is available for employees’ children and free transport is provided to Vienna and surrounding towns. At Vienna airport, a staff satisfaction survey in 1998 found that 29 per cent of staff felt that they had enough information to be able to do their job well and 35 per cent were satisfied with the work routines in their department.Twenty-eight per cent felt that ideas regarding an improvement of the working situation were suitably appreciated by their managers. The survey was used as a starting point for more extensive surveys and for target setting (Kotrba, 1999). A target of 50 per cent of employees being highly satisfied or satisfied with communications, work processes, and appreciation of their ideas was set for 1999. Some targets have been exceeded, for example, the ‘work processes satisfaction’ score was 55 per cent in 2000. In 2001, another target was reached, namely that 50 per cent of employees believed that work flows with other units in the organization were good or very good.This annual employee survey is considered to be a crucial tool for informing management about levels of staff motivation (Vienna Airport, 2002). Another important feature of Vienna airport’s approach is the processes which it uses to find out about its customers and their needs and requirements. It started regularly interviewing its passengers in 1995 with two main surveys. First, there is the ‘Passenger Map’ which collects passenger profile information related to characteristics such as age, sex, residence, mode of transport to the airport, transfer details, ticket used, time spent at the airport, services used, and purchasing patterns of departing passengers. The airport also undertakes a quality monitor in which passengers have to rate their opinion of airport facilities and services. In addition, every other year the airport undertakes a ‘conflict detector’ which helps investigate, from a passenger viewpoint, the relative importance of facilities and services and to identify any conflicts which exist. Information from these surveys is also supplemented by ad hoc surveys of meeters, greeters and employees at the airport and regular feedback from other businesses at the airport. The results of this market research are used to analyse passenger and other customer requirements, define target groups, identify problems areas, support product development, and to set quality targets (Pongratz, 1999). Another way in which the airport has tried to improve its emphasis on customer orientation has been in encouraging its customers to get involved in the planning of future developments at the airport – so-called ‘customer imagineering’ or the airport’s ‘one step ahead’ approach. A prime example of this policy has been with 94

Service quality and its measurement the development and expansion of the terminal, the VIE Skylink terminal. The airport has worked very closely with Austrian Airlines to define requirements for the expansion of the terminal and to ensure that the new facilities will enable Austrian Airlines to use the airport as a hub by offering quick and efficient transfers. This co-operation was based on joint overall responsibility between the airport and airline with a mixed steering committee, mixed working groups and equal status project managers. Phase 1 involved two working groups ‘Traffic Development’ and ‘Visions’ preparing the groundwork for the future project work by considering forecast traffic levels and the activities and functions of the terminal and how these would affect the design. During phase 2, six other working groups, ‘Airside Operations’, ‘Terminal and Aircraft Handling’, ‘New Information Technologies’, ‘Non Aviation’, ‘Working with Authorities’, and ‘Ecology and Infrastructure’, then worked out the detailed requirements on the basis of the results from phase 1, which eventually led to the selection of the design of the terminal extension. The planning and construction stages are also being co-ordinated jointly by Vienna airport and Austrian Airlines. As regards external standards, Vienna airport was ranked second in the category for airports up to 15 million passengers, eighth overall with all the 48 airports included, and first in the availability of connecting flights category in the IATA 2001 quality of service survey. Its on-time performance for intra-European services in 2001 was also above average (see Table 4.7). In addition, the airport undertakes it own quarterly passenger survey, the Terminal Performance Index and business-to-business surveys with its other customers and tenants. For example, from this it was observed that in 2001, 68 per cent of rental tenants were very satisfied or satisfied with personal attention. (Vienna Airport, 2002).

References and further reading
Aer Rianta (2002). Passenger services council to be established, Press release. Airports Council International (ACI) (2000). Quality of Service at Airports. ACI. Airports Council International (ACI) (2002). Activities and Achievements, September 2001–September 2002, ACI. Airport World (2002). Are we having fun yet? February–March, 45–6. Alder, N. and Berechman, J. (2000). Measuring airport quality from the airlines’ viewpoint. Fourth Air Transport Research Group Conference, The Netherlands, July. Association of European Airlines (AEA) (2003). Fewer airline delays in Europe in 2002, Press release, 13 February, 2003. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (1998a). Economic Regulation of Airports – An Overview. ACCC. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (1998b). Quality of Service Monitoring for Airport – Statement of the ACCC’s Approach to Analysis, Interpretation and Publication of Quality Information. ACCC. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (2002). Draft Guide: Quality of Service Monitoring for Airports. ACCC. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (2003). Brisbane Airport Regulatory Report 2001/2002. ACCC.
95

P. Lemer. Cruickshank. Heathrow. Humphreys. London. (2000). ICAO. Ninth ACI Europe Annual Congress. Lemaitre. Consultation paper. CAA. I. Nice Cote D’Azur Airport (2002). ACI Europe Communique. Annual Report 2001/2002. Nice Cote D’Azur Airport Handbook. How BAA uses its market research. Principles of Service Marketing and Management. December. Service quality proposals: specification of standards and rebates. April. A. CAA proposals for consultation. 37–45. G. 239–47. ANSConf Working Paper No. (2000). Competition Commission (2002b). Gatwick and Stansted airports. T. Measuring service quality at airports. A. March. March. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2000a).Managing Airports BAA (2002). Journal of Air Transport Management. Manchester airport. (1998). and Fry. July. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2002c). Consultation paper. Gatwick and Stansted price caps 2003–2008. (1999). Monopolies and Mergers Commission (1997). Pisa. 85. CAA. CAA. The benchmarking of airport performance. S. S (2002). A Report on the Economic Regulation of Manchester Airport plc. ACI Europe Good Communication and Better Airport Marketing Conference. Pleasing the airport property customer. Position paper. The development of performance indicators for airports: a management perspective. MMC. Penner. F. J. CAA.. CAA. The Stationery Office. A Report on the Economic Regulation of the London Airport Companies. 26A (1). Kotrba. CAA proposals for consultation. CAA recommendations to the Competition Commission. BAA. Maiden. 8. BAA London Airports: A Regulatory Report. 5–6. (1999). Antwerp. Quality of Service Issues. C. CAA. Bologna. Consultation paper. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2002a). International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2000). Consultation paper. Le Marquand. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2000c). Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2002b). (2002). Delivering quality in a globalized market. C. University of Westminster Marketing and Market Research for Air Transport. (1992). Competition Commission (2002a). A report on the economic regulation of the London airports companies. July. Lockwood. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2000b). (1996). June. The CAA Approach to Economic Regulation and Work Programme for the Airport Reviews.. A. Francis. MMC. Prentice-Hall. A report on the economic regulation of Manchester airport plc. Heathrow. Service level agreements. Eighth World Conference on Transport Research. Measuring performance of airport passenger terminals. Monopolies and Mergers Commission (1996). and Wright. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2003). (1999). The Stationery Office. Transportation Research. Terminal and passenger services certified according to ISO 9001. London. CAA. University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. 96 . Airport–airline agreements: what is the way forward? University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. Maiden. L.

(2002). Radia. Annual Report 2001. R. ACI Europe Communique. P. 9–10. and Gemmel. S. Vienna Airport..Service quality and its measurement Pongratz. B. A measure of success. Van Looy. (1999). Van Dierdonck. Vienna Airport (2002). 31–3. Services Management: An Integrated Approach. Financial Times Management. and Morris. 97 . (eds) (1998). July. B. Market research and total quality management at Vienna International Airport.. P. Airport World.

The sweeping changes which have occurred within the airline industry mean that airlines. an ongoing problem is that demand is outstripping capacity at a growing number of airports and so the traditional mechanism for allocating slots has had to be revisited. are trying to control their costs in order to improve their financial position in an ever increasing competitive and deregulated environment.5 The airport–airline relationship The relationship between the airport operator and airlines is clearly fundamental to the success of any airport business. In addition. The structure of aeronautical charges Aeronautical charging traditionally has been relatively simple. This reflects the increasingly commercial and competitive airport environment and the contemporary challenges faced . All these issues are considered in this chapter. This is having an impact on the aeronautical policies of airports and their regulation. At other airports charging practices have become more complex and more market based. with most revenue coming from a weight-based landing charge and a passenger fee dependent on passenger numbers. more than ever before. 2001 have meant that airport charges have come under even greater scrutiny from the troubled airlines. the events of 11 September. Moreover. Many airports still generate their aeronautical revenue in this way.

One such airport which was experiencing acute runway congestion in the late 1980s was Boston Massport. but was forced to abandon such a policy when its airline and general aviation customers questioned the legality of this in the law courts. namely Menorca and Ibiza. In the United States. and rising security costs. Vienna airport has a large fixed movement element in its landing charge as well as a variable fee. BAA plc’s fixed landing charge for all aircraft only applies to peak early morning and evening flights in the summer.The airport–airline relationship by airports such as the growing pressure on facilities. the variable rate successively increases and decreases as the weight of the aircraft rises. Sometimes charges for air traffic control (ATC) 99 . and Brussels airports have higher charges in the early morning. and Copenhagen. Some of the Spanish airports. Düsseldorf at 32 tonnes. Landing charges Most airports have a weight related landing charge based on maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) or maximum authorized weight (MAW). the airport attempted to introduce a movement-related element into its landing charge. Some costs such as runway wear and tear do increase with weight and also larger aircraft require vortex separations. Toronto.g. Spanish. since airlines using larger aircraft are in a better position to pay higher charges. At other airports. environmental concerns. Frankfurt airport has a minimum landing charge set at 35 tonnes. Dublin airport has differential charging by both season and time of day. As a result of this. most airports tend to stick to a very simple fixed unit rate. and Indian airports. for example. for example. A flat rate landing charge for all aircraft types may be more appropriate. The simplest method is to charge a fixed amount unit rate (e. there is not a strong relationship between aircraft weight and airfield cost. At a few airports. Other airports have not gone this far. This charging mechanism uses ‘ability to pay’ principles. Some other airports also have differential landing charges by season or time of day to reflect peaking of demand. A fixed unit rate will favour smaller aircraft types since tonnage tends to increase faster than aircraft capacity or payload. particularly at congested airports. increase their landing fees slightly in the summer months. many of the German airports. For example. Each aircraft movement will consume the same resource. Notable exceptions are Heathrow and Gatwick airports which have a fixed runway charge at peak times. US$X per tonne) regardless of the size of the aircraft. in Greece (excluding Athens). but have made an attempt to charge the smallest aircraft more to encourage general aviation traffic particularly to move away from congested major airports. Brussels. For example. This simple method is used at many airports throughout the world including the US and Australian airports. however. Very few airports have adopted a movement-related charge which clearly will tend to be very unpopular with airlines flying small aircraft types. Overall. This is because the cost of occupying the congested runway is movement related and independent of aircraft size. It will also benefit airlines which have high load factors or seating capacities. Kuala Lumpur and the Italian. the unit rate increases for larger aircraft. which can reduce the number of aircraft movements during a certain period. Mexico City. Some airports have a unit landing charge which declines as the weight of the aircraft increases such as Manchester airport.

and Oslo. Seychelles. The International Air Transport Association. with the notable exception of Zürich and Geneva airports in Switzerland and the Stockholm airports of Arlanda and Bromma which introduced emissions charges in the late 100 . Alternatively. Sometimes such services will have a social role in linking together regional communities and so in effect the discount will be an unofficial subsidy. As a result by 2002 all EU airports had discontinued such discounts. Oslo. A growing number of airports have noise-related surcharges or discounts associated with their landing charges as a result of increasing concerns about the environment. 2002a). for example. like the landing charge. 2001.Managing Airports or terminal navigational facilities will be incorporated into the landing charge. In addition to noise disturbance effects there are increasing concerns about the impact that aircraft emissions are having on the environment (see Chapter 9 for a fuller discussion). Typically this charge will be. ‘base’. Clearly. Sweden. all EU countries had abandoned such practices (TRL. Italian. Sometimes there is a separate noise tax as well as is the case at the French. There are currently three classifications: chapter 1 aircraft which were banned from airports in 1990. A few airports. The European Commission has been against landing charge differentials for domestic and intra-EU traffic claiming that they are contrary to the principles of the Single Market and recently exerted pressure on Finland. Brussels and Macau airports and those in Spain and Portugal. and ‘high’ categories. there is no logical cost rationale for this since each aircraft movement. and Portugal which had such policies. the airline will pay the air traffic control agencies direct and the airport operator will not involved in the financing of ATC services at all. Elsewhere. This will naturally favour the established home carrier at the airport and European airports particularly have been subject to considerable criticism from the European Commission concerning such policy. Manila. and chapter 3 aircraft which are the quietest aircraft. At some airports. At a number of airports such as Brussels. As yet this has not been reflected in airport charges. is strongly opposed to such practices (IATA. whereas at London there are ‘minus’. imposes the same costs on the ATC infrastructure. Switzerland and Belgium. Some of these are based on airport or country specific aircraft acoustic group classifications as is the case with airports in France. Most airports in Germany have chapter 3 ‘bonus’ or ‘non-bonus’ aircraft. Instead. related to the weight of the aircraft. Spain. Airports may adopt different sub classifications within the chapter 3 group. chapter 2 aircraft which were banned in 2002 from most countries. the airport operator may levy a separate charge.) This is the practice at the German and London airports and those serving the cities of Stockholm. Chapter 4 classifications will come into force in 2006 – see Chapter 9. and those in Germany. There may be a cost rationale for such charging when the noise related revenue is used for noise protection and insulation projects but this is not often the situation. which are comparatively expensive to operate. the landing charges are higher at night. and Korean airports. domestic or short-haul services have traditionally paid a reduced landing fee. This is not a cost-related charge since the cost to land an aircraft is independent of its origin. regardless of the size of the airport. (These classifications are based on the level of noise which aircraft make and the areas on the ground which are affected by the aircraft noise. have traditionally offered a volume discount on the landing fee. By 2002. ACI-Europe. more standard ICAO ‘chapter’ classifications are used. Italy. the airline organization. it tends to exist to support local and regional services. 2000a). At other airports.

and Luton airports in the United Kingdom which charge more in the summer. that domestic passengers have less potential for generating commercial revenues and hence do not justify the lower passenger charge. Dublin. or by private company under contract to the airport. In other countries security costs may be financed directly by the airport operator who will have a special security charge or include it in the passenger charge. They may be paid for by the government via general taxation or via a special government departure tax. and international. the airlines. or a government agency. A number of airports charge a smaller fee for transfer passengers (e. The provision of security services may be performed by the airport’s own employees. or economy class. and immigration facilities either. regional. there may be political or social reasons for keeping down the cost of domestic travel as well. Tokyo. such policies are often maintained to subsidize the national carrier which has a large domestic operation. Similarly Johannesburg airport in South Africa has domestic. Passengers at London City airport pay more in the morning and evening peak times. and international charges. Historically. As with the landing charge in some cases. security. The French airports have three types of charges. will not have associated meeters and greeters. namely domestic. Stockholm. Vienna.g. or waive the fee completely in certain circumstances (e. and Copenhagen). Pakistan airports have different fees for passengers who are travelling first. Passenger charges Passenger charges are the other main source of aeronautical revenue. neighbouring countries are charged less. EU. A lower transfer charge can be justifiable on cost grounds as such passengers will have no surface access requirements. Frankfurt. and Taipei) to encourage this type of traffic. there tends to be a lower charge for domestic passengers to reflect the lower costs associated with these types of passengers. such as East Midlands. On the other hand. At Zürich airport there is even a noise charge related to passengers! Security charges The responsibility for the provision and financing of airport security varies considerably from country to country.g. At most airports. the whole issue of airport security has become a top priority and many airports throughout the world have been enhancing security levels. Amsterdam. there have been signs that the European Commission would like to harmonise the ways in which noise and emissions charges are levied although as yet there has been no direct action in this area. In Europe. business. the responsibility for airport security has passed from 101 . Since 11 September. however. Helsinki. This results in different systems being in place to finance the security measures. In India.The airport–airline relationship 1990s. In many cases responsibility may be shared between these different bodies. Manchester. and very often will not need check-in. transfer passengers still require facilities such as baggage handling and may require special facilities in order that a rapid transfer is achieved. It can be argued. 2001. In the United States. Some other airports also have differential charges to reflect peaking. These charges are most commonly levied per departing passenger.

which have already been discussed. There may be a lower fee for all-cargo aircraft. Then there are ground handling fees which the airport operator may levy if it chooses to provide some of these services itself rather than leaving it to handling agents or airlines. BAA plc’s airports charge per quarter hour and during peak times each minute counts as three. there are cargo charges based on the weight of loaded or unloaded cargo as is the case at the Spanish and Swiss airports. and the Canadian airports. Düsseldorf. there is the parking charge which is usually based on the weight of the aircraft or. storage facility. as is the case at Amsterdam airport. The European Commission is keen to harmonise the provision and financing of security services to produce equity within Europe and ensure that airports can compete fairly with US airports (see Chapter 10 for full details). There may be additional charges related to services such as fire-fighting. have increased their security charge. such as Brussels and Amsterdam. In Europe. Houston. 2002b). the governments have covered some of the additional costs (ACI-Europe. Most airports have a free parking charge. there are the fuel charges which are levied by the fuel companies which are normally independent of the airport operator. a rebate for using remote stands. There a few notable exceptions.Managing Airports private security contractors to federal employees after 11 September. such as BAA plc’s London airports. 2001. typically ranging from 1 to 4 hours to allow the airline to turnaround at the airport without incurring any charges. sometimes.50 charge per passenger to cover some of the increased costs of this and other enhanced security measures. perhaps. as an alternative to the passenger charge. there is clearly no incentive for airlines to make the most effective use of the apron space. such as certain Middle Eastern airports like Abu Dhabi 102 . For example. on aircraft wingspan as in the case of Singapore. with a US$2. other airport fees. A few airports. Finally. Vienna. Manchester. and some US airports such as Boston. Sometimes. Other charges There are also a number of other charges which tend to be fairly small compared with the landing and passenger fees. There may be other charges for certain facilities or services which airports choose to price separately rather than including in the landing or passenger charge. a number of airports. First. have no free parking charge to encourage the airlines to minimize turnaround time. Malaysia. Oman. Elsewhere. At other airports. and Miami. hangar use. at the French and Italian airports there is a lighting charge. sometimes. there may be an air-bridge fee typically charged per movement or based on the length of time that the bridge is occupied. Frankfurt and Hong Kong. such as Amsterdam. Malta. There is normally an hourly or daily charge with. For those airports which have a 24-hour charge. and other airport specific activities. or a higher charge as at Belfast International or the airports in Cyprus. they pay landing and passengers and. Ground handling and fuel charges Airlines incur three types of charges when they use an airport. First.

and so on.1). Hence. until 2002 there was a tax to help national transport links. This income does not directly go to the airport operator but does impact on the overall cost of the ‘turnaround’ from an airline’s point of view (Pagliari. Sometimes these taxes may have a travel-related objective as is the case with a number of taxes in the US or Australia where some of the tax directly funds the national tourist board. a ‘Tourism Tax’. and Pakistan impose a tax on departing passengers. Government taxes There is one final charge which airlines or their passengers sometimes experience at an airport – government taxes (see Table 5. a departure tax Table 5. 1998).The airport–airline relationship where the fuelling is provided by a government agency. Mexico City has a tourist tax on international arriving passengers and a number of other countries such as Malta. such taxation is just used as means of supplementing general government taxation income from other sources. ground power. the scale of its operation at the airport in question. Further complexities occur since there are a variety of ways of charging for activities such as ramp handling. apron buses.1 Main aeronautical charges at airports Charge Common basis for charging Weight of aircraft Included in landing charge or based on weight of aircraft Included in landing charge or based on aircraft movement Departing passenger Included in passenger charge or based on passenger numbers Weight of aircraft per hour or 24 hours after free period Different charges for different activities Volume of fuel Departing passenger Income to airport operator? Yes Sometimes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sometimes No No Landing Terminal navigation Air-bridge Passenger Security Parking Ground handling Fuel Government taxes 103 . aircraft cleaning. and whether other airports used by the airline are served by the same handling and fuel companies. all services at the airport can be offered to the airline in one overall package. The taxes may also cover the provision of some security services. it is very difficult to distinguish between these government taxes or airport passengers charges as both are usually shown as ‘airport taxes’ on the ticket. Elsewhere. These are usually negotiable and the agreed prices will depend on various factors such as the size of the airline. The Republic of Yemen has a ‘Development Tax’. In some cases there may be just one or two charges that cover everything. passenger handling. whereas elsewhere there may be a multitude of individual fees. Jamaica. In Norway. and a ‘National Aid Tax’. pushback. For the passenger. It is rare to find published data relating to handling and fuel charges. In the United Kingdom.

and pegging the level of wages. in 2001. The impact of aeronautical charges on airline operations In recent years. For example. However.Managing Airports which goes directly to the treasury. A more competitive airline environment and falling yields has forced airlines to focus on major cost-saving initiatives such as outsourcing. The data was not sufficient to allow ground-handling and fuel costs to be added. especially from the new breed of low-cost carriers who complain that it is too large in proportion to the fares that are being offered. The costs are divided between aircraft-related costs which include landing charges as well as ATC and air-bridge charges. rather than raising their charges (Doganis. for example. 2001). airport charges have become subject increasingly to scrutiny from the airlines – particularly from the new breed of low-cost airlines in Europe. Low airport charges may also be compensated for by relatively high handling charges as is thought to be the case. was introduced in 1994. Singapore has relatively low charges in spite of having a good reputation for service as was illustrated in the IATA Global Monitor (see Chapter 4). and Athens. As a compromise. The level of aeronautical charges It is very difficult to compare the level of charges at different airports because of the varied nature of the charging structures. Reduced passenger demand and the poor financial position of airlines as a result of the events of 11 September. The situation changes somewhat when government taxes are included and Los Angeles takes second position. reductions in staff numbers. 1998). the low-cost carriers feel it would be fairer to base it on a percentage of the ticket price (Gill. 2001 combined with economic recession in the 104 . comparisons have to be made by examining the representative airport charges for a Boeing 737 on an international route (Figure 5.1). Moscow. a differential tax system with different amounts for economy and business-class passengers was introduced. if these exist. at Madrid airport (Air Transport Group. 1998). passenger-related costs which include passenger charges and any security charges. If such a tax has to be levied. These are all internal costs over which the airlines have a considerable degree of control. and demanding that airports adopt such cost-cutting and efficiency saving measures themselves. so the figures do not take account of any discounts that may be available. in 2000 fares as low as £30 were on offer by low-cost carriers such as Ryanair and EasyJet to European destinations with one-third of this (£10) being the airport tax. To overcome this problem. Kansai. A sample of 24 airports from around the world has been chosen. 2001. There is a wide spread of charges (excluding taxes) ranging from less than 300 Euros at Dubai airport to over 5000 Euros at New York Newark. This has been greeted with considerable opposition. Since then there has been some discussion as to whether this tax should be substantially increased to reflect the environmental costs of the flight. Only published charges were used. Dubai has not increased its charges for many years and reduced them after 11 September. airlines have also been looking at their external costs such as airport charges. and government taxes.

1 Aeronautical charges and taxes for an international B737–800 turnaround in 2002 at world airports rk os EW co R w SV O Ka ns a Lo At i s he An ns ge le s Am LA X st er da Bu m en os Ma Ai cau re s EZ E Li Lo sb o nd on n LH R Ab id M ex jan ic o Pa Ci ris ty C Se DG ou lI C N H el si nk Si i ng ap or e Ka ra H on chi g Ko R om ng e FC O M ad r Pa id Jo pe ha et nn e es bu rg C ai ro D ub ai .105 Charges and taxes (Euros) N ew 10 000 12 000 2 000 4 000 6 000 8 000 0 Source: Cranfield University. M Yo Aircraft related Passenger related Government taxes Figure 5.

They are least important when long-haul operations are being considered. resulted in increased pressure from airlines and the airline organization. Other short-term measures included Copenhagen reducing its landing fees by 10 per cent for intercontinental flights. with a mix of long and short haul flights. Airport charges are the most significant for the charter and low-cost carriers as these airlines have minimized or completely avoided some of the other costs which traditional scheduled airlines face. For the charter airlines of Britannia and Airtours. it is difficult to see how airport charges can have a major impact on airline behaviour. Accurate international figures illustrating this are difficult to obtain because many airlines do not now report the passenger fee as an airport charge and very often the airport charges may be combined with some other cost item. 2002.5 per cent reduction in total demand – although 106 . airport costs generally represent a relatively small part of an airline’s total operating costs. Cyprus airports temporarily waived landing fees for all flights and the Moroccan airports waived them for all charter carriers. However. has the lowest share of costs at around 4 per cent. charges went up. and 15–23 per cent. At other airports. and Athens airports reduced their landing charges by 4. British Airways. A study of UK traffic suggested that a 50 per cent increase in all airport charges would only result in a 7. Some airports lowered their charges in order to encourage the airlines to maintain or even grow their airport operations. It is hardly surprising that it is this type of airline which has been most active in attempting to bring down their airport costs by negotiating incentive deals at airports or operating out of secondary or regional airports which have lower charges. in 2002. Singapore. Most low-cost airlines operate short sectors which means that they pay airport charges more frequently. however. the airport charges represent around 20 per cent of total costs.Managing Airports United States and various other countries in 2001. This share is double for British Midland. for example. since the charges are levied relatively infrequently. Munich and Stockholm. Other airports. postponed charge increases which had been planned and Hong Kong airport maintained the 15 per cent reduction in landing and parking charges which it had introduced in 2000 to strength its position as a major hub airport in the Asian region. These charges account for around 13–14 per cent of all costs for carriers with short-haul and mostly domestic services. respectively. in a general sense. Charges for the low cost carriers are around 8–9 per cent but this share would be higher if it was not for the fee discounts which are obtained at various airports. Figure 5.2 does. For most airlines the impact on demand. 2002).5. which has a range of domestic and European services. would outweigh the impact on costs due to the airport charges. such as British Regional and Brymon. Only landing and passenger charges are shown and so these figures do not represent the total turnaround costs for the airlines. In fact in some cases increases in security charges at airports had the effect of cancelling out all or at least some of the reductions in the normal charges as was the case at Amsterdam airport for example when reduced landing charges were introduced at the same time that security charges were increased.and on other costs which might be incurred if operations were changed to avoid certain airports or airport charges. on airport operators regarding the level of charges. Pilling and O’Toole. 10. Amsterdam. show the situation for UK airlines. Dubai airport halved its landing charges. For example. IATA. particularly to cover the increased security costs. In spite of this growing concern over the level of charges. (Pilling.

Moreover. these schedule constraints coupled with the fact that charges make a relatively small contribution to airline total costs. but also because the charging system was so complex that it was very difficult for the airlines to react. In effect. and so on. Peak charges have been introduced by some airports to make the airlines. peak profiles at other airports. They have also been used with the intent of shifting some of the peak operations into the off-peak. mean that demand is fairly inelastic to changes in airport fees. airport curfews and environmental restrictions. the impact on passenger behaviour also tends to be marginal since generally the different airport charges tend to be averaged out. to such 107 . In theory marginal cost pricing leads to the most efficient allocation of resources as only the users. In the 1970s.2 Landing and passenger charges as a share of total costs for UK airlines. 2000 Source: CAA airline statistics. this could well mean that the peak is merely shifted to another time. In practice such pricing policies are complex and very difficult to implement. Most peak pricing has very little impact on airline operations other than making it more expensive for airlines to operate in the peak. While BAA plc has retained the landing and parking peak charge. It proved to be ineffectual in shifting any demand largely because of the scheduling problems already described. and a peak passenger and parking charge based on marginal cost principles at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. clearly the effects will differ according to both airport and traffic characteristics (DETR. particularly the US carriers. which are generating the peak demand. pay for the peak capacity infrastructure costs. 2000). BAA plc is the only airport operator to have used a peak pricing charging system based on a detailed assessment of marginal costs. The airport operator faced widespread opposition from the airlines. BAA plc introduced a peak surcharge on runway movements on certain summer days.The airport–airline relationship Share of total costs (%) 25 20 15 10 5 0 o G t Je sy Ea sh d iti an Br idl M sh s iti ay Br irw A ym Br s ur rto Ai ia nn ita Br l sh a iti ion Br eg on R Figure 5. who value a facility at least as much as the cost of providing it. will pay the price for using it. This is unlikely to occur unless the differential between peak and off-peak pricing is very much higher than current practice. crew availability. If the airline were to shift operations to outside the peak period. Airline scheduling is a complex task which has to take into account factors such as passenger demand patterns. it has abandoned the more complex peak passenger charges.

been a critical factor when low-cost carriers are selecting suitable airports for their operations. in many cases. discounts on both landing and passenger charges are available for new international services. In reality. To have any meaningful impact the surcharge probably should have been at least double the equivalent chapter 3 charge. Between 1995 and 2000. In general. More sophisticated approaches include that of Belfast City airport which introduced a dual charging process in 1993.Managing Airports charges which were considered discriminatory. Such discounts have. the airline will pay very little.2). there may be nothing to pay with the discount tapering in the second year to 70 per cent of the first year’s discount and to 40 per cent in the third year. This means that the airport will share more of the risk when the airline is developing the route. incentive schemes are not always popular with all airlines – particularly the full fees paying ones who may be unhappy about effectively subsidizing the new carriers. Aer Rianta. It is equally as difficult to influence an airline’s choice of aircraft as it is to shift their schedules by using pricing mechanisms. One of the most popular methods is to waive or reduce the landing fee in the first few years of operation so that the airline only pays for the passengers it carries. 2000). The airport operator gave discounts on new routes and growth on existing routes. IATA remains opposed to peak pricing as it feels that it could lead to discriminatory practices and could be ineffective in addressing capacity problems (IATA. An airport charging policy probably has its greatest impact on airline operations when new routes are being considered – especially when being operated by lowcost airlines or on short regional sectors. BAA plc claims that the new policy takes into account both economic pressures and the preferences of its airlines (Toms. Airlines themselves could choose to come under a conventional charging structure or be charged an inflated passenger fee but with no landing charge. BAA and the US airlines finally resolved their differences through international arbitration which required BAA to phase out the peak passenger charges. some of this fleet replacement might well have happened without such a charging policy – particularly with the banning of chapter 2 aircraft within Europe from 2002 (see Chapter 9) (Schiphol Group.6 per cent in the same year although. for a 120-tonne aircraft. At many airports. the typical fee surcharge for a chapter 2 aircraft in the 1990s was about 20–25 per cent of the normal landing fee. Between 1994 and 1999. which reduced over 108 . clearly. 2000c). the airports are now effectively full in most hours and so the concept of the peak hour has become far less relevant. 1994). Amsterdam airport increased its surcharges for chapter 2 aircraft between 50 and 100 per cent every 6 months. 1996). If demand at the start of a service is initially low. This has been particularly the case when there have been a number of neighbouring or equally suitable airports from which to choose. As a result chapter 2 aircraft at the airport reduced from 15 per cent in 1999 to 0. This is due to the existence of airport incentive schemes or discounts. This was too insignificant alone to alter a carrier’s choice of equipment (Dennis. These are most likely to be offered at smaller airports which want to encourage growth and provide inducements to airlines which might otherwise not choose to use the airport. In 2000. which probably represented around 1 per cent of an airline’s costs in most circumstances. In the first year of operation. the Irish operator had one of the most complex published discount schemes in existence (Table 5. the chapter 2 landing surcharge was 6075 Dutch guilders per landing compared with a basic runway charge (landing and take-off) of 2290 Dutch guilders. At Norwegian airports. Of course.

9 16.7 11.7 4.3 109 . Aer Rianta terminated their discount scheme at the end of 1999.6 13. 1994–9 on airport fees Discount rate (%) 1994 New growth – landing and passenger fees 93–94 growth 95–94 growth 96–95 growth 97–96 growth 98–97 growth 99–98 growth New route – passenger.7 40. especially Ryanair.6 3. After 11 September.3 30.4).5 50.3 8. In the initial years.3 Discounts given to each airline at Aer Rianta airports.7 30.3).6 14. This was greeted with considerable opposition from Ryanair. Table 5. and parking fees Note: a Passenger fees only.0 29.4 20. airlines could be paying as little as 10 per cent of the standard landing and passenger charge.0 6.5 7.and tax-free sales. landing.8 28.0 2.0 32. Source: Aer Rianta. 1998–2001 % of initial calculated charges 1998 Dublin Aer Lingus Ryanair British Midland Lufthansa Shannon Aer Lingus Ryanair Cork Aer Lingus Ryanair Source: Doganis (2002).2 44.2 New growth and new route discounts available at Aer Rianta airports. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 80a 70 80 60 70 90 50 60 90 90 90 40 50 70 90 90 90 80 80 90 30 40 70 70 90 90 90 Table 5. 1999 2000 2001 (to Oct) 32.The airport–airline relationship time.6 23.4 9.8 7.7 45. 2001 new discounts schemes were introduced to stimulate new routes particularly at Cork and Shannon airports where the discounts were more generous and available for a longer time period (Table 5. benefited significantly from this scheme – particularly because of the short-haul nature of their services and the price sensitivity of their leisure passengers (Table 5. Various airlines.5 14.8 21.3 34. largely in preparation for the demise of EU duty.

Airports argue that self-financing in certain circumstances can provide a useful. there may be no certainty that the airport charges will be efficiently spent to provide new facilities. Also. A fundamental principle of the long established cost recovery policy in ICAO guidelines on airport charges is that charges should not be levied for any facilities until they become operational. the airlines tend to be fearful that they will pay twice for the infrastructure. The most notable example is the United States where PFCs go towards future development projects. for example. A similar situation exists at some Canadian airports. The airlines tend to be strongly opposed to such cross-subsidizing and argue that if the smaller airports really need financial help for social or economic reasons.b). Airports claim that pre-financing also avoids large increases in airport charges when the infrastructure comes on stream as was experienced at Narita and Kansai airports in Japan or was initially proposed at the new Chek Lap Kok airport in Hong Kong – but was not fully implemented because of fierce opposition from the airlines. 2000e). in the United Kingdom. The recommendations do. with the growing commercialization within the industry and diminishing dependence on government sources for financing. allow for airports to make a reasonable return on assets to contribute towards capital improvements. there is no guarantee that the airlines paying the charges will actually be the airlines which will benefit from the new infrastructure. however. Pre-financing has traditionally not been an acceptable principle for a number of reasons. the regulator takes into account the fact that some pre-financing will take place when setting the appropriate level of charges. some airports have introduced fees for prefinancing purposes. cheaper source for funding investment in addition to loans and equity which can also be used as security for raising extra finance (ACI. 2000d). In spite of these airline concerns. Elsewhere. and parking fees Discount rate (%) 2001–02 Year 1 Dublin Cork/Shannon 100 for 3 years 100 for 4 years 100 100 Year 2 65 80 2003 Year 3 50 60 Year 4 0 40 Year 5 0 20 A particular area of concern for airlines as regards charging policies is crosssubsidization within an airport group under common ownership. to pay for the financing of the new Athens airport. 110 .4 New route discounts available at Aer Rianta airports 2001–03 on passenger. 2000a. both before it is built and once it is operational (IATA. usually serving primarily domestic services. Operators of airport groups argue that the individual airports need to operate as a system to make the most efficient use of resources and to produce cost savings. Another important issue is the pre-financing of future airport infrastructure through airport charges. In Greece. that they should be supported by government funds instead (IATA. Moreover. First.Managing Airports Table 5. in spite of airline opposition. This typically occurs when a large international airport provides financial support for a smaller airport. higher passenger fees were levied. The ICAO has acknowledged that. landing.

however. restrict aircraft movements due to noise considerations or limit airport infrastructure development. The final proposal had three basic principles related to non-discrimination. for example. On a worldwide basis. 2001). Many of these are technical regulations related to the operational. were revised as a consequence of ANSConf 2000 and give greater flexibility as regards the use of non-aeronautical revenues (ICAO. These environmental issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 9. The ICAO Conference on the Economics and Airports and Air Navigation Services (ANSConf 2000) therefore recommended that countries could consider prefunding through airport charges but only in specific safeguarded circumstances and this has been incorporated into new charging guidelines (ICAO. the airlines business is being progressively deregulated. being broadly related to average cost pricing combined with some market or ability-to-pay pricing. The airports were. The first proposal appeared in 1985. the 1944 Chicago Convention.b). 1992). Bermuda 2. the economic regulatory interest in airports seems to be increasing at a time when. This resulted in a lengthy dispute over Heathrow charges in the 1980s and 1990s between the US and UK governments with an eventual agreement in 1994 which provided for compensation of nearly $30 million in settlement (Competition Commission. the European Commission has proposed introducing an airport charges regulatory framework for the whole EU.The airport–airline relationship pre-funding could perhaps be considered for the future. The airport regulatory environment Airports are subject to a number of different regulations at both international and national level. 2000a). For example. provides a basis for airport charging. always opposed to the Commission’s 111 . 2001). These also recommend that the charging system should be transparent and non-discriminatory and that consultation should take place between airport operators and their customers if changes are proposed (ICAO. safety and security aspects of managing an airport. Other economic aspects of operation such as handling activities and slot allocation are also regulated in some areas of the world. Airport charges can also be subject to the international obligations of bilateral agreements. which established an international regulatory air transport system. Article 15 gives international authority for the levying of charges by ICAO member states and specifies that there shall be no discrimination between users. They are. This would only occur if there was adequate economic regulation. 2000a). 2002a. The ICAO produces more detailed guidelines which have an overriding principle that charges should be cost related. Such principles. the UK/US bilateral air service. In addition. in principle. ironically. states that airport charges must be related to costs and should allow only reasonable profits. Airports are also increasingly becoming subject to environmental regulations which may. particularly from different countries. Overall. cost relatedness and transparency (European Commission. effective accounting practices and prior consultation with users to ensure that such financing was considered fair and appropriate (ICAO. Then there is economic regulation with the main focus being on charge or tariff control. and then there were several different attempts to seek approval for such legislation. only guidelines and are open to different interpretations but nevertheless have generally led to fairly similar overall pricing regimes being adopted by most airports.

In general. there are four key ways in which organization with monopolistic characteristics can be regulated: 1 rate of return (ROR) regulation. there can also be some kind of control at a national level. and a further 16 per cent of airport operators determined their charges independently. and the maintenance of standards of service. For the remaining countries. In 1999. airport fees are considered as taxes and there are actual laws associated with them. consideration has to be given as to the best incentives to encourage appropriate investment. A considerable amount of effort was exerted by all interested parties in discussing the proposals – especially related to how to define cost relatedness. This has resulted in new regulatory frameworks being established at a number of airports. 2002a). the European Commission eventually decided to withdraw the proposal in December 2001 (ACI-Europe. While the regulatory systems at different airports vary.Managing Airports plans. However. Most airports still under public sector ownership usually need to seek government approval before changing their charging level or structure. it may be the government’s responsibility to set charges – perhaps after receiving recommendations from the airports. However after the proposal was blocked by the Council of Ministers for various political reasons. At the other extreme. 2000b). 1997). Fifty-seven per cent of countries stated that charges were determined by the airport operator with government approval. the government was directly responsible for setting the level of fees to be charged (ICAO. Elsewhere. 2 price cap regulation. This has involved using regulatory authorities which are already in existence or creating new bodies specifically for this purpose. particularly if the airports are privatized. In some cases this may be just a formality. By contrast the airlines were more in favour of the proposals (Clayton. A suitable review process also has to be established. 112 . the level of charges may be automatically linked to the consumer price index. In choosing the most suitable regulatory system. In addition to international regulation. what costs should be used as a basis for charge setting and the whole issue of self-financing. the treatment of commercial revenues. their common purpose is to allow the regulated airports a reasonable rate of return on capital while providing the correct incentives for an efficient operation and an appropriate investment policy. as is the case at Brussels airport. the ICAO reviewed the situation at 76 member countries throughout the world. the European Commission does still wish to harmonize policies related to environmental and security charges and eliminate other differences between charges which are seen as discriminatory and contrary to the articles of the Treaty of Rome such as the domestic: intra-EU service differentials and volume discounts which have already been discussed. In Italy. The degree of control varies considerably at different airports. They claimed that there was no need for such regulation since airports are adequately regulated by their own national governments and EC competition law. Regulation of privatized airports The basic principles There are often serious concerns that airports with considerable market power will abuse this situation.

Typically. and X the efficiency gain target. A ‘default’ price cap system works by having a price cap which is available to all users. unlike the ROR method. for example. price cap regulation has been the most popular approach adopted for privatized airports. 4 reserve regulation. A certain rate of return is established and price increases can only be justified when an increase in costs is incurred. Costs which are beyond the control of the company can be excluded from the regulation: Price cap CPI X Y where Y is the external costs. forms of price setting and any specific infrastructure developments. were privatized (Helm and Jenkinson. in the United States and Australia. the regulated company may still have an incentive to overstate the capital expenditure needed. the formula will be adjusted for inflation and an efficiency factor: Price cap CPI X or RPI X where CPI is the consumer price index. Such a method tends to be simpler to administer as companies can change their level or structure of prices as long as they still conform to the price cap without any justification from the regulator – which would be the situation with the ROR system. when setting the price cap. Cost inefficiencies can be built into the cost structure which can be passed on to the consumers through increased prices. However. Since there is no cap on the profit levels. it provides no incentives to reduce costs. alternative regulatory systems have been sought. Such a system can also encourage over investment. Thus. as well as other factors such as operational efficiency. Independent arrangements could therefore be established relating to levels of service quality. any efficiency gains which the regulated company can make in excess of the required X will directly benefit the company. however. to regulate natural monopolies.The airport–airline relationship 3 default price cap. To overcome these shortcomings. 1998). planned investment and the competitive situation. is the traditional mechanism which has been used extensively. In spite of this shortcoming. The aim is to prevent regulated companies from setting prices that bear no relation to costs. the regulator has to scrutinize carefully the financial operations and development plans of the regulated companies. 113 . It works by establishing a formula which provides a maximum price which can be set. RPI the retail price index. Opponents to such a system. While such a system can ensure that the prices are related to costs. argue that price cap regulation is not actually an effective alternative to cost-based regulation since the regulator will take into account the rate of return of the company. To ensure that this does not occur. price cap regulation began to be used – for example. or so-called cost-based or profit control regulation. in the United Kingdom where a number of the state utilities such as gas and electricity. The ROR mechanism. The operator will be guaranteed a certain rate of return irrespective of efficiency. This type of regulation was considered to be more favourable as it can provide the regulated company with incentives to reduce costs while simultaneously controlling price increases. individual users are permitted to set up alternative contracts with the airport operator outside the price cap condition if both parties are agreeable. which will only be discouraged by careful scrutiny of the regulator. In the 1980s.

namely the single till approach when all airport activities are included.Managing Airports Any users wishing for a different level of service could. Sometimes. Here the regulator will only become involved in the price-setting process if the airport’s market power is actually abused or if the company and its customers cannot reach agreement. Within the airport industry such single till practices. negotiate this with the airport operator. The rationale for the single till is that without the aeronautical activities. When airports are regulated using price caps. 1992). the dual till concept treats the aeronautical and non-aeronautical areas as separate financial entities. the X factor is established by just considering the aeronautical revenues and costs rather than the total airport operation. There is less incentive to develop commercial operations to their full potential (ACI. the single till principles will tend to pull down airport charges. In addition within Europe the airports argue that a single till approach is contrary to the European Commission’s White Paper on European Transport Policy which advocates the user pays principle (ACI-Europe. most congested airports are likely to be in the best position to significantly offset commercial revenues against airport charges. 2001a). These contracts could have different duration for different users. are widespread. This process could also allow for direct contracting for terminal facilities or up-front payment for specific facilities. Therefore. This is the justification which the airlines use in favouring such a system which is clearly likely to bring the lowest level of actual charges for them (IATA. and focuses on the monopoly aeronautical airport services. In this case. for the airport regulator the setting of the price cap will be a complex process which will involve a thorough investigation of both the aeronautical and non-aeronautical areas of operation. Bringing down the airport charges for such scarce resources makes no economic sense. there may be a predetermined regulatory model which will become effective at this stage. or to aid the development of better commercial facilities. some major concerns about this approach have been voiced (Starkie. which is used to provide an effective safeguard against anti-competitive behaviour (Toms. The busiest. Yet it is these airports which need to manage their limited capacity the most. This is a difficult task because of having to allocate many fixed and joint costs between the 114 . there would be no market for the commercial operations and hence it is appropriate to offset the level of airport charges with profits earned from non-aeronautical facilities. There are two alternative approaches. In this case it is the threat of regulation. the airport industry argues that using commercial revenues to offset aeronautical fees prevents these revenues from being used to help finance capital investment. 2000a. With the single till concept growth in non-aeronautical revenue can be used to offset increases in aeronautical charges. European Commission. in theory. As traffic increases. when commercial activities are used to reduce aeronautical charges. and the dual till approach when just the aeronautical aspect of the operation are taken into account. 2001). 2001. By contrast. decisions have to be made as to which airport facilities and services are to be considered under the pricing regime. In addition. However. with so-called ‘shadow’ reserve regulation. Such an approach has yet to be used but would clearly lessen the direct regulatory involvement (CAA. 2001). rather than actual regulation. 2000c). 2000g). The single till principles were traditionally accepted by the ICAO in its charging recommendations (ICAO. A further type of regulation is the ‘light-handed’ approach or reserve regulation. This may encourage growth and have the effect of increasing congestion and delays at the airport. 2001).

This would mean that the regulatory control would be independent of any company action inappropriately influencing the key variables used in the regulatory formula. and their relative strengths have been fiercely debated by regulators and the industry. At the London airports it was calculated that the transfer from a single till to a dual till approach could mean that airport charges would have to be increased by 35 per cent (Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Alternatively. With the revenue yield methodology. Companies might. There is also the fundamental issue that such an approach assumes 115 . however. the regulator must also decide how the ‘price’ element of the formula is to be set. 1996). ICAO amended its guidelines on charging in 2001 and states that it may not always be appropriate to use commercial income to offset airport charges (ICAO. which will include consideration of any proposed investment programme. The adoption of such ‘regulatory benchmarking’ is fraught with difficulties because of the extensive problems of comparability associated with such an exercise. As a result of the fierce debate of the merits of the single versus dual systems in recent years. the weighted average price of a specified ‘basket’ of tariffs or charges will be allowed to be raised by CPI X. With the tariff basket definition. Both methods have their drawbacks. such as inflating the asset base. There has been some debate. It is common practice to set the price cap in relation to the average costs. The tariff basket approach tends to be simpler since it operates directly on charges and is independent of any forecasts. the subjective nature by which some of the associated problems are overcome and the lack of general consensus as to the optimal method of benchmarking (see Chapter 3). The main choice is whether to use a revenue yield or tariff basket methodology. The method does.The airport–airline relationship aeronautical and non-aeronautical areas. 2001b). Clearly there is a major logical argument in not including commercial activities within the regulatory framework since they cannot be considered as monopoly facilities. in theory. Industry best practice could. 2000 d. In addition to establishing whether a single or dual till approach is to be adopted. This has already been used by the utility regulators for both England and the Netherlands (Burns. an artificial incentive may be created to increase passengers to inflate the denominator in the definition. In general the tariff basket approach is considered to give airports greater incentives to move to a more efficient pricing structure (Monopolies and Mergers Commission. estimating investment costs or assessing the scope for efficiency and service quality improvements. This could lead to the setting of some charges below the marginal costs of the corresponding services. 2000). Kunz and Ng. as to whether industry benchmarking could have a much more active role in this process (CAA. 2000 c). replace an assessment of accounting costs as the basis for setting the price cap. however. 2000. additional costs related to improvements in the quality of service and a reasonable rate of return. CAA. in the case of airports) in the forthcoming year will be allowed to increase by the CPI X or RPI X percentage. benchmarking could be used much more as a cross-check to internal methods of setting the price. 1997. unlike with the single till approach when any development in the commercial areas may well be accompanied by a reduction in aeronautical charges. provide airports with incentives to develop the commercial side of their business which effectively are uncontrolled. The revenue yield formula means that the predicted revenue per unit (usually passengers. however. be encouraged to put the largest increases on the faster growing traffic since the weights used in the tariff basket are from a previous period. 2001).

Another area of major concern within any regulatory framework is often the quality of service (as discussed in Chapter 4). in theory. the approach has tended to drift 116 . defining service dimensions and attempting to adopt a standardized quality level is extremely difficult – particularly given the different expectations of different types of airlines and passengers.5 IATA’s criteria for airport economic regulation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The starting base charges to be set at an acceptable level Airlines to share the benefits of traffic growth and improved productivity Commercial revenues to be taken into account All charges to be regulated The regulation to be transparent and simple to understand and administer An effective and meaningful consultation process must be established There must be an independent regulatory review process Source: IATA (2000). The review of service quality at London airports has played a major role in encouraging airports to consider entering into service-level agreements with their customers. In reducing the service standards at the airport. as outlined in Chapter 4. by ensuring that there are measures of congestion and delays to assess the adequacy of the airport facilities and by assessing passenger and airline feedback to determine the operational efficiency of the airport. 2002a). In Australia. At BAA airports service quality comes under close scrutiny during the review process. Only a very detailed assessment of the benchmarking data may be able to identify these factors (Shuttleworth 1999.Managing Airports Table 5. all regulatory requirements. This could be overcome. the initial regulatory framework which was set up when the airports were privatized included some formal service quality monitoring and reporting. The default price cap mechanism can. The other smaller regional airports do not have direct price control as they are not considered to have sufficient market power to warrant this. although there are no explicit regulations until 2003. Table 5. high costs are in fact the result of inefficiency. in theory. The airlines are. argue the airlines. whereas in reality they may be due to a number of other factors. Regulation examples In the United Kingdom. In practice. More generally. 2000). should only be agreed after close consultation with the airlines and there should always be an independent review process.5 summarizes the airlines views about the airport regulation. overcome some of these problems. in favour of some formal regulatory process to guarantee that service levels are maintained (Competition Commission. When the regulation does not formally establish service standards or require an appropriate quality monitoring system. there may be little incentive for the airport operator to optimize quality. the operator could be able to soften the blow of the price control. financial performance and future plans has been undertaken. Over the years. The price cap is reviewed every 5 years after an extensive assessment of the airport’s operations. both BAA plc London and Manchester airports have been subject to single till price cap regulation since 1987–8. understandably.

in the 1991 review of BAA they had very different views on assumptions concerning the cost of capital which led to substantially different values of ‘X’ in the pricing formula being suggested until a compromise was eventually reached (Toms. At Manchester airport. Initially 75 per cent of costs were permitted to be passed through with this percentage rising to 95 per cent after the first 5-yearly review.The airport–airline relationship much more closely to a ROR method with very detailed consideration of the asset base and cost of capital – which tends to be one of the shortcomings of the price cap approach. the two bodies have not always been in agreement. During the second 5-year review period in the early 1990s the price cap was far more restrictive. Instead.6). The revenue yield method has been adopted at these airports. and the Competition Commission (previously known as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission) which is a very experienced more general trading regulator. For example.and tax-free sales in 1999. a compensatory 15 per cent increase in charges over two years following abolition of sales was allowed. 2002). Whilst the skills of these two regulators should be complementary. At Manchester. Initially the price cap was the same at all airports. There is the sector regulator with detailed knowledge of the aviation industry. being RPI 1 (Table 5. Source: Centre for the Study of Regulated Industries (1999). A major impact of this single till regulation at the London airports has been that the commercial aspects of the business have been considerably expanded which has simultaneously led to a substantial reduction in real charges to airline users. particularly for the London airports. the abolition was considered when setting the value of X. airport changes still remained comparatively high which is one of the key reasons for the more restrictive price cap for the 1998–2002 period. Table 5. It is the Competition Commission which undertakes the detailed review of the airports’ operations every five years which then offers advice to the CAA concerning the most appropriate level of price control. These airports could allow most increases in security costs to be passed straight through to the airline. For 1997–2002. the London airport formula did not take account of the loss of EU duty. 117 .6 The ‘X’ value used for the UK airport price caps Airport X value (%) 1987–91 1 1 1988–92 1 1992–3 8 8 1993–4 3 1994 4 4 1995 3 1995–6 1 1 1996–7 3 1997–2002a 3 1 1998–2002 5 Heathrow and Gatwick Stansted Manchester Note: a The normal 5-year charging period was extended to 6 years because of the timing of decisions related to the possible development of Terminal 5 at Heathrow. namely the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The regulation process is somewhat complex because there are two regulators involved. The CAA then makes the final decision on the price cap after consultation with the industry and other interested parties.

9 per cent suggested by the Competition Commission which the CAA felt could damage Manchester’s service provision and overall development as well as the emerging competition from other airports (CAA.4 per cent. 1998). the price cap was set at RPI 6. 2002a. Hamburg airport also uses a sliding scale related to traffic growth with a dual till price cap regulatory system (Niemeier. If the growth is between 7 and 11 per cent. For Heathrow. no increase is allowed. while requiring productivity gains to be made when traffic growth is high.5 per cent to take account of £7. there is a set of guidelines which stipulates that the company is allowed to alter its charges in line with costs subject to the company ensuring that it continues to improve the efficiency of its operation. In the first 2 years after private participation in the South African airports. A considerable debate occurred related to the merits of the single versus the dual till (CAA. There is a sliding scale which protects revenues when there is slow growth.Managing Airports The latest review of BAA and Manchester took place in 2002 for the years 2003–8 and again there were some significant differences in views between the two regulators. In Copenhagen. were set. However. 6. prior to the Competition Commission’s review. 2001. and 1. for instance. the charges must decrease (WDR. to provide better use of existing scarce capacity and to enhance incentives to deliver capacity additions particularly at the congested London airports (CAA. 0. 2003). the CAA recommended a dual till approach to reduce the scope of regulation to just the core monopoly activities. in that there was a CPI X formula which also had a security element – but in this case 100 per cent of the charges were allowed to be passed through to the airlines and a dual till was adopted. When there is a loss in traffic or no growth. Above growth of 11 per cent. eventually the CAA decided that the single till should be retained – as this was the approach favoured by the Competition Commission and the users (Competition Commission. However this price cap was lower than the 8. Initially. was introduced in 2001 (and subsequently revised in 2002) for the airports of Dublin. 2002). A number of the other privatized airports have a more relaxed regulatory regime.7. 2003a). The 118 .b). 2003b). 2002). Other airports which have adopted a similar price cap regulatory mechanism include those of Argentina and South Africa. aeronautical charges were allowed to increase at the same rate as inflation before an X value to increase efficiency was introduced. In Ireland also. At Vienna airport. 6. These airports are owned by the public sector Aer Rianta company which has considerable market power and handles over 97 per cent of all passenger traffic in Ireland (Hogan. the charges can be increased in line with the CPI. 2002a.b). a price cap of RPI 5 per cent was set which reflected the higher charges at this airport and the extra capacity because of the additional second runway. price cap regulation. For 2001–02 and the following 4 years X values of 7. At Manchester. The initial regulatory framework for the privatized Australian airports was fairly similar to that adopted by the UK airports. with different limits related to off-peak periods and cargo. 2000b). When the annual traffic growth is up to 7 per cent the sliding scale is used with the permitted charge increases being less than the CPI. respectively. a slightly different approach has been adopted taking into account both inflation rates and traffic growth patterns. The regulation is applied directly to the charges. and Shannon (Commission for Aviation Regulation. Cork. It was also decided that at all the airports there should be rebates for users if certain service quality standards were not achieved.4 billion investment needs (particularly Terminal 5) whilst at Gatwick and Stansted it was set at equal to RPI (CAA.

0 Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1998).0 4. The only major airport which was not controlled in this way was Sydney airport. X value was set with reference to a number of factors including traffic growth and.5 4.0 5. Price surveillance was maintained at Sydney airport and at Melbourne.5 3. This price regulation of Australian airports was identified as causing a number of problems. particularly the requirement of detailed and cumbersome regulatory intervention if investment was planned and overall profit volatility.0 2. As a consequence in October 2001.0 3. Amongst some of the arguments used to support this change in regulatory approach (i. reserve regulation) was the fact that the price 119 .7).5 1.5 1.7 The ‘X’ value used for the Australian airport price cap for 5 years after privatization in 1997–8 Airport Adelaide Alice Springs Brisbane Canberra Coolangatta Darwin Hobart Launceston Melbourne Perth Townsville X value (%) 4. 2002 a). the Australian government suspended the price regulation at all but the four largest airports. but the Australian regulatory framework had more formal conditions relating to relating to airport access and quality of service monitoring which did not apply to the UK airports. and Brisbane the price caps were adjusted upwards which allowed the airports to substantially increase their charges. It was recommended that price regulation should be replaced by a much more lighted handed price monitoring or surveillance approach although the price control could be re-introduced if the airports abused their pricing freedom. The problems of inadequate investment under such regulation were also recognized and so provision was made for an upward adjustment to the price cap if approved investment was undertaken.The airport–airline relationship Table 5. 2001 and the collapse of Ansett. Under the regulatory system. Australia’s second largest domestic airline. The final report of the Commission was published in 2002 (Productivity Commission. These problems became acute with the events of 11 September. Perth. The Australian airports used the basket tariff rather than the revenue yield approach. for example.0 3. which was not privatized when this regulation was introduced and was subject to a rate of return type of regulation which just involved the surveillance or monitoring of prices rather than more restrictive price control (Forsyth.0 4. As in the United Kingdom. the Australian Productivity Commission was required to undertake a review after it had been in force for 5 years. 2002). the price cap was set for an initial 5 years.e. was larger for Brisbane than for Melbourne because Brisbane had higher forecasts (Table 5.

It is argued that most of the current regulatory systems are time-consuming. were partially privatized in 1998. Elsewhere. this light-handed approach led to much conflict between the airport operators and users regarding the level of charges particularly at Auckland airport and in 2001 it was recommended that price control should be introduced at Auckland airport. for example. attention has been focused on more short term solutions to provide some relief for the shortage of capacity both by consideration of capacity or supply-side 120 . physical. in many cases environmental. This was not recommended for Christchurch and Wellington. namely Auckland and Wellington. For the 2002 review BAA had 12 people working on this full time for 3 years and they produced over 700 different papers. Interestingly. had produced poor financial results for the airports and was unnecessary as commercial pressures would ensure that the airports would not abuse their market power. 2002a). The significant downturn in traffic in 2001 and 2002 due to the events of 11 September. it is asserted that economic regulation can bring its own economic distortions with the problems. 2002). particularly runway capacity. There has in fact been considerable debate within the airport sector over the last few years as to which is the most optimal method of economic regulation to use. 2001. There is a view that given the fact that airports are operating in an increasingly competitive environment that they should no longer be considered as monopoly providers and consequently in the future more governments will move towards a more reserved or light-handed approach. however. the Scottish airports in the United Kingdom are examples of reserve regulation practice and the Bolivian airports are a rare case of airports which are subject to shadow pricing. Instead. Slot allocation The steady rise in air traffic in most recent years has put increasing pressure on airport capacity. where the abuse of market power was not considered to be such an issue (National Economics Consulting Group. Moreover. of using a single till approach at congested airports which may well give wrong pricing signals or with the difficult cost allocation decisions which have to be made should the dual till approach be adopted (Starkie. the cost of regulation when BAA underwent its regulatory review in 1996 was estimated to be $US9. 2001 and other events eased this pressure slightly at a number of airports but only for a short time. bureaucratic.Managing Airports cap system had been costly to administer. or financial constraints have meant that in practice this has not been a feasible or desirable option. a somewhat different development has occurred in New Zealand where the two main airports of New Zealand. The privatization legislation allowed for these airports and Christchurch airport to review their charges every three years but they are not subject to any formal price regulation. However. Mackenzie-Williams. Theoretically. and costly. while timely capacity addition might provide a solution to this problem. The legislation also called for the regulator to conduct periodic reviews to assess whether price controls were necessary. For example. 2002 b). It is also claimed that the risks of abuses of market power are minimal and can be adequately addressed either through litigation or national competition law. 2002a). throughout the world.4 million (Mackenzie-Williams. (Forsyth. The temporary relaxation of the pricing controls was subsequently made permanent and the airports have moved to a reserve regulation system.

These voluntary conferences of both IATA and non-IATA airlines are held twice a year for the summer and winter season with the aim of reaching consensus on how schedules can be co-ordinated at designated capacity-constrained airports. which number over 260. such solutions may be politically more acceptable. for example. 2. Between 1990 and 1999. gate. between domestic and international routes. Peak charges would have to be considerably higher to ration demand or to be the equivalent to the market-clearing price needed to match supply and demand or ‘clear the market’. Currently. The most important of these procedures is ‘grandfather rights’. This means that any airline which has operated a slot in the previous similar season has the right to operate it again. however. but also by the stand. In a climate of growing environmental opposition to new developments. traditionally the national airline of the country. These airports. This is obviously not helped by the widespread acceptance of the single till concept which can pull down the level of charges to below that of the cost of supply (Starkie. For example. that the definition of a slot should be more broadly defined to take account of all the resources necessary to operate at the airport. 2 Fully co-ordinated: demand exceeds capacity and formal procedures are used to allocate slots. Demand management techniques consider the most appropriate mechanisms for allocating airport slots.or 30-minute period. As already discussed. the number of fully co-ordinated airports increased by 121 .The airport–airline relationship approaches and by the assessment of demand management options. Thus the slot would not only be defined by a time period for arriving or departing. Each of the fully co-ordinated or level 1 airports has an airport co-ordinator. schedules facilitated and non-coordinated airports. and terminal capacity that is needed and the share of environment capacity which is used (PricewaterhouseCoopers. and thus provide for incremental increases in traffic. are designated at two levels: 1 Schedule facilitated: demand is approaching capacity but slot allocation can be resolved through voluntary co-operation. however. Airport slots are usually defined as an arrival or departure time at an airport – typically within a 15. They are different from ATC slots which are takeoff and landing times assigned to the airline by ATC authorities. 2000). The most recent IATA scheduling guidelines use level 1. the current level of charges at airports and peak/off-peak differentials when in existence have a relatively limited impact on airline demand. which manages the slot allocation process. Preference is also given to airlines which plan to use a slot more intensively to make the most effective use of the capacity. Alternative slot allocation procedures have to be considered at airports because the pricing mechanism fails to balance demand with the available supply. priority would be given to an airline which plans a daily service rather than one which is less than daily or a service which operates throughout the season rather than only in the peak. There is a view. in all parts of the world except the United States the mechanism for allocating slots is industry self-regulation by using IATA Schedule Co-ordination Conferences. 1998). This is as long as the airline operates 80 per cent of the flights – the so-called slot retention requirement or ‘use it or lose it’ rule. Supply-side options aim to make more efficient use of existing capacity by improving ATC services and ground-side facilities. have to use its slots for the same services each year and can switch them. and 3 classifications for fully co-ordinated. The airline does not.

Many US airports are also capacity constrained but do not come under the IATA Scheduling Committee mechanism (ICAO. b 122 . Orly Berlin – Templehof. namely non-coordinated. This airport is the only major airport to be coordinated although there are a number of other medium-sized airports which fall into this category. coordinated (comparable Table 5. with a further 30 in Asia Pacific and 10 in Africa. Stansted Manchester Faro Lisbon Barcelona Las Palmas Madrid Malaga Palma de Mallorca Stockholm – Bromma London – Luton Notes: a Brussels and Dublin changed to fully co-ordinated in 2000. Over 60 of the fully co-ordinated were in Europe. Linateb Rome – Fiumcino. Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers. there are three levels of capacity constraints or co-ordination. In 1999 there were 120 fully co-ordinated airports with more than ten others being fully co-ordinated in the summer months only. However. Schonefeld Dusseldorf Frankfurt – Main Munich Athens Thessalonika Milan – Bergamo. For example. Milan Linate was co-ordinated having switched from fully co-ordinated when the new Milan Malpensa airport was opened.Managing Airports 18 per cent. whereas the EU regulation has other key objectives such as making the most efficient use of capacity and encouraging competition. Tegel. while for schedule facilitation or level 2 airports there was a higher growth of 63 per cent. In 2000. The IATA system developed primarily as a process to co-ordinate schedules and to avoid unnecessary congestion. Gatwick. slot allocation comes under the regulation number 95/93 which was introduced in 1993. Within the EU. 2000. While the IATA co-ordination system is voluntary. many of the IATA features have been incorporated into the European law. Ciampino Amsterdam Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Netherlands Portugal Spain Dublina Sweden UK Stockholm – Arlanda London – Heathrow. the EU rules are a legal requirement.8 Slot co-ordination status of major airports in the EU Country Fully co-ordinated airports Non-coordinated airports Vienna Brussels – Zaventuma Copenhagen – Kastrup Helsinki Paris – Charles de Gaulle. Around 80 airports were schedule facilitated. 2000 c). Malpensa.

France. Table 5. In 2000. Under certain conditions. 2001 since airlines dropped routes because of the sudden downfall in traffic but did not want to lose their historical slots. In order for an airport to become co-ordinated.9). co-ordinated or fully co-ordinated Co-ordination status is defined after capacity review and consultation An independent co-ordinator supervises the allocation of slots Source: European Commission (1993). Sweden. Within this context an interesting decision was made in 1999 by the UK High Court when it ruled that the financial payment from BA to Air UK to ‘compensate’ for the exchange of some highly demanded slots with some less attractive slots did not invalidate the exchange (Financial Times. 123 . which are clearly disadvantaged by the grandfather rights system. the legislation theoretically requires that a thorough capacity analysis and consultation process must take place. the Netherlands. the European Commission has been exerting pressure for a change to a more independent situation. In other countries such as Portugal and Greece where slot allocation is the responsibility of the main home carrier. Airlines are allowed to exchange slots with other airlines but not to trade slots. by giving them preference of up to 50 per cent of any new or unused slots. aims to encourage new entrants. They are also airlines which have requested slots for a non-stop intra-EU service where two incumbent airlines already operate.8 shows the co-ordination status of major airports in the EU. 2000). In practice this has rarely occurred primarily because many of the airports were already fully co-ordinated under the IATA system or perhaps because of some legal constraint such as a limit on aircraft movements at Düsseldorf airport. such as the London airports. such as Denmark. as with the IATA mechanism. In a number of countries. New entrants are defined as airlines with less than 4 per cent of daily slots at an airport or less than 3 per cent of slots in an airport system. there were 13 co-ordinated and 57 fully co-ordinated airports in the EU (PricewaterhouseCoopers. Table 5. 1999). slots may be reserved for domestic regional services or routes with public service requirements – so-called ‘ring-fencing’.9 Key features of the 1993 EU slot allocation regulation Slots are allocated on basis of historical precedence or ‘grandfather rights’ Airlines must use slots of 80% of time – ‘use it or lose it’ rule There is a slot pool for new or returned slots 50% of slots in the pool are allocated to new entrants Certain slots can be ring fenced if they are vital for social or economic reasons Airports are non-co-ordinated. An important difference with the European regulation is that the co-ordinator must be independent of all airlines at the airport. it is generally recognized that a ‘grey market’ in slots already exists. Italy. and the United Kingdom. The grandfather rights system is used with an 80 per cent slot retention requirement although this ‘use or lose it rule’ was temporarily suspended after 11 September. an independent company has been established. In reality. thus enabling the process to be more transparent and impartial.The airport–airline relationship to the IATA schedule facilitation airports and fully coordinated airports) and each of the airports uses an airport co-ordinator. The European legislation (Table 5.

There are a number of examples of purchases. it provides no guide to future investment requirements and is administratively burdensome. in effect. Various regulatory suggestions have been put forward such as giving preference to long-haul international flights. rather than being considered as a right in perpetuity. Alternatively. encourages claims of ownership by the airlines. which normally have less flexibility in scheduling than short-haul flights because of night closures and other constraints. should be regarded as long-term concession rights at airports. Most new entrants are still prevented from competing at airports. These rules restricted assess to charter. namely in not ensuring that the scarce runway slots are used by those who value them the most. Another suggestion is to give priority to larger aircraft which make the most efficient use of slots. which have to be handed back after a certain period of time. historically giving airlines the rights to use slots for long periods of time. and the most important financial asset 124 . The traffic distribution rules imposed at London Heathrow airport in the 1980s were an example of such administrative regulation in practice. social. general aviation and cargo flights – although the charter rule was subsequently relaxed in 1991 (Doganis. can a franchise partner gain slots by claiming to be a new entrant with the result of effectively increasing the number of overall slots for the larger incumbent carriers for which it is operating? Should some slots held by airlines in alliances be given up and reallocated to new entrants for competitive reasons? There have been lengthy debates discussing whether a better system could be introduced (Reynolds-Feighan and Button. Therefore. This could potentially have an environmental benefit by switching short-haul traffic from air to surface transport. Critics claim that this procedure gives no guarantee that the scarce airport capacity is used by the airlines who value it most highly. the grandfather rights system. Priority could be given to airlines which cause the least noise nuisance. 1999). partly because few new slots become available and partly because the definition of new entrant is very limited. As a result any such system will again share the shortcomings of the traditional system. frequency caps could be placed on certain services once a daily maximum limit has been reached. For example. On the other hand. In reality airlines do view slots as a financial asset which are taken into account whenever airline purchases or mergers take place. Within this context. market-based options have also been considered. Scheduled airlines could be favoured over charter airlines and passenger aircraft could have preference over cargo airlines. There is no legal sense in this. and so the airlines are. there is considerable concern – as pressure on runway capacity continues – that it may not be the most effective mechanism. just granted usage rights. While such mechanisms can be useful in pursuing some economic. However. when BA bought Cityflyer Express based at London Gatwick. On the one hand. airports maintain that they have created and own the infrastructure which enables slots to exist. for example. 1992). especially within Europe.Managing Airports Alternative slot allocation mechanisms The current scheduling committee system is widely accepted and has succeeded in providing a stable environment for allocating slots. Other suggestions are that slots. or environmental objective. There are also a number of issues related to the current structural changes taking place in the airline industry. to manage the scarcity of slots or encourage competition. the issue of who actually owns the slot is clearly very crucial. they are still likely to be used in combination with grandfather rights.

At the other extreme there could be just one auction. Officially airlines have so far been prevented from such processes. Individual slots or a combination of slots could be auctioned at one particular time (Jones et al. A detailed study of primary trading and the feasibility of different options was undertaken in 2001 for the UK government (DotEcon. airports and slot co-ordinators about secondary trading and concluded that such a system offered a real potential to improve the efficient allocation of scarce airport capacity and that it had widespread support in the industry (CAA. however. This might potentially overcome the anti-competitive problem caused by slot trading but in practice could cause havoc with airlines’ schedules and be very disruptive. Alternatively lotteries for slots could be held. only based on the views of the UK industry. The simplest of all market-based options is the use of the airport charging mechanism to match demand and supply. Then there could just be a system of slot trading when airlines are able to buy and sell slots – so-called secondary trading. Such a mechanism. the European Commission has been considering whether a better system of regulation could be introduced.The airport–airline relationship of the airline being purchased was considered to be its slots. Any such process would also have to be seen as non-discriminatory to comply with international obligations. An alternative suggestion is to use the auction mechanism or so-called primary trading as a means of allocating slots. In 2001. These auctions could be held every 6 months like the scheduling committees. delays and congestion at many European airports has increased. At the same time. This is hardly surprising given that the European regime has largely maintained the grandfather rights system. Slots obtained at one end of the route might not match up with those at the other end and in general there would be a great deal of uncertainty. However. 2003). 1993). 1998). as previously discussed. Somewhere in between these two options. It is difficult to quantify the value of a slot but the ‘slot exchange with compensation’ between BA and KLM UK provides some guide. More recent sales have suggested that the value of a slot at Heathrow is in the region of £50 per passenger (Andrew. 1992. particularly since there has been very little evidence that this regulatory process has encouraged competition or lessened the influence of the major flag carriers at the airports. Boyfield et al. except with the case of four US airports (see ‘Slot allocation’ in ‘The US experience’ section).. 2001). There is also the issue as to whether it is appropriate for existing slot holders to make windfall profits from slots for which they never actually bought (Doganis. Following the introduction of the European slot allocation regulation in 1993. would be bound to favour the large incumbent carriers as they would be the airlines most able to afford to buy the slots. the European Commission put forward some proposals in 2001 which were passed by the European Parliament in 2002 and by 125 . however. selling the slots rights in perpetuity and then any further changes would have to be implemented through slots actually being traded. 2003). but this would clearly lead to considerable upheaval and disruption for both airlines and passengers. It was revealed that BA had paid around US$25 million for eight daily slots – thus representing around US$3 million per slot (O’Toole. The merits of such a system is that airlines that value the slots the most can buy the slots. the UK Civil Aviation Authority consulted airlines. 2001c). the marketclearing price would have to be set at a considerably higher rate that is the current practice with airport charges. This study was. After a long period of review and consultation. slots allocated under long-term lease agreements could be an attractive compromise.

Historically. it may be possible to protect certain routes through ring-fencing but this may not produce the most effective use of the scarce runway slots. Slot trading may ensure that slots are allocated to those who value the slots the most. The technical proposals covered a number of different areas. the airport operator will just earn rental fees and perhaps a small concession fee from the airlines or agents which are providing the handling services. in the near future at least. but it will always tend to favour the large incumbent airlines. first. The proposals also recommended the retention of grandfather rights and the ‘use it or lose it’ rule but suggested that the new entrant threshold should be raised to 7 per cent. Frequently quoted aims are often to make the best use of existing resources while at the same time encouraging or enhancing competition. fuel and oil handling. often the national airline or airport operator may have had a monopoly or near monopoly in ground handling. They recommended that there should be financially independent co-ordinators at each airport and that there should be better enforcement of the slot rules. baggage handling. really compatible? For example. some immediate technical amendments to the existing regulation and second some more long-term aims. But are these two aims.Managing Airports early 2003 were subsequently waiting for approval from the Council of Ministers. any new system is likely to use a combination of the different approaches. One of the problems with the consideration of slot allocation processes is that often there are too many conflicting objectives. it seems most probable that. and airside or ramp handling. The proposals were divided into two parts. earn very significant revenues from such activities – sometimes over half the total income of the airport. Therefore. although at most airports they are provided by airlines or handling agents. Some airport operators such as Milan. rather than adopting just a single mechanism. Vienna. A report looking at slot trading for the European Commission was due to be completed in 2003. Such activities are often divided between terminal or traffic handling. which have been heavily involved in such activities. They impact both on an airline’s cost and the quality of service which they provide for their passengers. In other cases. Sometimes. as has been proposed for the EU. baggage and freight handling. Ground handling services cover passenger handling. Countries in Europe where the national airline has had a handling monopoly include Spain with Iberia and Greece with Olympic. Another new feature was consideration of environmental constraints with the possibility of higher priority being given to larger aircraft size or lower priority to services where surface alternatives existed. which is passenger check-in. An attempt was made to clarify the legal status of slots by defining them as ‘entitlements’ or ‘rights of usage’ rather than property to be owned. 2003). Ground handling issues Ground handling activities at airports are very important to airlines. This was by far the most contentious issue. 126 . freight and mail handling. and aircraft services and maintenance. Likewise. The proposals confirmed that slot trading was not allowed but in the more radical long-term plans suggested that this method could be an option. and Frankfurt airports. which covers activities such as aircraft loading and unloading. ramp handling. these services are provided by the airport operators. Rome. as well as other aspirations. cleaning and servicing. (Den Braven. it may be feasible to focus on competition but that may cause sudden disruption in schedules.

For example. By contrast. claim that ground handling monopolies are pushing up prices and. only 16 per cent were handled by the airport operator. particularly the airlines. 1998). recognizing the right of airlines to self-handle and guaranteeing at least some choice for airlines in the provision of ground handling services (European Commission.10. 1994). By 2002. A study in 1997 of airline turnaround costs at a number of European airports commissioned for the AEA found that the nine most expensive airports all had ramp handling monopolies whereas the next 14. in some cases. 1997). The longterm purpose of this directive is to end all ground handling monopolies and duopolies within the EU by opening up the market to third party handlers. Frankfurt airport was one such company but only gained exemption from competition in ramp handling in certain areas. Critics of the situation. the European Commission acknowledged that it had received a number of complaints related to ground handling activities at various airports including Milan and Frankfurt and at the Spanish and Greek airports (Soames. Within Europe many have argued that air transport cannot be fully liberalized unless the ground handling activities are offered on a full competitive basis. particularly for ramp handling would merely duplicate resources. particularly at airports which are already at full or near capacity. Other airports. such as Düsseldorf have been more successful. operated in a competitive situation (AEA. 1999). in terms of passenger numbers. again 7 per cent by independent ground handlers and the rest by airlines (Deutsche Bank. It was also unclear as to the level of implementation of the Directive within Europe and certainly the speed at which the Directive was incorporated into national legislation varied quite considerably. A number of monopoly handlers in countries such as Germany have applied for such exemptions. it was too early to assess the overall impact of the directive – particularly since the introduction of the new ramp handler was in many cases. The details of the directive. 1996). 27 per cent were self-handled by the national carrier. reducing service standards (Bass. 8 per cent were handled by the national carrier for other airlines. in some exceptional circumstances airports may be granted temporary exemptions on the basis of space or capacity constraints in order to ease the transition from a monopolistic to competitive situation. in descending order of price. such as at Frankfurt and Vienna airports. The directive does allow for service providers to be limited in the ramp area.The airport–airline relationship A study of European airports showed 44 per cent of aircraft movements were handled by airport operators. Moreover. Many supporters of ground handling liberalization are concerned that such conditions are only prolonging the existence of monopolies at airports. lower efficiency and may also cause considerable apron congestion. For operational reasons. There had still been a significant number of complaints and disputes regarding handling services at airports. neither was independent as one was TAP airlines and the other was Pathway which was 127 . which provides for phased liberalization of ground handling services. 7 per cent were handled by independent ground handlers. it is far easier to have a number of airlines providing traffic handling rather than ramp handling – given capacity constraints of the equipment and space in the ramp handling areas. delayed until 2000. and the remaining 14 per cent were selfhandled by other airlines. In 1993. are shown in Table 5. Providers of monopoly services claim that providing competition. This has resulted in the EU’s adoption of the ground handling directive 96/67. there were complaints at Lisbon airport that although there were two operators at the airport.

2003). owned by Fraport generated $US524 million in 2001 by providing handling at 25 airports in nine countries. there will be a loss of market share to the independent handlers. There had also been unease about the access fees which airport charge for access to the ground handling market. third party handling is allowed At least one handler must be independent from the airport operator or dominant airlines with more than 25% of the traffic From 1 January 1998 From 1 January 1999 From 1 January 2001 Source: European Commission (1996). At the Paris airports. 2003). related issue. These are not cost related and can be quite large – for example 7 per cent of the handlers’ turnover in Germany. majority owned by the airport. Some large international handling agents are emerging through a number of corporate mergers and takeovers. 2002 b).Managing Airports Table 5. generated over $US892 million revenues and together provided handling services at over 200 airports in 40 countries. The impact of airline alliances of the ground handling industry is a very important. encouraged by ground handling liberalization and following the trends of internationalization and globalization in both the airline and airport industry. Frankfurt AGS. Then there is Swissport with revenues of $US668 million and interests at 160 airports in 29 countries. GlobeGround and Servisair merged together in 2001. Other disagreements concerning the handlers’ tender process and selection criteria had also occurred (Barker. Airport operators still have the right to perform ground handling but these activities must be separated from their main role as airport operator. a number of airports such as Frankfurt and Rome have been actively expanding their handling activities at other airports. ramp. for the airports which have previously provided monopoly services. airlines have the right to self-handle for baggage. these access fees had been successfully challenged in court but they remained at other airports in Europe (TRL. third party handling is allowed For airports with more than 2 million passengers or 50 000 tonnes of freight. 128 .10 Key features of the 1996 EU ground handling directive Airlines have the right to self-handling for airport terminal services For airports with more than I million passengers or 25 000 tonnes of freight. To compensate for a lesser involvement at their home airports. 2001. Mackenzie-Williams. fuel. (Pilling. Worldwide Flight Services – owned by Vinci which also is a global airport management company – ranked fourth in terms of revenue ($US344 million) with handling services at 100 airports in 20 countries. and freight services For airports with more than 3 million passengers or 75 000 tonnes of freight. In the future ground handlers at airports may achieve economies of scale by negotiating common contracts with all alliance members rather than by consulting with the individual airlines. Undoubtedly.

they have become shorter to reflect the more volatile. As a result there has been an increasing use of ‘use it or lose it’ clauses in which the control of assets are returned to the airport if the airline does not use the facilities as intended (Federal Aviation Administration/Department of Transportation. combining elements of both the residual and compensatory methodologies. The anticompetitive nature of such agreements can be a problem if other non-signatory airlines are prevented from gaining access to terminal space and gates. the method by which these are to be calculated and the conditions for the use of both airfield and terminal facilities.The airport–airline relationship The US experience Airport use agreements The relationship between airports and airlines in the United States is unique and so is worthy of special consideration. which are far more common among residual agreements. it is common for airlines to lease terminal space or gates. compensatory (19 per cent). The airlines which carry most of the airport’s traffic may also play a significant role in airport investment decisions if they agree to the majority-in-interest (MII) clauses in the use agreement. These clauses. The residual approach. By contrast with the compensatory approach the airlines pay agreed charges and rates based on recovery of costs allocated to the facilities and services that they occupy or use. or even lease or build total terminals – as in the case of JFK airport in New York. The airports and airlines enter into legally binding contracts known as airport use and lease agreements which detail the fees and rental rates which an airline has to pay. 1999). The length of use agreement will normally coincide with any lease agreements which the airlines have with the airport operator. There are two basic approaches to establishing the airport charges: residual and compensatory. typically mean that these signatory airlines have to approve all significant planned developments or changes at the airport. The airlines provide a guarantee that the level of charges and rents will be such that the airport will always break even. A key reason for the existence of these agreements has been because private bondholders have demanded the security of such formal relationship between the airports and airlines before investing in the airport. is more akin to the single till practice. therefore. Airports have applied these two different approaches in various ways to suit their particular needs and some have adopted a hybrid approach. 1999). The use agreements traditionally have been long-term contracts of between 20 and 50 years. With the residual approach the airlines pay the net costs of running the airport after taking account of commercial and other non-airline sources of revenue. while the compensatory approach is more similar to the dual till approach. A study in 1998 showed that for the large US airports the residual and compensatory approaches were each used by 41 per cent of the airports with the remaining 18 per cent of airports using some kind of hybrid model. and so they take considerable risk. The risk of running the airport is left to the airport operator. In more recent years. deregulated environment. In the United States. Capacity improvements which may bring more opportunities for competition may also not 129 . and hybrid (43 per cent) (Federal Aviation Administration/ Department of Transportation. For medium-sized airports the relative shares were residual (38 per cent).

If PFCs are used by large and medium-sized airports then the airports have to forego up to half their AIP funding. The generation of revenues at US airports is subject to a number of statutory requirements determined by Congress and policy statements issued by the FAA / Department of Transportation. Firstly. Seventeen per cent of this total funding was for airside projects. Passenger facility charges were first used in June 1992. allowed for airports to levy a US$1. the federal government approved the levying of PFCs. unlike the practice at some European airports. Unlike most other airports in the world. The charges do not vary according to noise levels or peak periods. There is the air transportation tax. Some airports have discarded MII clauses altogether. There are also separate taxes relating to agriculture and health inspection. and customs and immigration services. The initial PFC legislation. This means that airports have greater control over this type of funding. the total approved collections for all airports was $39. The level of landing fees tends to be relatively low partly because the airport operator provides a minimal number of services itself. Although the PFCs are legally and constitutionally different from passengers charges levied elsewhere in the world. US$2. Passenger facility charges are also largely independent of airline influence. Airport fees and passenger facility charges The landing fees at US airports are normally very simple. there are also a number of government taxes which push up the total amount paid by the airlines and their passengers. These funds go directly to the airports rather into central federal funds as with the air transportation tax.50. being based on a fixed rate per 1000 lbs. In 2000 it was agreed that the maximum PFC could be raised to US$4. PFCs were first used in June 1992. As a result some airport operators have tried to reduce the powers of the signatory airlines by requiring MII disapproval rather than approval or have limited the airlines’ influence to only major projects.50 level. This latter requirement is one of the major obstacles in the way for any significant developments towards airport privatization in the United States. 30 per 130 . Secondly airports are prohibited to use airport revenues for non-airport purposes (Federal Aviation Administration/Department of Transportation. US airports do not have passenger charges – although some of the costs associated with terminal and gate space which are normally incorporated into the passenger fee may be covered by airline lease payments. or US$3 fee which had to be spent on identified airport-related projects or could be used to back bonds for the projects. Airlines have no veto rights when it comes to PFCfunded projects nor can they have exclusive rights. Signatory airlines may pay less. which goes towards the federal aviation trust fund to provide the finance for the airport grants which are available under the AIP. 1999).5 billion for 310 airports with 164 airports having PFCs at the maximum $4. there is the Federal Government requirement for ‘fair and reasonable’ and not ‘unjustly discriminatory’ aeronautical fees based strictly on costs (Federal Aviation Administration/Department of Transportation. By the beginning of 2003. they have a similar impact on airlines. unlike revenue bonds which may require guarantees from the airlines. However. US’ airports are not legally allowed to levy passenger charges primarily because of fears that such revenues will be diverted from the airport to be used for non-aviation purposes. 1996). in 1990. However.Managing Airports be approved by the signatory airlines.

Large amounts of PFCs have been approved at Denver (US$2331 million). As a result of these concerns. with a different limit on the number of flights during restricted hours for each category. The traffic was divided into three categories. No slot allocation mechanism was defined but the relevant airlines were given antitrust immunity to discuss co-ordination of schedules. 10 per cent for access projects. barring any environmental constraints. Las Vegas (US$1585 million). such as the IATA scheduling committees. and airlines design their schedules independently taking into account any expected delays. but the increase in traffic due to airline deregulation in 1978 and other factors. resulted in a new allocation system being introduced (Langner. new long-haul entrant carriers and airlines operating regional jets were given slot restriction exemption. Some PFCs have been approved for a long time (longer than 30 years) whereas others will be used for as little as three years. Initially the rule worked relatively well. In the interim. Over 10 years’ experience of this slot trading has led to increasing criticism of the system. These were to be reallocated using a lottery – with 25 per cent initially being offered to new entrants. There have been few outright sales of air carrier slots and very few new entrants. 1998). This was the ‘buy–sell’ rule which effectively meant that after an initial allocation process based on grandfather rights. 1995). Detroit (US$641 million). such as a major air traffic control strike. 1994). Boston (US$599 million) and Chicago O’Hare (US$484 million). 1992. This led to major overscheduling and congestion in La Guardia in 2000 and so the Port Authority of 131 . 6 per cent for noise projects. however. This trading of slots was limited to domestic operations (international routes being more complex because of international regulation) with air carriers slot being unable to be traded for commuter slots and vice versa. This can result in considerable congestion at certain times of the day when many flights are scheduled around the same time. airlines were then be permitted to buy and sell their slots. The exception to this practice is at four airports which are subject to the ‘high density airport rule’. At La Guardia all restrictions are to be eliminated by 2007. The established airlines have actually increased their dominance at the airports. O’Hare airport in Chicago and Washington National airport (now Washington Reagan). there is no formal slot allocation mechanism. and 28 per cent for paying interest. This is the only formal secondary trading market for slots in any part of the world. since these would be in conflict with antitrust laws. This has to be viewed. This rule was introduced in 1969 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as a temporary measure to reduce problems of delay and congestion at JFK and La Guardia airports in New York. within the context of the US airline industry which itself has become more concentrated (Starkie. A further 8 per cent funded the new Denver airport. International slots were allowed to be co-ordinated through the IATA scheduling committees (Starkie. Airlines were also allowed to ‘lease’ slots on a short-term basis. namely air carriers.The airport–airline relationship cent for landside projects. This means that instead there is open access to the airports. Slots used for essential air services were excluded. the Aviation Investment and Reform Act (AIR21) of 2000 made substantial changes to the slot rules at these four airports. Slot allocation At most airports in the United States. air taxi (now commuters) and other (primarily general aviation). There was a ‘use or lose it’ rule requirement of 65 per cent and a slot pool was established for newly available slots.

rather than two state owned organizations operated within the limits of national laws and regulations. For the airport industry. more clearly defined. Whilst the outcome of the consultation had yet to be decided by early 2003. 2001a). Moreover. The US agreements concentrate on the fees and rentals to be paid. traditionally the only country which has the rights and obligations clearly defined and incorporated into a legally binding contract is the United States. However. as more airports are being privatized. This temporary solution was due to end in October 2002 but has been extended until October 2004. minimum landing fees (which in fact have already existed at airports such as New York. Airlines and other interested parties were asked to comment on this notice by July 2002. 2002). and San Francisco) and slot auctions. In the meantime the industry has been consulted about more longer-term solutions (Federal Aviation Administration / Department of Transportation. being driven by trends towards greater competition. there is no agreement as regards the standard of services to expect and no process is identified should disputes between the airlines and airports arise. Airport charges have come under increased scrutiny from both airlines and governments. it was evident that generally the airport industry was much more in favour of market-based options than the airline industry which wanted to keep the current system (ACI-North America. Boston. privatization. In short. A number of airlines have therefore been considering a more appropriate. 2001b). 132 . These included market-based initiatives such as congestion based pricing or slot auctions or administrative processes such as favouring operations with larger aircraft. the airline–airport relationship is starting to become much more to do with the linking of two privately owned international companies. and globalization within the industry. Air Transport Association of America. the FAA claimed that the airport authority did not have a legal right to impose this moratorium and instead it was agreed that the number of new flights would be capped and a slot lottery would be undertaken. this type of agreement exists between the privately run railway infrastructure and train operators. the method by which these are calculated and the conditions of use of the facilities. Los Angeles. In the United Kingdom. the Department of Transportation issued a ‘Notice of Market Based Actions to Reduce Airport Congestion and Delay’. 2002. Formalized service standards are not usually incorporated into these agreements. This discussed market-based approaches to charging at airports such as peak pricing. for example. The industry has also been consulted more generally about the basic principle that airport charges must be determined purely by cost or whether a more marketbased approach could have a role to play in coping with the congestion problems which exist at many airports. However. economic regulation is becoming more commonplace. This took place in December 2000. The normal contract between an airline and an airport traditionally is the published airport conditions of use. contractual relationship with the airports which they serve. This is not a formalized relationship as it does not identify the rights and obligations of both parties. (Federal Aviation Administration/Department of Transportation. A new airport–airline relationship This chapter has shown how the airline–airport relationship is changing. which describes the services provided in exchange for the aeronautical fees. For example. In 2001.Managing Airports New York and New Jersey imposed a moratorium on peak hour flights.

In 1997. which includes quality of service aspects. additional services. The airlines claim that such agreements could clarify the airline–airport relationship by identifying clear rights and obligations. security and policing. have sought more long term deals at airports. Another example of a longer duration agreement is at Copenhagen airport. 2004. 1998). protect both airlines and airports from uncertainty and risk by providing financial guarantees. is more strategic and covers areas such as future financial investment and rights. lessening the need for government economic regulation (Clayton.The airport–airline relationship outside the United States. capital expenditure. the movement from price regulation to price monitoring. Danish airlines and IATA representing foreign airlines reached a second consecutive three year period agreement when it was determined that charges would increase by 2. Second.75 per cent in each of the years 2003. Again. there is the basic agreement which covers what the airlines receive for the main airport charges or the basic plus agreement which also identifies what additional facilities and services are available at the airport and their cost. terminal navigation services. more recently. for the increasing number of private airports which are dependent on commercial borrowing. services to be provided in return to charges. Then there are two types of service level agreements. either a one-way commitment by the airport operator to achieve defined service quality standards or a two-way commitment by both the airport and airlines to reach the required quality levels. the low cost airlines. when discounted fees are agreed for the entire contract period (see Chapter 7). insurance and liabilities. This agreement provides for more long-term planning security for both airports and airlines and contains a commitment from the airport to improve the level of services. In Australia. the airline industry has been looking at use agreement from a wider prospective. 1997. there is the strategic partnership agreement (SPA) which. and 2005 (Copenhagen Airport. as in the case of the United States. such as Ryanair and EasyJet. They could also help to minimize the conflict between the two parties – thus. 1999. 2002). rentals. For example. there is the facility agreement which is an additional arrangement between one or more airlines relating to just part of an airport. Finally. automatic entitlement to a rebate or compensation when the quality levels are not achieved and the establishment of a dispute resolution procedure relating to service standards (Competition Commission. and obligations for both airlines and airports (ACI-Europe. 1997). typically 5–10 years. in relation to the London airports BA proposed that there should be a clear definition of the services covered by the airport charges including a description of the generic levels of service quality. fees and charges. One of the developments which has been observed is the introduction of more long-term airline–airport agreements at a few airports which could be said to be moving slightly closer to the type of model that is adopted in the United States. perhaps. Cruickshank. In 2002. 2002a). for example at Brisbane 133 . as the name suggests. ACI-Europe has identified six types of use agreements which can exist between airports and airlines. IATA set up a working group to develop a generic use agreement or SPA which could be used worldwide and adapted according to local circumstances. service standards. the airport operator. British Airways (BA) has suggested that a use agreement should contain the following elements: duration and termination. and disputes and arbitration (Monopolies and Mergers Commission. First. and provide more financial security. De La Camara. 2000). Agreements of this nature have yet to be adopted at any airport although more specific service level agreements have been adopted by a few airports (See Chapter 4 for more detail).

2002. ABN AMRO. At Frankfurt. 134 . the airlines will bear one third of the risk associated with the passenger traffic if it falls below the levels which were planned. Hence. Then in April 2002 Fraport reached an agreement with Lufthansa. This agreement replaces the requirement for government approval of the level of charges for the 5-year period. there is a Special Review Board which has representatives from the airlines.The agreement is a risk sharing model which links airport charges to traffic growth. Conversely. ACI-Europe (1998). Fraport has been developing a new charging policy at Frankfurt airport which it feels is more suitable to sustain a long-term sustainable partnership with its airline users. The first element of this new approach which was gradually introduced in the late 1990s was a shift towards a greater reliance on the passenger fee and less reliance on the landing fee. The 2001 ratio of airports charges to the number of departing passengers is used a reference ratio for this model. 2002). The Hamburg airport regulatory system was also established by an agreement between the airport operator and the airlines which was subsequently validated by public law. the German Airline Association and the board of airline representatives in Germany (BARIG) which represents airlines flying to Germany. This means that the airport charges are now more related to the revenue streams of the airlines which are based on passenger throughput. ACI-Europe working paper. (Fraport. If the passenger traffic grows faster than expected then the airlines will receive one-third of this additional revenue due to the unplanned passenger numbers and two-thirds will go to Fraport. this means that Fraport is taking more of the overall financial risk as it revenues are more directly related to traffic levels. It has been agreed that if the passenger forecast figures are reached then the reference ratio will be increased by about 2 per cent annually. Pan-European Airports Review. has encouraged the airport and airlines to reach a five year agreement which covers charges and service and thus replaces the need for detailed regulation.The deal has also secured the financing of a 76 million Euro noise protection programme for the local residents. applied retrospectively from 1 January.Managing Airports airport. A new approach to the airline relationship at Frankfurt airport In the last few years. This is a 5-year agreement. References and further reading ABN AMRO (2000). 2002. Fraport and local government which has four meetings a year to discuss issues arising from the agreement and to swop information. Under the agreement. Big Issues: Airport Charges. the first of its kind. the airlines have waived their right to take legal action against the level of charges whilst Fraport has made commitments not to cut costs by reducing service standards and to undertake investment projects which are planned. Klenk. This was thought to be particularly necessary because of the growing volatility of the airline industry and more specifically the partial privatisation of Fraport in 2002.

Cranfield University. Consultation paper. Financing Civil Aviation Security Costs in Europe. ACI-Europe ACI-Europe (2002b).. SE Asia and the USA. The use of benchmarking in airport reviews. Review of Strategic Options for the Future of Aer Rianta. CAA Workshop on Benchmarking of Airports: Methodologies. CAA. CRI. 1(3). Air Transport Association of America (2002). CAA. Airports Council International (ACI) (2000b). Institute of Economic Affairs. Centre for Study of Regulated Industries (1999). Air Transport Group (1998). AIB. P. Time for a freehand in Europe. T. User Costs at Airports in Europe. The CAA approach to economic regulation and work programme for the airport reviews. Barker. Research report 6. ACI-Europe (2002a). CAA. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (1998). Airports Council International (ACI) (2000c). J. September. D. AEA. Airport Use Agreements. Burns. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2000a). 145–50. (2003). Andrew. Bass. Direct consulting between airports and users. CAA. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (1998). and Humphreys. University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. Boyfield. CAA. SH&E and Warburg Dillon Read (1999). Benchmarking of Airport Charges. ANSConf Working Paper No. Economic Regulation of Airports – An Overview. T. The use of benchmarking in regulatory proceedings. London. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2000d). Consultation paper. Pre-financing of airport capital expenditures.The airport–airline relationship ACI-Europe (1999). CAA. ACCC. Infrastructure constraints and the EC. 55. ANSConf Working Paper 52. Journal of Air Transport Management. Position paper. Airport Statistics 1998/9. ICAO. CAP 685. The single till. 22–23. Jane’s Airport Review. Report to the Minister for Public Enterprise and the Minister for Finance. (1994). Comments re: Notice of Market–based Actions to Relieve Airport Congestion and Delay. The single till and the dual till approach to the price regulation of airports. Recommendations for new ICAO guidelines on pre-financing of airport capital expenditures. A Market for Airport Slots. ACI-Europe ACI-North America (2002). Consultation paper. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2000c). Starkie. B. March. Airport pricing and slots. ANSConf Working Paper 48. Airport Charges in Europe. Association of European Airlines (AEA) (1998). March. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2000b). Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2001a). D (2003). ACI-Europe working paper. (2003). ICAO. Consultation paper.. Comments re: Notice of Marketbased Actions to Relieve Airport Congestion and Delay. (2000). The Single European Aviation Market: The First Five Years. ICAO. Issues for the airport reviews. Bass. Airports Council International (ACI) (2000a). Problems and Relevance to Economic Regulation. K. 135 .

The implementation of Secondary Slot Trading. E. A Report on the Economic Regulation of the London Airports Companies. Copenhagen Airport (2002). October.Managing Airports Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2001b). March. University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. March. ACI Airport Financial Management Seminar. Adjustment of traffic charges at Copenhagen Airport. (1992). N. R. Commission for Aviation Regulation (2002). (2003). Auctioning airport slots. Decision of the Commission further to a referral by the Aviation Panel of the Commission’s decision in relation to its determination of the 26th of August 2001 on maximum levels of airport charges. Competition Commission (2002b). (2002). 24 April. De La Camara. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2002a). A new approach to airport user charges. CP7/2001. Doganis. University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. CAA Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2003b). Transport and the Regions (DETR) (2000). Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2001c). (2000). 136 . 95–8. Air Traffic Forecasts for the United Kingdom 2000. Doganis. Consultancy Advice on Aviation Issues. Deutsche Bank (1999). A Report on the Economic Regulation of Manchester Airport plc. Airport charges and airport finance – the airline’s perspective. R. The Airport Business. (1997). (1996). Journal of Air Transport Management. J. Economic Regulation of Manchester airport: CAA decision. DETR. Economic Regulation of BAA London Airports: CAA decision. 8–9. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2002b). Heathrow. (2000). CAA. CP2/2002. The Stationery Office. Manchester Airport’s price cap 2003–2008: CAA recommendations to the Competition Commission. Gatwick and Stansted Airport’s price cap 2003–2008: CAA recommendations to the Competition Commission. (1998). Dennis. European Airports: Privatization Ahead. Aviation Strategy. Determination of Maximum Levels of Airport Charges. A. Doganis. The Stationery Office. Fortaleza. Consultation paper. Commission for Aviation Regulation. Department of the Environment. Coleman. K. Press release. The Airline Business in the Twenty-first Century. Deutsche Bank. CAA. Commission for Aviation Regulation. Airport–airline agreements: what is the way forward?’ University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. Competition Commission (2002a). March. March. DotEcon. Cruickshank. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2003a). CAA. Pricing structures and economic regulation. European ground handling: new competitive dynamics. CAA Clayton. Routledge. Commission for Aviation Regulation (2001). CAA. (2001). N. Airport charges – the key developments. R. Den Braven. 3 (2). Current issues in slot allocation. DotEcon (2001). Irish Department of Public Enterprise. Routledge.

35–7. Sixth Air Transport Research Society Conference. FAA/DOT. Federal Aviation Administration/Department of Transportation (2001a). The European regulatory framework. Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges. 26 March. Journal of Air Transport Management. Washington DC. EC. p. 137 . FAA/DOT. P. P. (eds) (1998). Forsyth. May. Draft proposal for amending council regulation No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports. Notice of Market-based Actions to Relieve Airport Congestion and Delay. European Commission (1996). Guiomard. Council Regulation 95/93 on Common Rules for the Allocation of Slots at Community Airports. Airline Business. Gill. (1998). University of Westminster/ Cranfi. Airport charges proposal general fierce debate. Docket No 27782. ANSConf Working Paper 76. 6–7. FAA/DOT. 30 April. Hague Consultancy (2001). Helm. Alternative Policy Options for Managing Capacity at La Guardia Airport. 8. Docket No 2001-9849. S. Policy and Procedures Regarding Use of Airport Revenue Docket No 28472. November. Airline Business. Financial Times (1999). 19–28. Replacing regulation: Airport price monitoring in Australia. George. Washington DC. Docket No 2001-9854. March. Federal Aviation Administration/Department of Transportation (2001a). Gethin. Hague Consultancy. What should regulators do? The academic perspective on optimal economic regulation. Competition in Regulated Industries. High Court rules. 20. EC. A. Industry fears EC slot shake-up plans. GAO. (1998). O. Jane’s Airport Review. C.eld University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. March. FAA/DOT. ICAO. European Commission (2001) White paper on European transport policy for 2010. 23. Federal Aviation Administration/Department of Transportation. 18 January. Washington DC. FAA/DOT. European Commission (2000b). Federal Aviation Administration/Department of Transportation (1999). (2002). Hogan. Airport Business Practices and Their Impact on Airline Competition. Press release. T. and Jenkinson. General Accounting Office (1999). July. Passenger Facility Charges: Program Implementation and the Potential Effects of Proposed Changes. (1999). (2003) Economic regulation of Irish Airports. D. Forsyth. A. (2000). European Commission (2000a). App. The Economic Regulation of Airports – German Aviation Research Seminar. Benchmark Airport Charges 1999.The airport–airline relationship European Commission (1993). T. (2002b) Privatisation and regulation of Australian and New Zealand airports. Official Journal of the European Communities. Financial Times. Air slots can be traded. Fraport (2002) Fraport and airlines sign first five-year agreement on airport charges at FRA. November. Oxford University Press. Weakened by taxation. Washington DC. (2002a). Federal Aviation Administration /Department of Transportation (1996). L 272/36. Council Directive 96/67/EC on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports. COM (2001) 370.

Ground handling – the story so far. ICAO. I. 138 . M. M. 4 (3). International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2001). 9. (2000). The single till. 45–50. International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2000d). 14 (4). (2000). 68–71. Klenk. Mecham. Langner. Monopolies and Mergers Commission (1997). ANSConf Working Paper No. P. (1995). The Economic Regulation of Airports – German Aviation Research Seminar. Charges discounts. ICAO. London. NECG. ICAO. International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2000g). The economics of airport slots. (2002a). 151–61. September. Statement by the Council to contracting states on charges for airports and air navigation services. and Marks. (1993). ICAO. ICAO. ANSConf Working Paper No. CAA Workshop on Benchmarking of Airports: Methodologies. Jones. ICAO. ICAO. Economic regulation. Kunz. 32–3. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (1992). ICAO.. Airport networks and airport cross-ownership. Forward pricing. K. 30. 9082/4. Marginal pricing. (2002). P. Airport economic regulation. A report on the economic regulation of Manchester airport. Monopolies and Mergers Commission (1996). A shift towards regulation – the case of New Zealand. Capacity management and slot allocation. 1 May. ANSConf Working Paper No. Comments on New Zealand experience and incentives for monopoly pricing. ICAO. ANSConf Working Paper No. International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2000e). 37–57. P. ICAO. 33. Aviation Week and Space Technology. ANSConf Working Paper No. 27. Liberalisation of the ground handling market – experience so far. International Airport Review. I. 31. Fiscal Studies. Issue 4. C. and Ng. MMC. (2002b). Ansconf Working Paper No. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2000b). Viehoff. New approaches in airport/airline relations – charges framework of Frankfurt Airport. Problems and Relevance to Economic Regulation. November. Contractual aspects of transacting in slots in the United States. MMC. National Economics Consulting Group (2001). ICAO. 9082/6. Mackenzie-Williams. ICAO’s Policies on charges for airports and air navigation services. ICAO. ANSConf Working Paper No. Journal of Air Transport Management. Mackenzie-Williams. 80. ANSConf Working Paper No. International Airport Review. Benchmarking and economic regulation: introduction and overview. P. Peak/off-peak charging. November. 11. International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2000f). (2000). S.. 81. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2000c). Ansconf Working Paper No 82. A report on the economic regulation of the London airport companies. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2000a). The Economic Regulation of Airports – German Aviation Research Seminar. ANSConf Working Paper No. Pre-funding of projects through charges.Managing Airports International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2000a). 31. Mackenzie-Williams. SFO flights delays by targeting United. 2 (3/4). International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2000b). International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2000c).

Report no. H. (2002). M. Shuttleworth. G. D. 8. Schiphol Group. Empire building. September. Pilling. (2002). Unlock your potential. Slot Trading at United States Airports. (2001). Reforming UK airport regulation. 119–35. Shuttleworth. (2002). Journal of Air Transport Management. Starkie. (1992). Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) (2001). 8–14 July. Toms. Warburg Dillon Read (WDR) (1998). 4. December. Airports Review 1998. M. September/October. M. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. (1999). G. Price regulation of airport services. A. (2000). November. (1998). 5. 35 (1). National Economic Research Associates. 8. Thoughts on airport regulation. Problems and Relevance to Economic Regulation. Reynolds-Feighan. Review of airport charges 2001. Avmark Aviation Economist. M. M. (2001). (1994). 111–16. August–September. Airline Business. CAA Workshop on Benchmarking of Airports: Methodologies. 10–12. The Economic Regulation of Airports – German Aviation Research Seminar. Airline Business. Journal of Air Transport Management. KLM accounts hint at the true worth of BA slots at Heathrow. Ground handling liberalization. Airport regulation – fifteen years on. University of Westminster/ Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. March. D. Pilling. An assessment of the capacity and congestion levels at European airports. Hayes and Bartlet Ltd. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. (1997). September. 37–48. Productivity Commission. Pilling. 113–34. O’Toole. D (2002). The US market in airport slots. User charges: Gloves off. WDR. K. D. benchmarking and efficient costs.The airport–airline relationship Niemeier. (2002). Toms. 19. Pilling. January. Pagliari. 8. Airport World. 38–42. Starkie. M. PricewaterhouseCoopers. London. T. 83–94. (1994). 63–72. D. (2003). and Button. K. (2002). 52–4. Journal of Air Transport Management. Taxing for take-off. (1998). Journal of Air Transport Management. 1 (2) 77–82. Regulation of airports: the case of Hamburg airport – a view from the perspective of regional policy. K. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2000). Starkie. 325–9. and O’Toole. TRL. Ground handling: seeking stability. 3 (2). Ausinfo. 41. Allocating airport slots: a role for the market? Journal of Air Transport Management. Schiphol Group (2000). Starkie. 139 . Regulatory benchmarking: a way forward or a deadend? Energy Regulation Brief. Flight International. 58–62. (1999). Price caps. Airline Business. Soames. Airport regulation and competition. Toms. Charging for airports: the new BAA approach. Journal of Air Transport Management. M. Study of Certain Aspects of Council Regulation 95/93 on Common Rules for the Allocation of Slots at Community Airports. R. (1998). Starkie. Putnam. (2001). January. Annual Report 1999.

other consumers such as the airlines and handling agents who also generate concession and rental revenues by paying for the use of office space. check-in-decks. This chapter will discuss the generation of nonaeronautical revenues by looking at the market for commercial services and assessing how the facilities can be planned and managed.and tax-free revenue. There have been a number of factors which have contributed to the growth in dependence on nonaeronautical revenues.6 The provision of commercial facilities The importance of commercial facilities A key development in the evolution of the airport industry has been the increase in the dependence on non-aeronautical or commercial revenues. The most significant development of the late 1990s. will also be discussed. in-flight kitchens. and so on. of course. There are. A more business-oriented approach to running . namely the abolition of intra-EU duty. The focus of this chapter will be on individual consumers who buy commercial goods/services at airports. First. moves towards commercialization and privatization within the industry have given airports greater freedom to develop their commercial policies and diversify into new areas. lounges. These activities are covered in Chapter 5 which considers the airport–airline relationship. It will consider factors which influence commercial performance.

but also in the range and value for money of the commercial facilities on offer. Transfer passengers may. airlines are demanding that airports adopt such cost-cutting and efficiency saving measures themselves. Increasing airport competition. Manchester gave discounts on duty-free purchases to 141 . have run highprofile marketing campaigns emphasizing the quality and good value of the commercial facilities on offer to transfer passengers. In effect. Moreover. Hence. Consideration of the retail and other commercial facilities is bound to be secondary. of course. The impact of these pressures on the level of aeronautical charges. especially between airport hubs. the airlines have been exerting increasing pressure on the airport industry to control the level of aeronautical fees which are being levied. Increasingly. Such facilities were traditionally considered to be rather secondary to providing essential air transport infrastructure for airlines. This reflects general trends in the high street where consumers have become more discerning with quality. either from the airlines themselves or regulatory bodies. A more competitive environment and falling yields have forced many airlines to focus on major cost-saving initiatives such as out-sourcing. particularly those from the business community. 1998). however. For example. increasing numbers of people are travelling through airports and making more frequent trips. and are generally much better informed. At the same time.The provision of commercial facilities airports has also raised the priority given to commercial facilities. rather than raising their charges to the airlines (Doganis. such as Amsterdam Schiphol and Singapore Changi. 2000). As a result of this. value and choice at the top of their priorities (Freathy and O’Connell. In addition. airport charges have become subject to more and more scrutiny from the airlines – particularly from the new breed of low cost airlines in Europe. Certain airports. has also played a role in the development of non-aeronautical revenues. has encouraged the airports to look to alternative ways of increasing their revenues and growing their businesses by giving greater attention to commercial facilities. often desiring a quick route through the airport as uncluttered as possible from the distraction of numerous shops and catering outlets. the ability of some airports to increase aeronautical charges is now restricted by government regulation as has been the case with BAA plc and Australian airports post-privatization (see Chapter 5). Other airports have gone one stage further. Thus. and the pegging of the level of wages. airport shoppers are becoming more demanding not only in the quality of service which is provided. Managers are now eager to adopt more creative and imaginative strategies and to exploit all possible aeronautical and nonaeronautical revenue generating opportunities. reductions in staff numbers. be the nature of air services which that airport offers and the convenience of the airport’s location. it is difficult to determine entirely whether the raised expectations at airports have been caused by a genuine need or desire of the consumers for expanded facilities or whether an airport’s drive to maximize its commercial income by becoming a shopping centre has merely changed the expectations of passengers. It is also true to say that this increased emphasis on commercial facilities has not been welcomed by all the travelling public with significant groups of passengers. passengers are becoming more sophisticated and experienced airport shoppers. The main reason for why a passenger will choose a certain airport will. be more influenced by the commercial facilities if they cannot perceive any significant difference between the convenience and quality of the choice of connecting flights at different airports. the airports have had to broaden their horizons in managing their businesses. Admittedly.

of varying degrees of sophistication. 70 per cent of passengers considered catering to be important or very important. the range of facilities on offer and even the product selection should match very closely the preferences and needs of the specific passengers types at the airports. duty. Such research will often aim to determine who shops at airports and what they buy. particularly by using incentives like raffles with high-value prizes. It was considered more important to certain subsegments such as eighteen to twenty-four year olds (64 per cent) and less important for others such as UK business travellers (34 per cent). In the Middle East a number of the airports such as Abu Dhabi. At the most basic level. fundamentally different from high street retailing since passengers are going to the airport to catch a flight rather than to shop. and attitudes towards the range of facilities on offer and the value for money of the products. or souvenirs and gifts while returning. The UK leisure market gave it a higher rating (77 per cent) while the European business market gave it a much lower rating. They may even spend just to dispose of the last of their foreign currency.and tax-free retailers can get information about travellers from their boarding passes which are shown when purchases are made. airports. Airport retailing is. This type of research needs to be updated regularly as customer demands and perceptions are continuously changing. Consequently. who does not shop at airports and why. have increasingly been devoting more resources to getting to know their customers. however.and tax-free shops as a way of capturing competing traffic. To achieve this aim. Results have shown that on average 53 per cent of passengers considered airport shopping to be important or very important. such as luxury cars. They may spend spontaneously to acquire the last minute essential or discount purchase for a holiday. like other large European airport operators. To fully harness the commercial development potential of the airport traffic. make up a large captive market. together with their retailing and catering partners. They often tend to be more affluent than the average and they may have time on their hands to have a quick meal or snack.Managing Airports transfer passengers as part of their ‘Manchester Connects’ strategy to increase the use of the airport as an interline hub. The market for commercial facilities Who buys at airports? The airport environment is a unique location for shopping and other commercial facilities. regularly undertakes market research regarding commercial facilities. geographic and behavioural features of the passengers. BAA plc. coupled with a fear of missing the flight. BAA plc has also investigated the nonbuying share of the passenger 142 . may impose a sense of anxiety on the passengers. Overall. the passengers. and Bahrain try to use their duty. The main shoppers. is the envy of most high street retailers. which is automatically collected at airports. In many cases. this is supplemented by market research. the passengers will be far less familiar with the airport shopping environment than with their neighbourhood shops and this. In addition. Even this detail of information about the market. which will investigate the demographic. Dubai. this involves an analysis of the air services offered and the origin and destination of travellers.

with 12 per cent of the sample claiming that they would shop if the prices were reduced by a tenth. would have shopped if the prices were reduced by a quarter. opened its Wellness Plaza in 1999 where passengers can experience different massage techniques and make use of the fitness bar. claimed that they had no interest in the shops and would not be persuaded to buy (Maiden. For example. Prior knowledge of the prices on offer would have encouraged 22 per cent more passengers to make purchases. particularly if the dutyand tax-free prices are competitive. The new breed of leisure passengers on low-cost carriers often tend to have a different spend profile and they are particularly good users of the catering services because of the lack of in-flight refreshments and car parking because they are often quite time-sensitive travelling on short-break trips. many of whom were UK leisure passengers. A further 47 per cent. Moreover. Sixteen per cent said they would shop if they had more time (an extra hour) at the airport. Twenty-two per cent of the passengers. They are impulse buyers and they tend to buy duty-free if they can. As a result of this business travellers make purchases relatively infrequently – although their average spend on a purchase tends to be high. there is the mass market leisure flyers who travel just once a year and are in the mood for treating themselves. These examples illustrate the different spending profiles and preferences of different types of passengers. Within the business market there is an increasing number of women travellers who have different needs and preferences from the more traditional male traveller. but this will only be possible if there is sufficient time between flights. Amsterdam airport has an art gallery and casino. there will also be passengers who spend a considerable length of time in the airside area. At most major hubs. Regular business travellers typically have a shorter dwell time and are less likely to browse in shops. Leisure passengers have traditionally been favourites for impulse buys and the use of catering facilities. the widespread adoption of airline lounges for business and first-class customers has further discouraged these passenger from having spare time to visit the main terminal shops. a sauna. Singapore Changi airport has a swimming pool. a karaoke lounge and a putting green and. Various airports have developed some quite imaginative airside facilities and services which can be shared between these and local passengers. solarium. It is hard for an airport to maximize the commercial opportunities from transfer passengers if it also wishes to maximize its efficiency as a hub by providing swift connections. secretarial support.The provision of commercial facilities population at its airport and the factors which might entice them to buy. they can go on a bus tour of Singapore. for instance. 143 . optical. They may want to make some retail purchases. 1995). Then there are transfer passengers. and showers. Most airports have business facilities such as meeting rooms. car hire. Internet access. Bangkok airport offers head and foot massage. Business travellers also tend to make high use of certain facilities such as banks. and foot reflexology services and a clinic which has become a specialist centre for laser operations to repair damaged shoulder and knee joints! BAA plc has identified four key traveller groups associated with UK nationals – each of which have different shopping characteristics. First. a significant share of whom were UK business travellers. A number of airports also have fitness and health centres. Frankfurt airport provides dental. and so on. Vienna airport. if the transfer passengers stay for longer than 4 hours. Price was the key reason given. They are unlikely to make use of facilities such as banks and post offices. and obviously will not need car hire or car parking facilities. Long-haul leisure passengers tend to spend more than shorthaul leisure travellers. and airport hotels.

however. Popular services include supermarkets. foreign currency exchange. Nationals from countries in Scandinavia. For instance. Workers from nearby office complexes. may be in conflict with such commercial strategies. toiletries). there are the timestarved frequent business flyers who will be attracted by ‘one-off’ promotions and electronic products. may find the airport facilities useful. chemists. essential shopping (restaurants/cafeterias. 2000). The growing popularity of the use of initiatives to encourage public transport use. banking services. As regards age differences. local residents will be encouraged to the airport by free parking or a certain period of free parking if a purchase is made. Factors such as nationality. particularly as they may not be able to combine a visit to their local shops and their working life at the airport. and governments agencies may wish to use airport commercial facilities. Airports may also be attractive to the local residential community as an alternative shopping centre – especially if the airport is relatively uncongested and easily accessible with good road and rail links. or from airport industrial estates. employ and attract a large number of visits – rather than just providing facilities for passengers who choose to use the airport. and perfumes will be popular. Indeed for certain large 144 . are favourites for buying such products at airport shops. which have relatively high taxes on alcohol. and dry-cleaners. who still have access to duty. although being very fond of shopping generally.Managing Airports Then there are the young upmarket leisure flyers who travel several times a year and are high spenders. are particularly good spenders at these shops. timepressed shopping (last minute/emergency purchases). distinctions can be made between entertainment shopping (gift/ novelty purchasing). purposive shopping (confectionery. insurance) and lifestyle shopping (high-quality international brand purchases) (Institute for Retail Studies. They will use the airport as a convenience place to shop (Maiden. They will make duty-free purchases if they can. They will treat themselves at airports although they will be price-conscious buyers. more independent Japanese travellers. age. Americans.and tax-free shops in Europe. They will be brand conscious and prepared to pay for quality products. Older upmarket leisure flyers again travel several times a year and have a high disposable income. staff employed by the airport operators and by the airlines. Some of these services may used by arriving passengers – another potential market sub-segment which is generally considered to have significant spending potential but has only more recently been recognized by most airports. Another way of looking at passenger shopping is by segmenting the customers by behaviour. Many airports. concessionaires. however. have traditionally not expected to do their shopping at airports and so their average spend is much lower (Maiden. and socio-economic group will also influence spending and shopping behavioural patterns. The airports have thus exploited their commercial potential of being business or commercial centres which generate. Finally. younger travellers tend to make much heavier use of facilities such as electronic entertainment zones and Internet cafés which are becoming commonplace at many airports. Surveys at Heathrow show that Norwegians. Most of the airport commercial facilities historically were provided for passengers. occupation. handling agents. convenience shopping (wide choice of known brand names). For example. Sometimes. The Japanese have the same high spend per passenger but this is due their tradition of buying gifts to take home to friends and relatives – although this is not so common for the younger. have now recognized the commercial opportunities which exist with other consumer groups which use the airport and have introduced facilities wholly or partially for their needs. hairdressers. books. 1997). 2002).

an adventure park. Amsterdam airport opened its landside shopping ‘Plaza’ of 40 shops in 1995.1). While airports can measure their potential passenger market quite accurately. light industries. unusually. and equestrian park! For the business community. local businesses. encouraging additional visits to the airport will be the last policy that they want to adopt. and shops – aiming to appeal to a number of the different consumer groups at the airport. Viewing platforms. rock climbing. additional facilities such as florists and gifts and souvenir shops. Brisbane airport in partnership with other organizations. a shopping mall of 12 000 square metres. catering. office complexes. For instance. Many of the shops are well-known quality international branded outlets which are relatively difficult to find elsewhere in the Netherlands. and business parks. 2000). is involved in buying electricity in bulk and then reselling it. Elsewhere. Air travel still holds a strange fascination for certain people and for these enthusiasts specialist shops and merchandise can be sold. consider such developments to be flouting government policy. consisting of an interactive multimedia centre. golf course. Munich airport opened its new commercial centre in 1999 consisting of offices. Visitors may also be attracted to airports if leisure facilities are provided. Airports may be particularly popular as alternative shopping centres if there are legal restrictions on shopping hours imposed on the high street. For example. cinema. They can have a dual purpose in acting as a public relations function or service to the community. a shooting range.The provision of commercial facilities airports with severe surface access problems. has created the Australia TradeCoast economic development area which uses 2 700 000 square metres of airport-owned land. For example. Many airports have also expanded beyond the boundaries of the traditional airport business by using neighbouring land for hotels. which is against out-of-town retailing. There are numerous other examples. perhaps. Opposition may also be voiced from nearby local shopping centres as has been the case at London Gatwick airport with shopping facilities at the neighbouring town of Crawley. A notable example is the new Kuala Lumpur airport. freight warehousing. such as the Friends of the Earth in the United Kingdom. and catering and retail facilities. and six office buildings on 39 000 square metres (Kim. These facilities can be shared by business passengers. 1998a). Car-parking revenue can be generated from them. guided bus tours. The new offshore Inchon International airport in Korea has a business centre with two hotels with over 1 000 rooms. The small UK regional airport of Southend relies on its property business for its survival and. an observation hill. medical clinic. and exhibitions can also be provided on a commercial basis. Within the boundary of this airport there is a Formula One motor-racing track. Munich airport visitors park is one of Bavaria’s most popular day-trip destinations. conference facilities. a ‘behind the scenes at the airport’ display. Only around 30 per cent of the Plaza’s customers are passengers (Gray. and. The good transport links which airports generally possess can make them ideal for international business events. conferences and meeting facilities can be provided (Table 6. it is much more difficult to obtain meaningful figures for the other consumers at an 145 . Environmentalists. and other customers. Frankfurt airport was one of the first airports to develop its landside shops into a shopping mall concept. distribution centres. This has a shopping area of 5400 square metres and is easily accessible by private and public transport. tours. Most major airports offer these. Meeters and greeters and other visitors to the airport will also need catering services. benefiting from downtown shopping hour limits which were only relaxed in the mid-1990s.

travel agents. Malpensa Milan airport was predicted to handle 3. 1999). Airside sales per square metre were 6. which must partly reflect traffic and cultural characteristics but also the methodology used to estimate the figures.) Workers at the airport and in the surrounding areas Local residents Visitors – meeters and greeters Visitors – air transport enthusiasts Local businesses airport. with the remaining 7 per cent being local residents and others.8 times greater than in landside shops. terminal/transfer. visitor terraces. tours. land for business development/light industry Market segment Passengers (departing/arriving.5 million visitors and meeters and greeters and 3 million staff/employees at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv (Kostelitz. At most airports. 1996).Managing Airports Table 6. and leisure services Catering. different nationalities. there were 60 000 employees at the airport (Middecke.and tax-free sales may have a major impact on this in the future. Geographical characteristics Many of the most successful airports in terms of non-aeronautical income generation are situated within Europe. gift. At these airports. This is due to a number of general factors such as the large international traffic volumes within Europe and the relatively high 146 . 16 per cent employees. 64 per cent of the landside purchasers were passengers. and other essential services Shops. and souvenir shops Specialist aviation shops. Some landside facilities such as post offices. catering. catering Office/meeting facilities. At individual airports. At Frankfurt airport. however. and in addition. there were 8. low-cost/full cost. exhibitions. 13 per cent meeters and greeters. or booking agencies may not bring in huge amounts of revenues to the airport but may be perceived as adding value to the airport product from the point of view of the passenger and other consumers. etc. 2000). the size of this market is quite varied.25 million meeters and greeters and 15 000 airport staff along with 13 million passengers (Amore. (Meznarsic. in 1999 it was assumed that in addition to the 8. A 1995 survey of 47 European airports showed that on average meeters and greeters made up 34 per cent of the customer volume (Schwarz. it is the sales in the airside area of the airport which still brings in the most revenue for the airport operator – although the abolition of intra-EU duty. chemists. 1999). catering and other essential and leisure services dependent on passenger type Convenience shops. A study of fifteen airports of varying size in Europe in 1998 showed that on average landside shops occupied 37 per cent of an airport’s retail space but only 22 per cent of total sales. For example.5 million passengers.1 The different markets for commercial facilities at airports Facilities provided Wide range of retail. 8 million other visitors. banks. business/leisure. ages. 2000). and sales per passenger were 32 times greater. it was estimated that 46 million passengers were joined by 7 million meeters and greeters. In the same year.

1). Also at hub airports. European airports have also led the way in terms of commercialization and privatization trends with the development of non-aeronautical revenues being one of the most notable outcomes of these more advanced evolutionary stages of the airport industry. emphasis is placed on swift efficient connections rather than providing passengers with the time to browse and shop. The 2001 ACI airport economics survey (ACI. For example. Concession income is the most important non-aeronautical revenue source.The provision of commercial facilities income per capita.2 Concession revenue: Brussels airport. 2001 Source: ACI.and tax-free sales. Other 26% Retail 42% Car parking 21% Catering 11% Figure 6. 2002.2). 2001 Source: Annual report. 2002) shows that European airports as a whole generated US$8 per passenger from non-aeronautical sources in 2001 compared with a global mean of US$7 (Figure 6. The dependency on the car and the lack of adequate public 10 9 8 Non-aeronautical revenue per passenger (US$) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Asia/Pacific Europe Africa/Middle North East America Caribbean/ Latin America Total Figure 6. These airports are dominated by domestic passengers who spend less.1 Non-aeronautical revenue per passenger at ACI airports by world region. According to ACI non-aeronautical revenue per passenger for North American airports is much less than in Europe – averaging only US$5. Shopping generates the most concession income and is likely to continue to do so in spite of the abolition of EU duty. shop or retail sales accounted for 42 per cent of all concession revenue at Brussels airport in 2001 (Figure 6. 147 .

Los Angeles.66 compared with US$6. tobacco and fragrance. such as pre-ordering products. where traditionally most of the sales have been associated with core products such as liquor. 1999a).3). Again the important role that the car plays can be seen when looking at the concession sources at the Washington airports (Figure 6. Duty. 2000). Singapore Changi airport has built up a worldwide reputation for good shopping – a reputation which new airports such as Kuala Lumpur’s Sepang and Hong Kong’s Chek Lap Kok also wish to acquire. which is world famous for its shopping malls. transport access to many airports means that the two single most important non-aeronautical sources is car parking (US$1. Another forerunner in airport commercial development in the United States was Portland airport which was of the first airports to introduce a mall concept to the airport with its ‘Made in Oregon’ mall (Citrinot. with a revenue per passenger value of only US$0. Branded shops and catering outlets were rarely found at US airports until this time.and tax-free revenue is generated from a much wider range of products. It is surprising that the United States. This is typical of most US airports.47 in Europe (ACI.99 per passenger).87 per passenger) and car hire (US$0. and Honolulu which handle a large proportion of Asian traffic. 148 . Car parking and car hire together accounted for two-thirds of the concession revenues compared with much less at Brussels airport. This also reduces the overall concession income per square metre for US airports. which have relatively more of the total commercial area being allocated to catering concessionaires. The situation in Asia is very different where duty. There are also arrival duty.and tax-free shops at many of the major Asian airports. Shopping is much less important. only began to fully recognize the commercial potential of airports in the 1990s – well behind the European airports.Managing Airports Other 23% Retail 6% Car parking 43% Car hire 23% Catering 5% Figure 6. in Asia the duty.3 Concession revenue: Washington airports. 2001 Source: Annual report. The turning point came about in the early 1990s at around the time when BAA plc acquired a 15-year contract to manage the commercial facilities at Pittsburgh airports. Similar practices have been introduced by BAA plc at Indianapolis and Boston airports. the ratio of catering to retail revenue was also much higher.and tax-free income is much more important. The company replaced the typical newsagent outlet and general store with well-known brands and developed other concepts which it had used with its European airports. Compared with Europe. For the Washington airports. in spite of their widespread use elsewhere in the country.and tax-free sales are not very significant at most North American airports with the exception of certain airports such as San Francisco.

Bahrain. has neither the expertise nor the commercial pressures to fully exploit the non-aeronautical opportunities at these airports. For instance. airports such as Abu Dhabi. The branding provided reassurance for the traveller. and gift shop. the ACI survey still found that the average non-aeronautical spend per passenger in this region was the highest globally – albeit that the sample was dominated by large airports such as Singapore and Seoul which handle international passengers who have higher spending patterns. In Bahrain. The specialist retail chains which had grown so quickly in the high streets started to appear at airports. particularly in South America.The provision of commercial facilities The passenger profile at these airports is changing with the upper-class highspending Asian nationals being joined by an increasing volume of Asian travellers who are of a younger average age and are from the rapidly growing middle classes. In the 1980s. The developing economic conditions in some countries. In Abu Dhabi and Dubai. more cost-conscious group of travellers (O’Conner. 1999). often closely tied to its government owners. Nevertheless. In other areas of the world. who was aware of the quality and price level of the goods within the branded outlet. This is partly because many of the airports in these regions have relatively small numbers of passengers and also because the spending power of the local population is more limited. The Middle East is an interesting area where there is a considerable amount of competition between airports and where shopping is used as a major marketing tool to attract passengers. Tie Rack. are encouraging growth in traffic and broadening the customer base for commercial facilities. Moreover. In addition. Approaches to the provision of commercial facilities . The airport management. such as in Africa and South America. Spending patterns are consequently changing. The Asian sample also included the major airports from Australia who have been developing their commercial facilities because of privatization and also due to the downward pressure on airport charges due to regulation. More variety was also introduced into the catering 149 . All three airports have a history of launching major marketing initiatives to strength passenger awareness of the shopping services and to encourage passengers to use their airports. many European airports began to recognize the attraction of speciality retail outlets and the advantages of using familiar brand names such as the Body Shop. Most airports have come a long way since they just provided the generic newspaper. the management expertise of Aer Rianta International has been brought in to run the shops. inbound passengers are now a much more diverse. prices can be kept low since the shops are operated as a division of the Department of Civil Aviation and can be subsidized. book. and Sock Shop. in a number of these countries the airports have been privatized and have brought in experienced European and North American airport managers who are introducing many tried and tested commercial strategies which have been used elsewhere. and Dubai have developed extensive duty-free facilities. the traditional duty-free shop with its internationally branded products and the bland catering services with no recognizable identity. there generally tends to be less reliance on non-aeronautical income. with more emphasis being placed on ‘value-for-money’ goods.

while the new terminal at Santiago airport in Chile tries to depict Chile’s diverse geography from desert to Antarctic conditions (Byrd. particular business travellers who are seeking a quick transit through the terminal. and fragrance shops and replace them with a new retail concept based on the large Parisian avenues called Passenger City. or Parma ham from Italy. favour a more streamlined airport service. and Christofle but also shops representing the tradition of Paris and France such as Musées de France and others selling gourmet French products. Madrid airport has its ‘Palaces and Museum’s’ outlet which has merchandise inspired by Spain’s culture and heritage. The development of airport terminals into shopping centres has not been universally popular. Hence. chocolates from Belgium. most airports are trying to blend together famous brand outlets with local outlets which can give the airport some kind of identity and can distinguish it from other airports. Some airports have chosen to enforce and promote an airport brand rather than the individual brands of the high street retailers. For instance. which took up considerable valuable floor space. the widespread adoption of branding at airports has meant that there is now greater similarity between the shopping facilities at many airports and less diversity. at Amsterdam airport all the shops in the airside area are branded under the ‘See Buy Fly’ identity and the outlets are grouped by product type such as electronics. Certain passenger types.Managing Airports outlets by again bringing in famous brand names as McDonald’s and Burger King. confectionery and so on. 2000). Aeroport de Paris is just one example of an airport company which launched a new retail strategy in 1994. the large sit-down restaurant. Brand fatigue can become a problem – particularly for the frequent traveller who can find that airport shopping can become rather dull and boring. The character and the culture of the city or the country which the airport serves can be represented by selling local merchandise or gourmet products such as cheese from Switzerland. Cartier. In this area AdP put in world-famous brands such as Hermes. fragrances. Vancouver airport is themed to represent the physical characteristics and cultural heritage of British Columbia. Amsterdam Schiphol and Singapore Changi airports are good illustrations of such a policy. In most cases. However. The skill is in finding the correct balance between international recognized global brand retailers and local shops and catering outlets which give the airport an individual identity. The airport operator decided that it would get rid of its traditional duty. rather than according to who sells them.and tax-free. Manchester airport has its ‘Donkey Stone’ pub which is stocked with the local beer Boddingtons and it has a Manchester United football club shop. sometimes competing individual outlets. All sold products are placed in bright yellow branded shopping bags which have become a very recognizable feature in Europe and beyond. at Las Vegas airport a number of the outlets are themed after hotels in the city and at Orlando airport there are shops representing the major theme parks in the area. For example. A flavour of the local environment can also be provided by theming the commercial facilities. Airlines have been responding to these needs by developing automatic ticketing and self check-in which theoretically should speed up the travel process 150 . The catering area began to be split into a number of different. Hong Kong’s Chep Lap Kok airport tries to reflect its unique ‘East meets West’ culture with a wide range of international retail shops combined with both Asian and western restaurants and fast-food outlets. All the staff wear the same uniform. became a relic of the past.

is difficult to achieve if the airport is cluttered with retail and catering signage and branding.The provision of commercial facilities and reduce the time a passenger has to spend in an airport before departure (Conway. was aggrieved that their request for greater space in the gate lounge areas had been refused although extra space had been provided for duty-free outlets (Monopolies and Mergers Commission. in 2001. have made ‘shopping announcements’ instead.EU duty. the perceived value of such initiatives tends to fall as they are adopted by more and more operators. 1999). 151 . 2000). As with high street shopping. BA complained about the insistence of BAA for compensation due to dilution of its car parking income if BA provided fly-through check-in facilities and also that first class passengers had to be routed through BAA’s retail facilities on their way to their airline lounge were further examples of the priority which BAA gave to commercial facilities. There have been claims that passengers have delayed flights because they have been lost in the duty-free shops – so some airports have now placed flight information systems in the commercial outlets as well. This has been partly as a result of airports employing professional retail managers from the high street rather than always making internal appointments. Clear signage to gates. 1996). Some concessionaires are appointing service assistants to greet customers in an attempt to make the shopping experience a more personal one (Anderson. As well as adopting high street preferences for speciality shopping and branded products. a few airports. Some airlines have also complained that airports have been giving too much attention to developing commercial facilities while ignoring basic operational requirements. the See Buy Fly retailers are partners in KLM’s Flying Dutchman frequent-flyer programme. in the mid-1990s at Heathrow airport BA complained about the lack of airline information desks at the entrance to the Terminal 1 departure area because the space was being occupied with commercial facilities. particularly since the demise of intra. For instance. More recently. for example. However. a major charter airline. The airlines. Similarly Airtours continued to complain that pressure to maximise retail income at Gatwick had led to inadequate provision of passenger facilities such as seating and toilets and that additional shops had distracted passengers from making their way to the gates (Competition Commission. while at Gatwick airport Airtours. 2002). airports have also been applying other tried and tested retail practices. while welcoming the fact that non-aeronautical income can reduce an airport’s reliance on aeronautical charges. the schemes not only provide the airport operators with a mechanism to encourage repeat buying but also enable them to find out about their customers and communicate with them when new products and services are being introduced.and tax-free shopping. Airport operators such as BAA plc and Aer Rianta have encouraged loyalty purchases at airports by introducing loyalty cards such as BAA plc worldpoints and the Dublin airport executive club. which have further increased resentment to airport shopping from certain passengers. A correct balance between commercial and operational space is needed so that the non-aeronautical revenue is optimized without compromising the operational effectiveness – but this is no easy matter. At Amsterdam airport. have periodically expressed concerns that the shopping function of the airport has interfered with the normal flows of passengers through the airports. While flight departure ‘tannoy’ announcements have long since been abandoned at most airports because they have proved ineffective and annoying.

For example. now participate in ‘airport shopping’ without leaving the comfort of living room! Such a development will no longer mean that airport shopping has to be limited to what the passenger can carry. At Vancouver airport. They may be better able to plan their shopping in the limited time period which they have available. Many airport websites now give details of the commercial facilities which are available and so passengers can be more prepared when they visit the airport. with airports increasingly being seen as an important advertising medium. E-commerce may also offer other non-aeronautical revenue opportunities for airports in the form of web advertising and the selling of travel-related products. Special insurance had to be taken out and the floor had to strengthened! However. research undertaken in 2002 based around a fictitious brand Bleu showed the total awareness of the brand was 31 per cent after just 1 month (BAA. For example. Short-term large-scale promotions are also becoming more popular such as the 4000-litre. Advertising is also an area where airports can generate a significant amount of revenue. 2002a). plasma screens and the sponsorship of airport furniture such as clocks. 2 No discussion about retail activities would be complete without references to the impact of the Internet and e-shopping. For example. and cosmetics will be no higher than at other major airports in the Asia Pacific region. trolleys. however. 2002). and can achieve far greater widespread coverage. baggage carousels. scrolling billboards. A full refund or exchange will be given for any goods whether they are faulty. Advertising has become much more very varied and interactive with for example. that many purchases at airports are made on impulse and form part of the ‘leisure travel experience’. Vienna airport had a large ‘T’ in the terminal advertising the telecommunication industry but research showed that passengers did not like this and wanted airport logos instead (Bates.Managing Airports Moreover. It must be remembered. These are seen as particularly important because of the perceived expensive ‘rip-off’ reputation of many airports. merchandise can be delivered to home addresses and so consumers can. a refund of double the price difference will be given. or unwanted purchases. Information provided on the web can complement or replace more traditional promotional methods. 152 . tobacco. the Internet must clearly be seen as a threat because there is a whole new range of discounted goods which are now available and easy to access. Prices for other goods will be no higher than established downtown shops. If higher prices are found at the airport. In some ways. The Internet can also bring many opportunities for airports if strategies are developed in conjunction with the terminal facilities. and Internet kiosks as well as the traditional billboards and light boxes. 7-tonne aquarium filled with 2000 tropical fish which was installed in Heathrow’s Terminal 4 to promote gin in 2000. Singapore Changi airport has two such guarantees: 1 The price of liquor. such as Amsterdam airport’s practice of supplying travel agents and KLM offices with their ‘See Buy Fly’ catalogues. At an increasing number of airport. In the case of BAA plc and some other airports. airports have also introduced value and money-back guarantees which have been commonplace on the high street for many years. perfumes. it is important with airport advertising not to inhibit ease of movement through the airport or to irritate the passengers. products can be pre-ordered for collection at the airport. aboriginal arts and crafts can be bought on the airport website. inappropriate. in effect.

1998). The contractual details When airport operators contract out their commercial facilities they usually enter into a concession contract with the companies providing the services. particularly smaller ones. Such an arrangement will be relatively low risk for the airport operator which will tend to have little responsibility over the commercial facilities.and tax-free sales. since this revenue stream will be linked to the concessionaire’s sales rather than profit volumes. Alternatively. These have been used for car parking facilities at airports for many years. such as duty. The turnover fee may vary from as little as 5 per cent for some landside commercial activities to up to 50 per cent for facilities with higher profit margins – notably duty. Some airports.The provision of commercial facilities The commercial contract and tender process There are various ways in which commercial facilities can be provided at airports. such as 153 . Most airports have chosen to contract out these services to specialist retail and catering companies. However. For Aer Rianta this is primarily because it has built up much expertise in this area being directly involved with such operations since the first shops were opened in the 1940s.and tax-free sales in 1999. may opt to offer their airports as a total retail package to a master concessionaire who will then in turn seek specialist operators to run the individual outlets. there is no guarantee that the concessionaire will aim to maximize its sales as it may be more concerned with profit margins. the airport operator may choose to enter into a management contract with the retail or catering company. This typically involves the concessionaire paying a percentage of sales to the airport operator often in addition to agreeing a minimum annual guaranteed amount. Other examples include a number of regional UK airports.and tax-free products. It is currently not a popular approach for other commercial activities but the idea has generated some interest – particularly since the abolition of intra-EU duty. There are a few companies. The airport operator will usually only provide the shell for the outlet and it will be up to the concessionaire to provide the capital investment for fitting out the facility. BAA plc only adopted this approach in 1990s to enable it to have total control over the whole retailing process from suppliers to warehouses to customer purchases and to provide it with opportunities for international expansion. such as Aer Rianta and BAA plc who have chosen to provide some facilities themselves. This lower-risk option is usually chosen because the airport operator does not have specialist skills required or a detailed understanding of the market environment. Car parking tends to be the only commercial activity which is provided by a substantial number of airport operators themselves since it generally requires less specialist skills and also greater capital investment by the airport operator. The airport operator will be assured of a certain amount of revenues. BAA plc used this type of contract with its duty-free retailers in the 1990s before it operated these facilities itself. A typical length for the concession will be around 5 years. The fee may also increase at a faster rate than the level of turnover in the belief that concessionaires will be in a better position to pay higher fees once all basic fixed costs have been covered (Freathy and O’Connell. although this can vary quite considerably and there may be options for renewal.

The airport operator may be able to influence some of these factors – but by no means all of 154 . financial reliability). 1999). entered into a number of joint venture agreements in order to provide commercial facilities in the CIS and the Middle East. This has led to a tendency to overbid in offers. There are many other factors which will also play a role. however. for example. etc. The objectives of this code was to facilitate tender processes by recommending standardized tender procedures and to establish generally recognized selection criteria based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative factors. vision. The concessionaire will loss money and have to renegotiate conditions with the airport operator or be forced to abandon its airport operations completely. This type of arrangement can be on a profit. such a situation will not be sustainable in the longer term. Such a practice is not so widespread in some other more developing areas but is usually the most effective way of ensuring the best contractual arrangements. The problem of overbidding was one of the key reasons behind ACI Europe’s attempt to develop a tender code (ACI-Europe.Managing Airports Birmingham airport. specific experience. 2000). They have to work together following common objectives to optimize revenue and profit levels and sharing the risk. Aer Rianta. 2000). and Asia an increasing number of concession contracts are automatically put out to tender when they come up for renewal. and such an approach may be costly in management time both while the contract is being negotiated and once the agreement is in place (Gray. North America. While in the short run this will benefit the airport operator with high levels of concession revenue. in some countries such as Singapore and Israel they are required to do so by law. in recent years. A third option is to have a joint venture arrangement when the airport operator enters into a partnership with the specialist retailer or some other organization to provide the commercial facilities. A points system was developed which considered three different areas. Examples of this practice at home airports are relatively rare – Amsterdam airport used to have such an arrangement with its catering facilities.e. turnover forecast. shop design.). Within Europe. the concession fee paid) and the more qualitative terms (i. innovation. While selection criteria will vary from airport to airport. This may not be an easy path to go down. quality. particularly in Europe. There are perhaps more opportunities for this type of arrangement when an airport operator is wishing to expand its involvement to other airports. which now have profit share style management agreements for several concessionaires (Savage.or sales-sharing basis or a mixture of the two. appraisal of the business plan (market analysis and product strategy. Some airports will just choose the bid which will generate the highest revenue – indeed. generally the evaluation of offers will consider both the financial terms (i. namely appraisal of the tenderer’s qualities (size and range of activities. It should enable the airport operator and the concessionaire to develop a much more longer-term relationship with each other than is typical with a traditional concession contract. Factors driving success Choosing the right concessionaire and negotiating the most appropriate contractual agreement is crucial if an airport is going to fully exploit its commercial opportunities. organization/personnel/investments) and assessment of the concession fee offered.e.

Understanding the mix of passengers and planning the facilities to match as closely as possible their needs and preferences is paramount to maximizing the revenue generating opportunities and return on investment. and Hong Kong. Purchasing patterns will also be affected by delays at an airport. A delay of an hour or so for a departure slot may give passengers extra time to visit the shops or catering outlets. space and design of facilities. Factors to consider include growth in gross domestic product (GDP) and consumer expenditure. Successful concession planning. outlet size and mix is very important as is the location. at least when passenger purchases are being considered. such as long queues for passport control. Small airports can only really offer the basic facilities such as a duty-free shop. Clearly. In addition. newsagent. there are other airports. the UK carriers Airtours and Britannia. There is also competition from the in-flight sales of airlines. For instance. an airport handling predominantly domestic business travellers is likely to be in a less favourable position for generating commercial income than an airport with many long-haul leisure passengers. In Europe and North America. more specialist shops can be added until finally the airport can be considered as a shopping centre (Jones. and foreign currency fluctuations. and catering outlets. particularly in Asia. One 155 . concession planners get involved at a much too late stage of the terminal design and development process (Gray. allow prebooking of goods in order to catch some business before the passengers can see what the airport competitor has on offer. competition exists with discounted electrical and other high street businesses and from the growth of factory outlets. and Bahrain and some Asian airports serving destinations such as Singapore. which can come from a variety of different sources. for instance. 2002). inflation rates. Walsh. Just as in the high street. thought to be around 5 million passengers. Also small airports with limited passenger traffic are at a distinct disadvantage since they will not have the critical mass. First. E-shopping. However. As the airport grows. Notable examples of airports which are in a particularly competitive situation are those in the Gulf such as Dubai. These airlines. security or immigration will have the reverse effect. particularly the charter airlines.The provision of commercial facilities them. Then there is the competition for airport commercial facilities. This has meant that commercial facilities very often are not ideally situated or have been added on later as an afterthought. 1997). and reduce or even eliminate the dwell time that passengers have for browsing in the shops and having something to eat or drink. Abu Dhabi. Such a delay may be popular with the commercial department but not with anyone else! On the other hand. a large proportion of the airports which are in use today were designed without taking sufficient account of the commercial opportunities which airport terminals can offer. 1998b. is quite likely to develop into a major competitor as well. Airports go through different evolutionary stages as regards their commercial income depending on their size. competition can come from downtown tax-free outlets for international travellers. Spending by all passengers will be influenced by the general economic climate. which are allowed in a number of countries. lengthy operational delays within the terminal. All too often. is all about providing facilities close to passenger flows and not in areas which are ‘dead ends’ or are too far from passengers’ view. level of taxation. necessary to diversify and support specialist retail and catering outlets (Gethin. 2000). the nature of the airport traffic needs to be taken into account. Kuala Lumpur. A change in the flow line of passengers can have a dramatic impact on concessionaire’s sales. as previously discussed.

Select Service Partner found that typically catering income accounts for 2–3 per cent of airport income but 20–25 per cent of perceived image (Allett. Shops and catering outlets have to be large enough so as not to give a congested and overcrowded image.60 for international passengers (Maiden. At some airports. Catering outlets can compete with passengers’ dwell time in shops and so they need to be positioned near to the retail facilities but must not interrupt the flow. This is partly due to a drive for 156 . be on the same floor levels as the departure gates. BAA plc has estimated that in the domestic lounge in Terminal 3 at London Heathrow the average dwell time for economy passengers is 49 minutes compared with 27 minutes for business class and 13 minutes for first-class passengers (Toms. Landside shopping is different as convenient locations not only for passengers. this has caused unnecessary duplication of facilities.Managing Airports option. but also for staff. with their concessionaire partners. They also will not want to walk long distances to be able to shop. 2000). as having to go through the inconvenience of changing levels may deter some passengers from visiting the commercial facilities (Doganis. but not too large that consumers may be deterred by an appearance of inactivity and empty space. such as Munich airport. Whilst catering tends to account for a fairly small share of total airport commercial revenues. Different types of passengers spend different average dwell times in the lounge. The amount of time a passenger has at an airport will obviously influence their shopping behaviour.80 for domestic passengers and £1. adopted by Brussels airport to ensure that passengers pass by all outlets. The outlets should. it can have a major impact on a passengers image and perception of the airport. resulting in reduced custom for each outlets. BAA plc has also calculated that the incremental airport spend for each additional 10 minutes available time is £0. Passengers also need to feel relaxed when they shop and so they tend to have a preference in buying from outlets which are situated within the vicinity of the departure gates – once all essential processes such as check-in and security screening have been completed. located in secondary sites or because subsequent extensions of the terminal have significantly shifted the main direction of passenger flows. is to place popular outlets like dutyand tax-free shops in the ‘weak corners’ outside the main flow lines and the less popular outlets in the ‘strong corners’ (Haugaard. meeters and greeters and local residents. Thus. because very often facilities have to be duplicated which can be costly until there is sufficient throughput of passengers to support all the facilities. Particular problems can arise from terminals which are of a linear design. 1998). Problems have also occurred for airports in European countries which have signed up to the Schengen agreement and have abolished immigration controls with other Schengen countries. 1992). This was the situation with the fourth terminal at London Heathrow Airport when it first opened. Measuring non-aeronautical performance Airports. ideally. must be found. 2000). Airports serving low-cost carriers often find that the rapid growth in passenger numbers which occurred makes it very difficult in the short-term to provide adequate and appropriately situation commercial facilities. 2001). have become increasingly active in monitoring their non-aeronautical performance. many airports cannot maximize their commercial spend because their facilities may have been inappropriately designed as at Narita airport in Japan.

the volume and Table 6.09 1. The latter measure has the advantage in that it can be used to compare airport performance with other retail facilities at other sites such as shopping malls. 2002) In the 2000–01 research thirty one major airports in Europe. Making inter-airport comparisons is difficult because of the commercially sensitive nature of the information required and lack of reliable industrywide data.37 0.92 0. the Geneva airport survey found that 46 per cent of respondents felt that airport prices were too high (Geneva Airport. Africa. with experience of assessing retail performance at other locations.02 0.45 5 885 4 224 3 361 1 003 17 914 6 786 3 278 1 596 902 21 538 3 435 2 861 2 066 1 249 25 000 Source: Competition Commission (2002).24 0.2 shows concession income per passenger and per square metre for BAA London airports.58 1.73 0. ownership model. In addition.2 Concession income at BAA London airports. Table 6. By way of illustration. 2002).20 0. For example. in 2001. Asia Pacific.12 2. These included geographic location.12 2.31 0.15 0.32 0. Consumer satisfaction levels and perceptions of value for money are assessed by many airports through customer surveys (as described in Chapter 4). are being bought in to manage airport facilities. passenger penetration levels and sales per square metre to analyse the economic performance of their commercial facilities. and North America were investigated.39 0. and analysed various factors which helped explain the comparative results which were obtained.68 0.24 0.26 0. Duty-free generated by far the largest amount of income per passenger and square metre at Heathrow and Gatwick due to long-haul passengers – but this was not the case at Stansted with its different passenger mix. 157 .27 0.The provision of commercial facilities better performance monitoring of all aspects of the industry and also because retail experts. One of the most comprehensive benchmarking studies is the Airport Retail study which has been undertaken since 1998 (Favotto. The study looked at performance indicators such as retail revenue per passenger and retail revenue per square metre both airside and landside.58 0. airports use indicators such as sales per passenger. 2000–01 Heathrow Concesssion income per pax (£) Duty-free Other airside Landside Catering Bureaux de change Other Total Concession income per square metre Duty-free Other airside Landside Catering Bureaux de change Gatwick Stansted 0. The relative small amount of income per square metre which was generated from catering facilities is typical for most airports.37 0.

and tax-free shopping with many airports substantially increasing the area dedicated to such shops and offering a much more diverse and varied product selection.and tax-free sales would be abolished on 1 January. One of the indicators used. New York. It was argued that EU consumers were subsidizing not only duty. The first duty. It was originally intended that all EU duty. and electrical equipment is not charged) and duty-free shopping (when the higher ‘duty’ tax on alcohol and tobacco is excluded). By the 1960s. the number.and tax-free outlets but also air and ferry travellers. 1998). and Luxembourg.Managing Airports nature of traffic. In response. other airports had opened similar shops and had started to expand the range of merchandise on offer. This shows the dominance of Europe among the best performing airports (Heathrow. most VAT-free sales are not allowed. Moreover.and tax-free airport outlet was opened in 1947 at Shannon airport in Ireland. and Paris Charles de Gaulle) and North America among the worst performing airports (Montreal. Portugal. and the area devoted to retail. and Dallas Fort Worth). density of outlets. The 1990s were a period of uncertainty for most EU airports. Value added tax rates within Europe vary from above 20 per cent in Denmark.and tax-free shops will thus very much depend on their country of origin. This was primarily in response to the rapid increase in passenger traffic at that time and particularly the growth in package holidays and other forms of leisure travel. tobacco and perfume products to camcorders. These shops were designed to be attractive to transatlantic passengers on refuelling stops (Freathy and O’Connell. and perfumes and a few other items. is presented in Figure 6. ferry companies. and Norway to around 15 per cent in Spain. In addition. another shop was opened in Prestwick airport in Scotland. such as rail. watches and jewelry. Spain. Gatwick. The rationale was that it was illogical and incompatible to have such a system when the EU should be behaving as a single market with open borders. Then came a retail boom in duty. Duty taxes are again highest in the Scandinavian countries and lowest in Greece. ranging from the traditional alcohol. mix. The ending of EU duty. these shopping privileges were considered to distort competition between modes of transport with no access to these sales. and other fashion accessories. 1993 as the single market was ‘born’. clothes. few passengers are actually totally aware of the differences between tax-free shopping (when the sales/value added tax – VAT – on goods such as perfumes and cosmetics. In some countries. tobacco. the airports. In 1951. This is in spite of the expansion in the range and type of other retail activities on offer. sports clothing. Sweden. and to be unfair trading in relation to downtown shopping.4 with the average value indexed at 100. was one of the first airports to offer taxfree electronics and photographic material. and associated manufacturing industries collectively argued that duty-free privileges did not distort or 158 . and Italy. location. charter airlines. for example. retail revenue per square metre. The shops sold a small range of alcohol.and tax-free sales Background For much of the travelling public. Consumer perception of value for money at airport duty. size. Amsterdam Schiphol airport. such as Austria and Germany.and tax-free shopping and nothing much else. airport retailing is all about duty. Vienna. Copenhagen.

4 Airport retail revenue per square metre in 2000–01 Europe North America a en re ha ge Ka n ns Sy ai dn C ey ha rle N ar s de ita G Va aul nc le ou v Br er is ba Si n ng e a Am po st re er M dam el bo ur Br ne us s Fr els an kf In u di an rt ap M St ol is oc an kh ch es ol te m Ar r la nd a Sa n O Fr rly M on anc t i H rea sco ar ts l Do fie r ld val At la nt a Pe rth N Y M g ad rid rou D p al la Bar s Fo aja s rt W or th Vi en na Jo C ai h r M ann ns on es tre bu al r M g ira be l Asia-Pacific and Africa Average . BA Figure 6.159 Index value (100 = Average) 100 150 200 250 300 350 H 50 0 ea G at w ic k p ou gr ’H th ro w C hi ca go O op C A Source: Favotto (2002).

The IDFC launched a major awareness campaign at airport terminals. a disbelief that abolition would really occur in 1999 meant that when 1 July arrived many airports were not nearly as ready as they could have been. Through active lobbying of government ministers.and tax-free sales in many cases was much greater than was expected. almost all governments had been persuaded in favour of another 30-month extension to the abolition date in order for the industry to be adequately prepared. Airport strategies In the first few months after the abolition of duty. looking at the impacts on the airport.and tax-free sales was only one contributing factor.and tax-free profits. which would have a knock-on effect throughout entire national economies. It was argued that this large-sales loss would fundamentally alter the cost structure and profit potential of airport retailing. plastic bags. Anti-abolition lobbyists (airports. By 1999. with not enough effort being channelled into preparing for change if abolition were to occur. however. The European Travel Research Foundation (ETRF) commissioned various studies to support the lobbyists’ arguments. charter. 1999. The immediate impact of loss of EU duty. ferries and in other public places. this meant that on 30 June 1999. Admittedly. was not convinced by the arguments.Managing Airports hamper the development of the single market and that abolition would result in millions of jobs being lost. however. 1997). 1997. and in leaflets. (Air Transport Group. Messages such as ‘Act now to keep your Duty Free’. and other bodies such as charter carriers and regional carriers associations. This was because the negotiation position with suppliers would be weakened. but the prospect of no EU duty. This research concluded that EU airports would lose at least 40–46 per cent of their total duty. ferry companies. and the Federation of Transport Workers Unions. Generally. Since unanimity among EU members was needed to approve the extension period. the proponents to the abolition managed to achieve a six-anda-half-year extension of these sales until 30 June. a number of airports had broadened their retail mix and diversified into new activities in the 1990s.and tax-free sales it quickly became apparent that the airport industry had focused too much of its attention on fighting the campaign to save the sales. and low-cost scheduled airline industry.and tax-free sales and at least 58–64 per cent of duty. During this reprieve period the arguments for and against abolition were hotly debated. The Danish government. and so on) co-ordinated their work through the International Duty Free Confederation (IDFC) which was based in Brussels.and tax-free sales were abolished. ETRF. and customer choice would be reduced with suppliers less eager to provide marketing support and trial new products (Institute for Retail Studies. intra-EU duty. It was claimed that the cost of travel would have to rise substantially to compensate for the loss of income. 1997). This was largely the result of airports being 160 . the gross margin achieved on duty/tax sales would fall and lessen investment opportunities. which had led to this development. ‘1999: Travelling would never be the same again’ or ‘Duty-Free: It doesn’t have to go’ were displayed on placards. manufacturers. as well as changing consumer expectations and retail trends. Also companies such as BAA plc and Aer Rianta had bought duty-free concerns outside Europe in an aim to grow their businesses in areas which would be unaffected by EU developments.

3 Short-term impact of the loss of intra-EU duty. in partnerships with their retail concessionaires.and tax-free shopping would no longer be available after 30 June 1999. the situation improved after the initial reaction to abolition. Some airports are also selling a selection of liquor products at duty-free prices but at most airports cheaper tobacco is no longer available to EU passengers. Tax paid revenue up by 12%. Landing fees raised by 58 pence per passenger (around 12% increase) Duty/tax free revenue down by 46% in 1999–2000 compared with 1998–9 Duty/tax free revenue down by 22% in 1999 compared with 1998 Duty/tax free shopping centre revenue (includes duty/tax free) down by 23% in 1999 compared with 1998. rather than from January to December. Other concession income up 7% Shops sales down 44% and related profits 70% July–December compared to January–June Duty/tax free revenue down by 26% in 1999–2000 compared with 1998–9. a number of airports launched major marketing campaigns. Source: Compiled by author from annual accounts. At many airports passengers for both EU and non-EU destinations share the same retail terminal area and so the airports have had to devise Table 6. retail income was down by 20 per cent in July 1999 compared with the equivalent amount in 1998.and tax-free sales on airport revenues Airport Amsterdam Aer Rianta BAA Birmingham Brussels Copenhagen Impact on revenues Duty/tax free revenue down 12% in 1999 compared with 1998. Total sales (including duty/tax free) revenue up by 11% Shopping revenue (duty/tax free and paid) down by 5% in 1999 compared with 1998 Dusseldorf Paris Vienna Note: For UK airports the impact is likely to be greater since the financial year runs from April to March. The key message that most were trying to get across was that there were still bargains to be found within the EU and that outside of this area the situation remained unchanged (Newhouse. Other concession revenue up by 14% Landing charges up 15% in 1999 and 13% in 2000 Duty/tax free revenue down by 20% in 1999 compared with 1998 Duty/tax free revenue constant but spend per passenger down by 6% in 1999 compared with 1998. 2000). While for many airports. The travelling public was sold the message that duty.The provision of commercial facilities victims of their own very successful awareness campaigns. explaining what passengers travelling to EU destinations and beyond could and could not buy at airport shops. To address the confusion among passengers. 161 . At BAA airports for instance. Many of the EU airports. the loss of revenue within the first year of operation after this development was in many cases considerable (Table 6. and hence stayed away from all airport shops – even those passengers who could still use them.3). have absorbed the value added or sales tax themselves – effectively offering the merchandise still at ‘tax-free’ prices.

Managing Airports

some method for identifying the merchandise which is on sale to these two types of passengers. At some airports, for example, at BAA airports, goods which have been displayed in areas which are colour coded blue are made available to EU passengers while products in green areas are available to non-EU passengers. Understandably, many passengers were confused by such a system and this has prompted the airports to provide more explanatory literature to clarify the situation. Elsewhere, a number of European concessionaires, airports, and ferry companies have joined together to form the Travel Value Association. All these organizations have adopted the common and recognizable ‘Travel Value – Buy more for less’ trade mark on their shops, merchandising and advertising in order to indicate to the travelling public that there are still good savings to be made when travelling. This organization also embarked on a large advertising campaign between Easter and autumn 2000. Some major airports such as Frankfurt, Vienna, and Dublin are members of this association. At the same time the airports were anxious to put across the message that duty- and tax-free sales still exist, as normal, for non-EU passengers. At Manchester airport, for example, large notices were placed at check-in informing non-EU passengers of this fact. Airport web sites gave details about what passengers can buy. Non-EU European airports where duty- and tax-free sales can still be made have also been trying to capitalize on this situation. Such strategies have undoubtedly enticed some passengers back to the shops and softened the blow of the loss of EU duty free. However, EU airports have still been very much aware of the need to increase the volume of retail income if they are going to make up for the lower profit margins on EU sales. Some airports, such as Copenhagen and BAA have introduced arrivals shops in the baggage reclaim area or after customs where discount purchases can be made while others have arranged for goods to be ordered on the outbound part of a journey and to be collected on return. Airports with significant amounts of domestic traffic have been making these passengers aware that for the first time they, too, can have access to discount shopping at airports. Before abolition in June 1999, it was widely predicted by the ERDF and other bodies that aeronautical charges would have to be substantially increased to compensate for the reduction in non-aeronautical revenue. Only a few airports have adopted this strategy of increasing their dependency on aeronautical fees. Copenhagen raised its charges in January 1999 and 2000 by 15 and 13 per cent, respectively – although this airport had not raised their charges for a number of years prior to this. Aer Rianta wound up its discount scheme for new traffic and carriers. BAA plc’s regulator allowed an increase in charges of 70 pence per passenger – equivalent to an increase of around 15 per cent. In the end BAA plc raised charges by 58 pence per passenger. By contrast the regulator did not allow Manchester to raise its charges even if it so desired. Other airports such as Amsterdam, Frankfurt, and Paris decided not to increase their charges to compensate for the loss of non-aeronautical revenue. It is difficult to assess the more longer-term impact because of the difficulty of disintangling the effects of the loss of duty free from all the other developments at the airport – particularly 11 September 2001. However, Figure 6.5 shows that the share of non-aeronautical revenue has generally decreased at European airports since 1998 and clearly one of the contributory factors must be the ending of duty free sales. It is interesting to note that Geneva airport, which is not in the EU, maintained a constant share of non-aeronautical revenue over the years in question
162

The provision of commercial facilities

70 60 Non-aeronautical share (%) 50 40 30 20 10 0
Am st er da m s Ba el -M ul ho us e rm Bi in gh am C op en ha ge n Fr an kf ur t G en ev a G la sg ow Lo nd on G at w ic k Lo nd on H ea th ro w M an ch es te

1998 1999 2000 2001

Figure 6.5 Non-aeronautical revenue share (%) at European airports, 1998–2001
Source: Airport accounts.

unlike all the other airports. Table 6.4 also shows that non-aeronautical revenue income per passenger at UK airports went down by 10–30 per cent in many cases. Again it is impossible to identify how much of this reduction was attributable to duty- and tax-free losses – albeit that this was before 11 September 2001. For many airports as well as a fall in overall non-aeronautical revenues, the abolition of EU sales has meant a fundamental change in the mix in revenues from different market segments. For example, at Copenhagen airport, the passenger split is roughly 70 per intra-EU and 30 per cent non-EU. Before 1999, the retail split mirrored these passenger shares but now 30 per cent of sales come from intra-EU passengers and 70 per cent from non-EU passengers (Bork, 2002).

e Vi nn a r

The impact of 11 September 2001
Shortly after the abolition of EU duty free, airport commercial managers had to face a new challenge, namely the impact of 11 September 2001. There are a number of factors to consider which have had different influences on the airports. First, there were obviously less passengers to generate commercial revenues. However, the overall impact of this decline depended very much on the type of passengers using the airport. For example, post 11 September 2001, the actual concession revenue per passenger from retail facilities at BAA airports went up from 4.12 to 4.19 because of the decline in US passengers who typically spend relatively little at airports (BAA, 2002b). Revenues have also declined because of the additional time being spent during check-in and other processes because of more stringent security requirements. However, in some cases passengers arrived earlier at the airports because of security requirements and actually had more time to shop. There have been examples of catering spend going up because traditional airlines have cut
163

Managing Airports
Table 6.4 Changes in non-aeronautical revenue at UK airports, 1998–2001 Airport Terminal pax (thousands) Non-aero income ( 1000) (£) Non-aero income per pax (£) Change 2001/ 1998 (%)

1999/98 2001/00 1999/8 Belfast International Birmingham International Bristol International Cardiff International East Midlands Edinburgh Glasgow Humberside International Leeds Bradford International Liverpool London Gatwick London Heathrow London Luton London Stansted Manchester Newcastle International Southampton International Teesside International 2 669 6 716 1 824 1 250 2 145 4 614 6 566 434 1 409 936 29 555 61 037 4 385 7 535 17 405 2 988 754 674 3 175 7 712 2 210 1 547 2 237 5 645 7 022 461 1 608 2 071 32 242 64 670 6 364 12 399 19 112 3 376 869 757 8 493 31 599 13 928 5 441 11 279 13 512 26 417 2 622 5 288

2001/00 1999/8 2001/00 11 022 31 132 19 482 4 864 9 698 16 569 24 215 3 668 4 824 3.18 4.71 7.64 4.35 5.26 2.93 4.02 6.04 3.75 3.47 4.04 8.82 3.14 4.34 2.94 3.45 7.96 3.00 2.30 5.99 8.22 4.84 5.17 5.89 3.21 7.76 2.69 9.1 14.2 15.4 27.8 17.6 0.2 14.3 31.7 20.1 13.9 28.5 1.8 21.3 27.3 12.2 10.7 15.3 32.8

2 501 4 767 2.67 247 600 193 000 8.38 493 100 531 600 8.08 26 946 30 771 6.15 53 558 64 109 7.11 116 806 112 569 6.71 10 736 10 834 3.59 5 071 6 740 6.73 2 700 2 038 4.01

Source: Centre for Regulated Industries (CRI).

back on their in-flight refreshments and low cost carriers, who provide minimal or no catering, have expanded their market share since 11 September 2001. Some airports have been quite innovative in providing catering kiosks and carts for passengers who are waiting in long security queues. However, these security queues at some airports have blocked important retail areas which previously had been in prime locations. It is therefore very difficult to disintangle all these different factors to assess the overall impact on commercial revenues. In the United States, it is estimated that overall non-aeronautical revenues declined by 4.5 per cent in 2002 compared to 2001 for the whole airport industry (ACI-North America, 2002). For individual airports, the impacts were very varied. For example, at Amsterdam airport, prior to 11 September 2001 concession revenues were up 3 per cent but then in the remaining months of the 2001 they were 4.8 per cent lower (Schiphol Group, 2002). At Brussels airports similarly commercial sales were up by 5 per cent before September 2001. They then fell considerably and in the worse month – November – were down by 20 per cent. This was due to a decline in passenger numbers, particularly with the demise of Sabena and more stringent security measures which reduced the dwell time. Also the airport refused entry to the terminal to any visitor that was not a passenger because of the social unrest following the announcement of Sabena’s collapse and so clearly this eliminated the spend from this important market segment (Brussels International Airport Company, 2002).
164

The provision of commercial facilities

Some airports, notably in the United States, have had to redesign many of their commercial facilities in order to conform with new security measures, which has been costly and has led to a decline in non-aeronautical revenues. For example, previously meeters and greeters had been permitted to accompany passengers right up until the gates but this practice has now been stopped. Most of the commercial facilities were near to the gates and so this has caused a reduction in the commercial revenue generated by non-passengers. Also car parks near to the terminal which generated large amounts of income have had to be closed or reallocated for security reasons since the FAA has brought in a 300-foot rule which prevents any vehicle being parked within that distance of the terminals. A notable example is Los Angeles airport which had a terminal design surrounding the central parking facilities. This rule has also affected the courtesy buses which were another good source of commercial revenue for the airports. Some airports have reacted by introducing ‘express parking’ by increasing the number of shuttle buses to transfer the passengers from the car parks to the terminal as at Dallas Fort Worth airport, by bringing in valet parking as has happened at Jacksonville airport or by installing automatic vehicle identification technology (Pilling, 2002). The events of 11 September 2001 have also created a much more volatile trading environment for concessionaires. Some airports, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles have suspended their minimum guarantees and/or cut turnover rates in order to help the concessionaires. A number of retailers have also been calling for concession payments to be linked to passenger flows as well as turnover so that the fees can be adjusted if traffic suddenly falls (Rozario, 2002).

Aer Rianta: becoming an international retailer
Aer Rianta is an interesting example as it was one of the first airport companies to expand beyond national boundaries and get involved with the management and operations of commercial facilities at other international airports. Aer Rianta is the Irish state-owned airport company which has been responsible for managing the country’s three major airports, namely Dublin, Shannon, and Cork since 1937. It has a long history with the provision of commercial facilities, as the world’s first duty-free shop was opened at Shannon airport in 1947. It continues to operate its own duty-free and travel-value shops at the three airports and also provides fuelling and catering services at Shannon airport. It also runs a college of hotel management in Shannon and in 1990 acquired a chain of hotels, Great Southern Hotels. In 1988, Aer Rianta International (ARI) was set up as a wholly owned subsidiary of Aer Rianta. With a population of less than 4 million, Aer Rianta recognized the limits of its own market and aimed to use ARI to promote commercial activities in locations outside of Ireland. The first undertaking was a joint venture company Aerofist with Aeroflot Russia, the Moscow airport authority and ARI each having a one-third interest in the company. Aer Rianta had originally developed links with the Soviet Union in the early 1970s with an agreement whereby Aeroflot would trade airport charges for fuel at Shannon airport. In 1988, Aerofist opened the first duty-free shop at Moscow airport. It also began offering in-flight duty-free sales on international flights operated by Aeroflot out of Moscow. In the next few years, joint venture companies with ARI involvement were also set up to manage duty-free 165

Managing Airports shops at St Petersburg and Kiev airports as well as downtown shops in Moscow and two shops, which are now closed, on the Russian–Finnish border. In 1991, ARI expanded its involvement into the Middle East area with the setting up of a joint venture company with local investors in Bahrain to be responsible for designing the duty-free shops, overseeing their fitting out and their day-to-day management. ARI further expanded operations in this region by getting involved in the management of the duty-free shops at Karachi airport in 1992 and at Kuwait airport in 1994. In 1997, other new duty-free shop contracts were awarded in Beirut, Qatar (in-flight catering for Qatar airways), Damascus, and Egypt. In Europe, ARI’s first retail operation outside of Ireland in Europe was at the terminals of the Channel tunnel. The organization provided duty free facilities from the tunnel opening in 1994 until the abolition of duty-free sales in 1999. In addition ARI opened two shop in Cyprus in the late 1990s – one at Larnaca airport in 1997 and one in Paphos in 1998. In 1999, it took over operations of a number of duty-free shops at Greek airports, sea ports and at border crossing in a joint venture with the Gebr Heinemann and Jacques Parsons. Elsewhere, in China in 1996 ARI signed a consultancy contract with China National Duty Free Corporation concerning the operation of duty-free shops in Beijing Airport. This was ARI’s first venture in the Far East. Aer Rianta International also project managed the construction of the duty-free shops at Hong Kong’s Chek Lap Kok airport. Then, in 1998, ARI expanded into North America for the first time by acquiring the duty-free division of Canada’s United Cigar Stores and the concession for duty-free shops at Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Ottawa airports. In 2002 ARI took over the duty-free concession at Halifax airport as well (Table 6.5).

Table 6.5 Region Europe

Aer Rianta’s involvement in international retailing activities, 2002 Location Larnaca Airport Paphos Airport Greece (Hellenic duty-free shops at 15 airports, five sea ports and eight border crossings) Sheremetyevo I and II Airports, Moscow Pulkova II International Airport, St Petersburg Borispol Airport, Kiev Bahrain International Airport Karachi International Airport Kuwait International Airport Beirut International Airport Damascus International Airport Qatar Airways (in-flight) Montreal Airports Winnipeg Airport Edmonton Airport Ottawa Airport Halifax Airport

CIS Middle East

North America

Source: Aer Rianta annual reports.

166

In the same year a consortium of ARI and NatWest Ventures bought 40 per cent of Birmingham airport. the profits from the international business are seen as particularly welcome and invaluable for future success. In terms of profits. In addition to providing duty-free retailing. the German construction company. Airport charges had not increased at these airports since 1987 and this. the airport group gained a reputation in the 167 . The airport group has become more and more dependent on these external activities over the years and by 2000. In 2001. 50 per cent of the ownership of Düsseldorf airports was sold to ARI and its consortium partner Hochtief. In 1997. the subsidiaries and associated undertakings of Aer Rianta accounted for close to half all profits compared with just 3 per cent in 1992 (Figure 6. coupled with a widespread discount scheme to encourage more traffic. ARI made a profit of 13 million euro. The year 1999 was a particularly problematic year for the Irish airports because of the abolition of duty free. 1992–2000 Source: Annual reports. had meant that just prior to the end of EU duty-free sales. there was a series of developments which resulted in the company undertaking a thorough review of its non-aeronautical activities. ARI has also become involved with the ownership and management of international airports. Thus. First.6). the turnover of all these international activities (excluding joint venture activities) was 43 million euro compared with 352 million euro for the Aer Rianta Irish airports and 42 million euro for the hotel activities. airport charges only represented 17 per cent of Irish airport revenues (Aer Rianta. and Great Southern Hotels recorded a figure of 3 million euro.The provision of commercial facilities 50 000 Net profit after tax (IR£ million) Associated undertakings ARI and hotels Irish airports 40 000 30 000 20 000 10 000 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Figure 6. 2000). The low dependence on airport charges is unlikely to change following the introduction of airport regulation in 2002.6 Profitability – Aer Rianta. which requires the level of charges to be reduced. In 2000. ARI and Hochtief acquired 36 per cent of Hamburg airport. BAA: the development of a new retail approach In the first few years after the privatization of BAA plc in 1987.

pre-ordering possibilities and help desks.7).Managing Airports press of being a ‘rip-off’ airport in terms of the value for money of the goods on offer and the associated quality of service. This led to the launching of a new retail strategy in 1990. There were various elements to this strategy. and his team of inspectors began to monitor the quality of all the catering outlets at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. at Gatwick airport the bonus points scheme was launched. since 1999. shopping and currency exchange. In 2002. By 2000. The key message with this was that all taxpaid goods sold at the airport were guaranteed to be the same price as equivalent goods in the high street. The total floor space allocated to retail activities was increased substantially from a mere 41 000 square metres in 1990 to over 100 000 square metres 12 years later (Figure 6. a regulatory review looming which would determine the level of aeronautical charges for the next five years. BAA plc has also undertaken passenger-tracking surveys to understand where departing passengers spend their time in the terminal and how available time influences retail 168 . The passengers are asked about which outlets they have visited and the amount they have spent – both landside and airside. An improved system of market research and customer satisfaction was introduced by the replacing the passenger opinion survey (POS) at the airport with the QSM. this scheme had over 300 000 members. Around 30 000 passengers at Heathrow and 14 000 passengers at Gatwick are annually interviewed and. choice. A year later. banking. The QSM considered more effectively issues such as quality. Information about the key characteristics of the passengers. and 30 per cent for fragrances. speed of service and value for money. a travel insurance scheme called BAA WorldSure and a new range of airport upgrade packages. In the same year. In addition. To overcome the problem of being regarded as a ‘rip-off’ airport. At Heathrow and Gatwick airports. Savings of up to 50 per cent were assured for duty-free goods such as liquor and tobacco. and could be traded for money off certain goods and services such as car parking and shopping at the airports or points on some airlines’ frequent-flyer programmes. costs were increasing at the airports and passenger growth was slowing down (Phythian. Egon Ronay. The bonus point initiative was subsequently adopted at all the airports in 1996 and re-launched in 1999 as world points. BAA plc launched its value guarantee in 1991. the survey has also included 6 600 passengers at Stansted. with a freepost address in the United Kingdom and refunded postage elsewhere. a quarter of whom were not UK residents. shopping assistants were even employed on the Gatwick Express train between Gatwick airport and London! The early 1990s also saw BAA plc progressively introducing more and more international brand names to its airports and offering increased competition with many of the services on offer particularly in areas such as catering. whereby points could be earned for car parking. and reason for travel is also gathered. and personal shopping consultants at its airports. BAA plc also introduced a free telephone enquiry number for shopping facilities. such as nationality.This promised a full refund on goods bought at BAA airports to passengers from any region of the world. Moreover. branded AirportPlus. drinking. frequency. 1996). The next stage of the value guarantee was introduced in 1994 after BAA plc had undertaken further extensive market research into its commercial operations. BAA launched a credit card BAA WorldCard. and car parking. Second. BAA plc began undertaking a continuous departing passenger survey called a retail profiler. eating. the renowned food critic.

1990–2002 Source: Annual reports. and obtain procurement discounts. which it established to run airport duty. In addition. BAA plc now has more control over its duty. mainly in 169 . 2000). They do this by planting a sticker on passengers at check-in and tracking their passage to the gate by recording the time at various points on the way (Maiden. Other interesting features of BAA’s retail strategy includes the advertising or media management area where BAA launched media@BAA in 2000 which brought together all of BAA’s advertising under one identity. BAA plc acquired the US retail chain Duty Free International which had around 200 outlets. if targets were exceeded. Gradually BAA plc started to replace the management contracts at its own UK airports. and car parking to take place. This was relaunched in 2000 with dedicated ‘Airzone’ sites for each airport. currency. so they negotiated new management contracts with their concessionaires. This process was completed in 1999. With this system. A new website was introduced in 1998 which gave information about the commercial facilities on offer and enabled the pre-ordering of retail goods.The provision of commercial facilities 120 Retail space (m2 × 1000) 100 80 60 40 20 0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 /9 /0 /1 00 20 20 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 01 /2 Figure 6.7 Retail space at BAA UK airports. The establishment of World Duty Free was also seen as a way to give BAA plc opportunities to expand its commercial activities to non-BAA locations. spend. a wholly owned subsidiary of BAA. either through commercial management contracts or as part of an overall privatization package to operate the whole airport. Another feature of the retail strategy in more recent years has been development of the internet as a marketing and distribution medium.and tax-free shops. BAA plc funded the costs and kept all the sales revenue except for paying a management contract fee to the concessionaire. these facilities were provided by concessionaires using a traditional concession fee basis.Then in 1996 BAA plc launched World Duty Free. BAA plc wanted to take more responsibility and control. Links to the expendia website were established so that travel arrangements could be made. BAA plc claimed that this would give it complete control over the duty-free business a its airports and would enable the company to introduce more effective warehousing and distribution systems.and tax-free shopping. the concessionaire would receive a share of the profits. In 1993. Subsequently in 1997. Up until 1993.

Managing Airports the United States at airports and border crossings. Consequently. it did not stop BAA plc share price falling by around 30 per cent by October 1999.8).The new facilities were grouped together in what was called ‘The AirMall’ which had over 100 outlets and 60 companies – many of which have famous branded names – and covered an area of around 10 000 square metres. In August it was down by 16 per cent and by September by just 13 per cent.To overcome the confusion among passengers. Naples) or airport management contract (Indianapolis).The AirMall was opened in 1992.The first BAA McArthur/Glen centre was opened in Cheshire Oaks in the northwest of England in 1995 followed by a second centre in Troyes in northeast France. With this arrangement the airport operator was guaranteed an index-linked US$0. where the abolition of sales appeared imminent and to increase the company’s purchasing power. BAA plc has been involved in the management of commercial facilities at Boston airport. However. Launceston. Although this downward trend showed signs that the situation was improving. This subsidiary was renamed World Duty Free Americas with BAA’s original duty-free company being renamed World Duty Free Europe. BAA plc introduced a number of strategies to address this problem. the first month after abolition. From 1998 onwards BAA plc has adopted a strategy of disposing of its interests in these outlets once they have been developed in order to benefit from then value which has been created from these joint ventures. in 1999 it took over responsibility for the commercial facilities at the terminals for the Channel tunnel at Folkstone and Calais/Coquelles on a profitsharing based 15-year contract with Eurotunnel.6 summarizes the key retail developments which have taken place in the last 12 years. Another area of retail diversification has been discount designer outlet centres. BAA plc has also looked after the commercial facilities at airports where it has an equity share (Melbourne. The acquisition was undertaken to provide greater geographical strength away from Europe.40 per passenger. 1999). BAA plc began to manage commercial facilities at non-BAA airports The first main contract was for Greater Pittsburgh International airport. A number of other centres have opened subsequently or are planned. In July 1999. net retail income at all the UK BAA airports was down by 20 per cent.and tax-free sales had a major impact on the financial performance of BAA plc. the abolition of intra-EU duty. As a result of all these non-aeronautical activities. In addition. It was also involved in diplomatic and in-flight business. In a parallel development in the 1990s. This was a 15-year agreement signed in 1991 – which has subsequently been extended until 2017. It also launched a major advertising campaign telling consumers that they could still shop at airports – with slogans such as ‘Miss you’ or ‘I deserve 170 . the share of revenue from these commercial sources has increased dramatically in the last 12 years (Figure 6. BAA plc received a certain share of income above this amount. and if further income were generated. Table 6. BAA plc even issued a profits warning in October to alert markets that the abolition would have a more severe the impact that was previously expected – a loss of £122 million of retail sales which was over 40 million more than predicted (Skapinker. BAA plc entered into a joint venture scheme with the US retail developer McArthur/Glen to develop a chain of outlets in the UK and continental Europe. the revenue was to be split. it reconfigured passenger flows in its major terminals so that passengers were channelled through the shops where they could still make purchases.

8 Revenue sources for BAA. BAA plc added extra retail space and is planning for still more. Eurotunnel contract terminated. and a range of spirits and cigars. Arrivals duty-paid shops and collection-on-arrival facilities were provided.6 Date 1990 1991 1991 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Key developments in BAA’s retail strategy in the 1990–2000s Development Launch of new retail strategy. QSM introduced Value guarantee launched. Eurotunnel contract awarded World Duty Free Inflight business sold. For EU passengers. 40 per cent savings on fragrances were offered with up to 20 per cent savings on wine. it’ – and ‘it still costs less at the airport’. Egon Ronay became catering inspector First retail airport contract awarded at Pittsburgh Worldwide guarantee launched First BAA McArthur/Glen outlet opened BAA bonuspoints launched at all BAA airports. On the aeronautical side passenger fees were raised by 58 pence per passenger – equivalent to an increase of around 12 per cent. 1999–2002 Source: Annual Reports.The provision of commercial facilities Table 6. 171 20 01 /2 . bonuspoints re-launched as worldpoints. World Duty Free established Acquisition of Duty Free International (renamed World Duty Free Americas) New website launched enabling pre-ordering Abolition of EU duty/tax free. 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0 /1 Non-aeronautical Aeronautical Revenue (£ million) /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 /9 /0 /1 00 20 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Figure 6. BAA WorldCard and WorldSure introduced World Duty Free Americas sold BAA McArthur/Glen joint venture dissolved Source: BAA Annual reports. champagne.

1999–2001 Source: Annual Reports. leaving BAA to focus on the 58 World Duty Free outlets at UK airports. BAA plc’s strategy for recovery has been to refocus on what it sees as its core airport business by disposing of World Duty Free Americas and BAA McArthur/Glen.6 per cent which was the first decrease since 1991–2 when the economy was in recession and the Gulf War took place (Figure 6. They continued to increase by a total of 3 per cent in 2002–2001. overall. In the same year World Duty Free Americas underperformed against BAA plc’s expectations. The in-flight business of World Duty Free was sold in 2000 and World Duty Free Americas was sold in 2001. 2001). Overall profits before tax were down by 2. The result of this meant that in 2001–02 nonaeronautical revenue increased at UK airports but decreased overall for the BAA group (Figure 6.and tax-free shops had fallen by 18 per cent compared with the previous year. retail revenue from duty. Dubai airport: non-aeronautica strategies for a competing airport Many of the Gulf airports are in fierce competition for transit and transfer traffic – albeit to a lesser extent nowadays because of more non-stop long-haul 172 . by 2001–2000 UK retail sales had recovered and increased by 6 per cent compared with the year before (BAA.Managing Airports Profit before interest and tax (£mn) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1990/1 1991/2 1992/3 1993/4 1994/5 1995/6 1996/7 1997/8 1998/9 1999/0 2000/1 2001/2 Figure 6. However. BAA also terminated the Eurotunnel contract which lost the company £20 million in 2000. the loss in total retail revenue was 7 per cent. rising by 8 per cent before 11 September 2001 but decreasing by 1 per cent after this event (BAA.9).8). Retail revenue from other shops was up by 12 per cent so.9 Profitability – BAA. By the end of the 1999–2000 financial year in March 2000. 2002b). and this meant that in September 1999 BAA plc wrote down goodwill by £147 million in respect of this business in its accounts. In 2002. the BAA–McArthur/Glen joint venture was dissolved and BAA aims to exit permanently from this activity in the future.

The promotion was extended throughout the 1990s with a continuous high-profile display of luxury cars in the airport concourse. light industry.This promotion offered a Rolls-Royce Bentley Mulsanne car to the winner of a raffle. To commemorate the opening of these new facilities. which has become the major trading base of the Gulf region as well as being used as a transit stop for intercontinental services. Another important area of diversification for the airport is the Dubai Airport Free Zone which was launched in 1997. it handled 16 million passengers compared with just 4. After 1991 two cars were offered simultaneously and. The airport is owned and operated by the Dubai Department of Civil Aviation. This covers an area of over 1.The provision of commercial facilities flights. and cigarettes and food represent a further 45 per cent of sales (Bampton. were limited in number (5000 this time) to increase the chances of winning ticket. the turnover associated with these sales has increased by over 1000 per cent. The DDF works very closely with the airport management and this enables it to get involved with the master planning process at a very early stage. It is the fifth largest duty free outlet at an airport in terms of turnover. Since 1984. in 1987. totalling around US$306 million in 2002 (Dubai International Airport. 20 passengers had been made millionaires! 173 . which is based at the airport. In 2000. as before. arrival duty-free shopping was added. Dubai airport is the largest airport in the region.The duty-free complex covers an area of 9 000 square metres and is four times larger than the previous shop. such as Abu Dhabi and Bahrain. The tickets. and public facilities such as retailing and catering. Other competing airports in the Middle East.2 million square metres and includes areas used for apron space. By the beginning of 2003.They are very interesting airports as regards non-aeronautical strategies as they have probably done more than any other airports in the world to attract passengers by promoting the duty-free facilities on offer. The airport serves Dubai. the airport launched another promotion called the ‘Dubai Duty Free Finest Cyber Surprise’. as well as airports in other areas such as Malta have also undertaken similar promotions. the DDF launched its ‘Dubai Duty Free Finest Surprise’ to mark the expansion of its shopping complex. DDF also runs a tennis stadium and an Irish village with restaurants and pubs away from the airport. a new duty-free area was opened at the airport in the new 180 000 square metres. This promotion offered US$1 million to winners of the ‘Millennium Millionaire Draw’. 1999). In 2002. Gold and jewellery account for around 16 per cent of these sales and liquor. It works closely with the national airline. The first DDF shop was introduced in December 1983 and then. by early 2003. 2000). In November 1989. Tickets for this draw could only be bought at the airport for nearly $300 a ticket and. 1 078 luxury cars had been won by travellers from over 65 different countries. were limited to 1000 per draw. The duty-free shop operator Dubai Duty Free (DDF) is also run by this department. which were sold exclusively at the airport at over $100 a ticket. Emirates.5 million in 1989. The airport is forecast to handle 30 million passengers in 2010 – although it only has a national population of 790 000. US$200 million five-level Sheikh Rashid terminal concourse (Walters. All routes to the 27 departure gates go through the retail area. This state ownership enables the prices to be kept low and very competitive compared with other airports. 2003).

In Terminal 2 it has an orchid garden which covers an area of over 600 square metres and has over 40 different varieties of orchids. has developed some interesting strategies in order to maintain its position as a hub in the very competitive Asia and Pacific market. It offers a very wide range of commercial facilities and has pre-shopping facilities and price guarantees like BAA plc and some other airports. a ‘sports arena’ lounge and a ‘movie theatre’ lounge which shows films 24 hours a day and is decorated with film posters and memorabilia. One of its unusual features is its gardens. The airport is facing fiercer competition with the opening of the new Hong Kong and Kualu Lumpur airports in the late 1990s and the new Bangkok airport which is planned for completion in the mid-2000s. it has five themed gardens! It has a cactus garden located in Terminal 1. However. the airport has also set up a cargo park with the aim of establishing itself as a leading air cargo centre in South East Asia. It also has a science discovery area which has devices such as holograms. The terminal also had a fern garden and outdoor garden terrace. and 15 million at Kuala Lumpur. 33 million at Hong Kong. is due to open in 2006. In 2001 the airport handled 28 million passengers compared to 31 million at Bangkok. This meant that it had to reduce its landing fees by 10 per cent and give rebates of up to 15 per cent for rentals at commercial concessions to remain competitive. This compares with 13 million passengers at Changi airport in 1989.4 per cent in 1998 – the first decrease ever for the airport – as a result of the Asian crisis. The airport is now building on an already relatively sophisticated commercial strategy which it has had for many years.Managing Airports Singapore airport: aiming to maintain its position as a leading Asian/Pacific hub Singapore Changi airport. this increased emphasis on commercial facilities has not been popular with all 174 . To appeal to transfer passengers it organizes bus tours of Singapore. mini putting green. In 1996 it was one of the first airports to offer Internet services to passengers. The airport aims to ensure that it provides the latest technological and communication services – particularly for its business travellers. There is also an airport hotel situated in the transit area which has many facilities including a karaoke room. and jacuzzi. the airport reduced its landing fees and rentals by 15 per cent with the government setting up a US$119 million Air Hub Development Fund in order to pay for these reductions and to provide for additional marketing support with the aim of further consolidating the airports’ hub position. and other interactive exhibits. In all. its passenger traffic dropped by 5. capable of handling 20 million passengers and raising total capacity to 64 million passengers. In addition. gym. It now has an extensive Internet area which includes numerous personal computer connection points and infrared Internet access kiosks. sauna. which is owned by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. Then after 11 September 2001. colour-blindness tests. The growing importance of non-aeronautical revenues within the airport industry is a very visible trend which can be observed by any passenger who is able to compare their visit to an airport now with an equivalent visit of 10 or 15 years ago. A third terminal. traffic had more or less recovered. It also has a bamboo garden in Terminal 1. In addition to all these commercial facilities for passengers. By 1999. it has three television thematic lounges. There is a news lounge. Moreover. swimming pool. which has more than 20 varieties of cacti which are native to North and South America.

Will check-in get smart? Airline Business. Competition Commission (2002) A Report on the Economic Regulation of the London Airport Companies. BAA (2002b). The Stationery Office. Bork. 23 April. (2002). December– January. New approaches to concession planning post-abolition. ACI-Europe. Economic issues in airport management. Eye-catching figures. (1992). 9. 3. Routledge. (2001). new opportunities. 6–7. This chapter has aimed to describe the market for commercial services and to assess commercial strategies and polices. Doganis. Amore. February. ACI Airport Economics Survey 1999. Annual Report 2001. Bates. Cranfield. Remarkable Growth for Dubai International Airport. Annual Report 1999. in the future. Jane’s Airport Review. Airport Development Economics. May. Pseudo brand demonstrates power of advertising at airports. 8–9. Allett. BAA (2002a). 7. BIAC. ACI Airport Economics Survey 2001. (1999). 175 . The ACI Europe tender code. Annual Report 1999. Citrinot. Bampton. ACI. Dubai International Airport (2003). Aer Rianta (2000). December. Conway. Anderson. vol. J. Press release European Travel Research Foundation (ETRF) (1997). Aer Rianta. J. Byrd. Air Transport Group (1997). ACI-NA. 44–8. The Airport Business. March. Airports International. Copenhagen Airport (2000). ACI. (2000). L. April. Janes’s Airport Review. (2002). Cranfield University. T. (2000). airport operators will be even more imaginative in developing new ideas. Retail management structures: transatlantic differences. CAS. Marketing and Commercial Strategy Handbook. (1999). R. Duty free challenge. 9. (1999b). Copenhagen Airport.The diverse collection of case studies at the end of the chapter shows that the options available to airports are vast and no doubt. The Duty and Tax Free Industry in the European Union: The Facts. Marketing and Commercial Strategy Handbook. Centre for Airport Studies (1998). Airport Council International (ACI) (2000). New commercial strategies for airports. London. Ninth ACI-Europe Airport Trading Conference. D. August. 7. A. Jane’s Airport Review. vol. Annual Report 2002/2001. R. Cranfield University Airport Commercial Revenues Course. ETRF. BAA. European duty free is dead: what’s changed? Airports International. References and further reading ACI-Europe (1999). State of the Industry Report. (2000). April. Airport Retail Study. ACI-Europe. Food and beverage. ACI-North America (2002).The provision of commercial facilities users – even though it may be essential for the airport operators’ financial well-being. 50–2. Doganis. Travel and Tourism Analyst. Asia takes a long term view. M. Citrinot. (2000). 1–19. P. University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. Brussels International Airport Company (2002). London. New airport. News Release. J. (1999a). L. Airport Council International (ACI) (2002). November–December.

Newhouse. June–July. Getting to know the market at airports. Ashford. Marketing and Commercial Strategy Handbook. Airport Retail Economics. Harrison. Independent. (1996). Life without intra-EU duty free – adapting to the loss of the business and exploiting new opportunities. R. University of Westminster Marketing and Market Research Seminar. Innovative commercial strategies. Jones. February. February. (1999). In Airport 2000: Trends for the New Millennium (N. A. London. F. Gethin. (2002). Benchmarking airport retail performance. (1999). F. Optimising income from commercial operations at Asian airports. Middecke. Cranfield. Ninth ACI-Europe Airport Trading Conference. February. Ninth ACI-Europe Airport Trading Conference. October–November. London. European Airport Retailing. Fourth ACI-Europe Airport Trading Conference. vol. S. Landside shopping. 69–72 Freathy. Gray. (1998). (2000). (1995). Cranfield University Airport Commercial Revenues Course. Pilling. Dynamics in Asia: Inchon International Airport and airport community development. B. Sovereign. Kostelitz. Airside shopping is becoming big business. University of Stirling. 7. Airport World. MMC. 42. Kim. London. October. (1998b). Monopolies and Mergers Commission (1996). 6. (1998a). How BAA is surviving without cheap booze and fags. J. S. C. ed. 6. (2000). Airport retailing: problems are opportunities. Marketing and Commercial Strategy Handbook. Concessions: plan early or else! Marketing and Commercial Strategy Handbook. (2002). March. Airports seek parking revival. (2000). Ninth ACI-Europe Airport Trading Conference. (2000). (2000). (2002). D. May. Jane’s Airport Review. Macmillan. 23 August. Gray. Ninth ACI-Europe Airport Trading Conference. S. ACI-Europe.). February. M. University of Westminster Marketing and Market Research Seminar. 176 . (2000). London. University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. vol. Geneva Airport (2002). Communique Airport Business. Gray. Haugaard. Landside vs airside – a study of airport shopping centres. Phythian. (2002). Maiden. International Airport Review. F. Maiden. P. ACI-Europe. Understanding the retail market. Maiden. 11–15. Cranfield. S. A retailer’s perspective.Managing Airports Favotto. M. O’Conner. Old experiences – new challenges. Annual Report 2002. ACI-Europe. London. December. London. Getting to know the market at airports. 55–7. vol. February. May. (2000). December. (1997). H. A Report on the Economic Regulation of the London Airports Companies. Meznarsic. London. Designing the perfect airport to optimise retail revenue: a retailers point of view. I. London. Institute for Retail Studies (1997). R. Concession contracts and tendering processes. F. J. Geneva Airport. Cranfield University Airport Management Course. and O’Connell. (1998).

(1999). Critique of cost benchmarking. (1996). 21. Jane’s Airport Review. ACI-Europe. Walters. K (2002). Dubai aims for the top 20. University of Westminster/ Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. R. December–January. M. S. Developing commercial strategies. Skapinker. London. B. 3. M. Retailers call for help. Toms. London. Walsh. March. End of European duty-free party gives BAA a hangover. (2000). Commercial and Marketing Best Practices Handbook.The provision of commercial facilities Rozario. Schwarz. CAA Workshop on Benchmarking of Airports: Methodologies. Savage. Jane’s Airport Review. 13. R. (2000). 10. A winning formula. Jane’s Airport Review. 177 . November. December– January. (2000). 5 November. A further examination of European commercial activities. (1999). vol. Problems and Relevance to Economic Regulation. September. Financial Times.

generally. typically consisting of the production of a timetable and publicity leaflets. Promoting the air services at the airport was also not considered to be a responsibility of the airport. It was rare to find airport marketing managers and. the resources allocated to marketing activities were very small. Prior to this. Airport promotion tended to be very basic. with the view being that this should be undertaken by the airlines and travel agents selling the products. the airports considered it was solely the role of the airline to identify opportunities for new or expanded services. Airports have become much more proactive in their approach and have developed a wide range of increasingly sophisticated techniques for meeting . This passive approach has long since gone at most airports.7 The role of airport marketing The birth of airport marketing Airport marketing as a concept at most airports did not really exist until the 1980s. In most cases. and reactive responses to press enquiries about the airport. It was up to the airport to provide an efficient and safe airport with good facilities for aircraft and travellers. the role of the airport as a public service meant that very often airport management would merely respond to airline requests for new slots by providing published charging and use-of-facility information rather than initiating talks to attract new services.

By the late 1990s. 16 10 4 7 7 2 1 1 1 179 . such as economic growth. This means that there may be attractive prospects for other airports to promote themselves as alternative uncongested airports. for example. in turn. In addition. has encouraged airports to recognize the need for a professional marketing-orientated approach when dealing with their airline customers.The role of airport marketing the demands of their complex mix of customers such as passengers. the majority of airports were devoting considerable resources to marketing activities. New types of airlines. for example. It is difficult to accurately quantify this increased emphasis on the role of marketing but some indication of this trend can be gleaned from Table 7. has meant that there have been enhanced opportunities for more airports to share in this expansion of the market. Airports have had to develop more sophisticated marketing strategies and tactics to meet the needs of the traveller. marketing is considered to be a core activity and one which is a vital ingredient for success. airlines. Moreover. Within any commercially run business. privatization.1 Airport Number employed in airport marketing at selected regional airports Total number of marketing staff 1991 1997 27 24 6 9 6 6 4 5 4 Number of passengers per marketing staff 1991 631 000 325 000 382 000 164 000 392 000 257 000 250 000 215 000 163 000 1997 562 000 227 000 428 000 202 000 248 000 185 000 41 000 54 000 70 000 Manchester Birmingham Newcastle East Midlands Bristol Cardiff Bournemouth Norwich Humberside Source: Humphreys (1999). The travelling public has also become more demanding and more sophisticated in their travel-making decisions and their expectations of the airport product. which certain airports may wish to attract through a range of marketing techniques. freight forwarders. which. deregulation. have emerged. They are thus much more susceptible to aggressive marketing by airports. a number of airports are close to capacity and unable to offer attractive slots for new services. Deregulation of air transport markets has made the airport business much more competitive. Airlines in Europe. This has provided airports with greater incentive to develop innovative and aggressive market strategies so that they can reap some of the benefits from this growth. tour operators and so on. The increase in demand for air transport due to deregulation and other more general factors. low-cost carriers such as easyJet and Ryanair. The airport sector is no longer an exception and marketing is increasingly being seen as an integral part of the airport business. and globalization trends within the airline industry have increased the commercial pressures being faced by airlines. are much freer to operate out of any airport they choose without being constrained by bilateral restrictions.

very different skills and management are required. one airport tends to become the dominant player with the other airports playing a more secondary role. with UK regional airports the number of passengers per marketing staff decreased significantly between 1991 and 1997 (Table 7. For long-haul flights passengers may be more willing to travel further distances to an airport that they regard as offering a more desirable or superior long-haul service. nearest airport that has suitable services.Managing Airports an analysis of staff employed in the marketing area. there are various other activities (which have been discussed in other chapters) that also can be considered as airport marketing. airline choice was considered to be limited to particular airports because of bilateral agreements. While this may still be true in certain markets. particularly in Europe. and so in all but the smallest airports they are usually now considered to be separate functions. and the American cities of New York and Washington. La Guardia. were often covered by the same department at the airport (Meznarsic. In many cases when there are overlapping catchment areas. If marketing is defined in its broadest sense of satisfying customer needs. and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. from a regulated and public sector controlled activity into a liberalized and commercially orientated business. Up until quite recently marketing and commercial activities. their catchment areas may overlap for certain types of traffic. The development of non-aeronautical activities can also be treated as a marketing role. especially at regional airports. and environmental neighbourhood communication initiatives. 1999). Clearly if airports are physically close. 180 . has played a major role in this changing airport situation. Orly. These activities include quality assessment and improvement. and Newark airports. while in Washington the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority airports of Dulles and National compete to a certain degree with Baltimore airport. Elsewhere in London. The nature of airport competition It used to be commonly believed that most major airports were monopolies with their precise role being determined by the passenger demand in the catchment area. which has been transformed. The modern-day airline industry. For short-haul routes. as have the development of the lowcost sector. Most airports have now recognized that for both activities to be effective. 1995). and Le Bourget airports. Gatwick. For example. Notable examples are the European cities of London and Paris. for instance. Moreover. which owns Charles de Gaulle. BAA plc airports of Heathrow. there are now a growing number of opportunities for airports to compete for both passengers and airlines. Sometimes the airports may be under the same ownership as with the AdP. There are a number of key ways in which airports can compete (ACI-Europe. and Stansted compete with the independently run London City and London Luton airports. in creating new views on airport competition. which is owned by the State of Maryland. Such common ownership may clearly reduce the amount of potential competition. Certain airline developments such as the formation of global alliances and other types of co-operation between airlines such as franchising have been particularly important. passengers tend to choose the most convenient. In some major urban areas or cities there are a number of situations when more than one airport serves the population.1). which owns JFK.

g. The secondary airports tend to fulfil more specialized roles (Dennis. They may act as an overspill airport when the major airport has inadequate capacity. has not proved to be particularly successful but it remains an important issue (CAA. as is the case with Düsseldorf airport. for example. which is what the low-cost carriers want. owns Hahn airport.The role of airport marketing In the London area. This is particularly the case with Ryanair at Dublin airport where a new competing terminal may be built (Hogan. which suffers from runway constraints. In many cases they are situated substantially further from the town or city they are serving compared with the competing airports.g. Rome Ciampino airport) or freight operations (e. and fewer delays. centrally located secondary airports may be able to attract a certain amount of domestic or short-haul traffic. BAA plc owns Stansted airport. They are also usually in a position to be more flexible on pricing and to enter into long-term pricing agreements. Sometimes these airports may be owned by the same operator who has control of the competing airports. Other airports may choose to specialize in charter operations (e. 1995). owns Bergamo airport. to be the ‘London airport’ in spite of a range of services being offered at the other London airports. Some low-cost airlines have suggested that there ought to be competing terminals at airports run by different operators. the Milan airport operator. Alternatively. at JFK airport in New York and Toronto airport in Canada. 2003). Liège airport). particularly business-related traffic. and SEA. Then there are the airports that have begun to market themselves as low-cost alternatives to the major airports – having been encouraged by the rapid development of European low-cost carriers (Table 7. Some limited evidence of such a practice. Frankfurt airports. Elsewhere separate ownership patterns exist. particularly those travelling on business. which are all vital elements of the low cost model. These types of passengers favour the convenience and generally less congested environment that a city centre airport such as London City or Belfast City may offer. These airports offer faster turnarounds. Table 7.2 Alternative low-cost airports within Europe Low-cost airport Beauvais Bergamo Charleroi Carcassonne Cergy-Pontoise Hahn Liverpool London – Luton London – Stansted Prestwick Rome – Ciampino Sandefjord – Torp Skavsta Competing major airport Paris – CDG/Orly Milan – Linate/Malpensa Brussels National Toulouse Paris – CDG/Orly Frankfurt Manchester London – Heathrow and Gatwick London – Heathrow and Gatwick Glasgow International Rome – Fiumicino Oslo – Gardermoen Stockholm – Arlanda Under same ownership? No Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No 181 . short walking distances from the terminal to the aircraft.2). Heathrow airport is considered by many passengers. and the nearby secondary airport of Moenchengladbach. for example. 2001). for example.

Caves and Gosling. however. notably at Asian destinations such Kuala Lumpur. For the airport product. Marketing concepts The market for airport services The focal point of any marketing system is always the consumer of the services. While many medium. New infrastructure. For example. very much dependent on the operating strategies of airlines. which is closer to the city centre. Unless effective regulation is introduced. therefore. the only feasible way of ensuring that traffic will transfer to the new airport is by actually closing the old one. whereas airlines tend to think of passengers as their customers and themselves as customers of the airports. A notable example is Montreal Mirabel’s airport. it is useful to divide this demand into two. In addition. Most airports would probably agree that both airlines and passengers are key customers. London.Managing Airports Problems can arise when a new airport is built and is perceived as providing a inferior service to the old one – perhaps being in a less conveniently situated location. The marketing techniques used for these two types are very different. compete for this traffic.and large-sized airports have aspirations of becoming a hub. to the newly expanded Milan Malpensa airport. Milan is a more recent case where there has been considerable reluctance for carriers to transfer from the Milan Linate airport. which was built in the 1970s to provide extra capacity in addition to Dorval airport but never managed to attract the volume of traffic that was forecast. has provided the impetus for more intense competition for hub traffic. This is particularly the case within Europe where most long-haul freight is trucked to its final destination. From a marketing perspective. The other important way in which airports compete is as a hub. in reality there is now less opportunity for this to happen as a result of the growing concentration within the airline industry through developments such as global alliances and codesharing. there are the other market segments such as local residents and businesses whose needs must also be met. demand comes from a variety of markets each with their own specific requirements. Oslo. Certain airports can compete as hubs for cargo operations especially for express parcel services. Americans visiting Europe may not have a strong preference as to whether they start their European tour from Paris. The same can be true with cargo traffic. In most cases. Hong Kong. 1999. 1999). Hub airports are. Obviously these types of demand do not impact directly on the amount of aeronautical revenue and traffic throughput at an 182 . and Denver (ACIEurope. Airports serving these cities can. namely the trade such as airlines who buy the airport facilities direct and the general public or travellers who merely consume or utilize the airport product. passengers will have a specific destination in mind when they travel. The exception may be with some intercontinental traffic when passengers might be more indifferent. which has happened in locations such as Munich. Hong Kong. and Macao. Key prerequisites for a hub are a central geographic position and adequate runway/terminal capacity to enable a ‘wave’ system of arriving and departing flights to take place. particularly if they are open all night and have a good weather record. or Frankfurt.

In the cargo area. Then there are the ‘Euphorics’ who are the once-a-year holidaymakers who arrive early at the airport and spend money as part of the holiday experience. the market may be segmented into integrators. choosing an airport is the result of an amalgam of many decision processes (Table 7. finally. Airline alliances could well be given special consideration. Next in the order of needs are the ‘Confident indulgers’ who are frequent leisure fliers who are familiar with the airport product and want to be pampered. it can sometimes be useful to consider it by travel behaviour in order to match more closely the needs of each market segment.3 shows some of the major market segments at an airport. Table 7. clearly the nature of air services on offer – in effect the airline product – will be the key factor as no one will choose to fly from an airport unless it offers the required travel opportunities. for example. Most complaints come from ‘Airport controllers’ who are typically frequent business passengers flying economy with their families on holiday and feel aggrieved that they do not have the privileges that they normally experience when flying business class. with passenger travel this would include a full-cost traditional service. For example. cargo airlines. facilities such as fast-track processes and airline 183 .The role of airport marketing Table 7. and other freight companies. Concessionaires. For each type of customer. passenger airlines. Then. tenants. and other organizations such as handling agents can also be considered customers of the airport. For example. Each of these needs to be further subdivided into much smaller discreet segments in order that they can be targeted appropriately and so that the airport’s marketing efforts can be the most effective. cost. have a fear of flying and of missing the plane. For business passengers.4). A common way to segment demand is by airline product type. Factors such as the distance. They can also help airports in acting as a catalyst for economic development. but only after these other factors have been taken into account. and do not want to be distracted from the departure monitor. For passengers.3 The airport’s customers Trade Airlines Tour operators Travel agents Freight forwarders General aviation Passengers Scheduled (traditional and low-cost) Charter Business Leisure Transfer Others Tenants and concessionaires Visitors Employees Local residents Local businesses airport but their presence at the airport can have a significant impact on the level of non-aeronautical revenue. The quality of the airport product can have a marginal impact. there are ‘Agoraphobics’ who have the lowest level of need. a low-cost service. The amount of time that these types of passenger spend at the airport varies from considerable in the case of the Agoraphobics down to the minimum possible for the Self-controllers (Young. Rather than considering the demand by product type or purpose of travel. and ease of surface access to a certain airport can also be very important. 1996). and a charter service. there are the ‘Self-controllers’ who are frequent business fliers who just want to be processed through the airport as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

The location of airport and flights on offer are 184 . but not always. Gatwick. retailers will only wish to operate at an airport if they have proof that the passenger profile is attractive enough and that the airport has a sufficient traffic throughput. Other important elements include the availability of attractive slot times. it is clearly the nature of the catchment area rather than design details of the airport facilities that are of paramount importance. not only in terms of pricing incentives but also with the funding of activities such as market research and promotional campaigns can also be crucial. Table 7. This is especially the case among the business community. key factors are business and tourist appeal of the catchment area for incoming passengers. in many European countries there will be a preference for the established capital city airport even if there are alternative airports that offer a comparable service.5 gives reasons.Managing Airports Table 7. In some instances. handling) Marketing support Range and quality of facilities Ease of transfer connections Maintenance facilities Environmental restrictions lounges may affect choice. catering and other commercial facilities Image of airport and ease of use Airlines Catchment area and potential demand Slot availability Competition Network compatibility Airport fees and availability of discounts Other airport costs (e. Other customers will take into account different factors. for why five airports in the United Kingdom. fuel. For the airline and other trade customers such as tour operators.g. For example. It may be because of ignorance about the other airports. The marketing assistance that the airport is prepared to give. or because of some other factor such as the traveller’s choice of a certain airline in order to add to their frequent flyer points. disabled passengers. Manchester. Then there are other factors that are more difficult to explain and quantify. lifts. especially among travel agents. the presence of competitors. while for customers with special needs.4 Factors affecting the choice of airports Passengers Destinations of flights Flight fare Flight availability and timings Frequency of service Image and reliability of airline Airline alliance policy and frequentflyer programme Surface access cost to airport Ease of access to airport Car parking cost Range and quality of shops. and general assistance may be important. for example. and the characteristics and purchasing power of those residing in the catchment area (Favotto. Birmingham and New Castle were chosen in 1998/99. namely Heathrow. For example. this may be because of better flight availability and frequency at the main airport. The later factor can be measured by some kind of connectivity ratio and IATA has developed such a ratio that is based on a model combining flight frequency and travel time. obtained from passenger surveys. and the network performance of the airport . the quality of the provision of wheelchair. 1998). Depending on the type of route being considered.

the key factors determining choice. namely access travel time. and augmented elements.2 1.7 6. Through modelling survey data.3 2. Product features.1 0. because of its higher share of business passengers. flight frequency. both tangible and intangible. The augmented product is then additional consumer services and benefits that will be built around the core and actual products.0 1. most important is the nature of flights on offer – at Heathrow for both local and connecting flights. with an additional 13 per cent picking it because it was near to their business or leisure destination.5 Passengers reasons for choice of UK airport in 1998/99 Reason for Choice London Heathrow London Gatwick Manchester Birmingham Newcastle Near Home Flights/Package available Connecting Flights Near Business Near Leisure Economic/Cheaper Prefer Airport Timing of Flights Better Surface Access Other Total 12.4 7.5 6.0 100 20.5 2.5 2.4 3.6 2. In highly regulated markets.0 100 47.0 6. flight frequency and air fare were found to be unimportant and surface access time to be very influential. quality level.7 1. and air fare. actual or physical. however. such as Nigeria in Africa.3 4.8 2. Sometimes 185 .7 0.6 25. The core product is the essential benefit that the consumer is seeking.7 3. 1999. The timing of flights appears to be a more influential factor at Heathrow. Much of the competition will typically take place at the augmented level (Kotler et al. brand name. Ashford (1989) identified three key factors affecting passenger choice.0 19.0 0.1 4.2 2.0 51. The airport product The airport product consists of a supply of services.7 4.6 0.2 0.3 2.3 0..The role of airport marketing Table 7.2 10. to meet the needs of different market segments.1 6.4 2.7 5. and will distinguish the product from others. Marketing theory often divides the product into the core.5 100 49.8 17.8 0.6 4. 1996).7 4.9 10. Half the passengers at the regional airport of Manchester.2 2. design. than at the other airports.5 10. and packaging will all make up the physical product.7 2. For the London airports. Similarly locational factors are very important for the regional airports of Birmingham and New Castle. chose the airport because it was close to their home. 2000.2 100 Source: Civil Aviation Authority.9 3.6 6.1 9.3 6.8 38.6 100 62. while the actual product delivers the benefit.

and information. there are service features specifically designed for the business traveller in mind ranging from leather seats in the departure lounge. communication. immigration. At the augmented level the airport may. and so on – and the expertise to provide all these facilities efficiently and safely. Within this context. Each market segment will perceive these product levels very differently. travel and hotels reservation desk.Managing Airports the physical product is referred to as the ‘generic’ product with the ‘wide’ product representing the augmented elements (Jarach. Other airports may look at the product in a different way. For the passenger. At the broadest level. In addition. 2001). and other features such as immigration control that will enable the passenger to fulfil his/her need of boarding or disembarking the aircraft. Valet parking is also provided to speed up the departure process. To produce the refined product involves adding the services provided by concessionaires and other tenants and the air travel elements. According to the airport. and security agencies. taxi-account services and a range of different meeting facilities. This is achieved by having a 10 minute check-in and a 5 minute arrival time from plane to terminal. as well as other facilities such as information desks and toilets. hotels and recreation. the actual product will include check-in desks. fire. and so on. baggage handling. For example. It wants to market this concept internationally through airport alliances and partnerships. The actual product will also include adequate transport services to and from airport. shoe shining in the terminal concourse. and rescue) and intangible service elements provided by the airport operator’s own staff and those of the customs. Another way of looking at the airport product is by considering its ‘raw’ and ‘refined’ features. Corporate jet aircraft have also been encouraged and there are dedicated facilities for these (Lavelle. provided by the airlines (Reantragoon. navigation aids. the equipment. 186 . the terminal building. 1999). handling agent. like any other city. for example. which meets the needs of travellers. and other commercial facilities as well as other features such as ease of transfer between different aircraft could all be considered to be part of the augmented product. From a passenger viewpoint. and is already applying this model to other airports where it has some management involvement (Schiphol Group. the actual product will need to consist of the runway. while for the passenger it will be the ability to board or disembark an aircraft. the airport product can be considered to be a large commercial centre. the airport product includes the airline product as well as the product of the concessionaire. 1994). 2002). and residents. In order to provide the core product for the airline. the Schiphol Group has defined Amsterdam airport as an ‘AirportCity’ to get over the message that the airport. and the provision of outlets selling essential travel goods. The raw product consists of both physical tangible elements (such as the runway. lighting. the core is the ability to land and take off an aircraft. the freight warehouses. offer marketing support or pricing incentives to the airlines or may formalize some agreement about the exact service levels to be expected. visitors. fuel. catering. and business activities. For the passenger the range and diversity of shops. For freight forwarders it will be the ability to load and unload the freight on the aircraft. provides services 24 hours a day in the form of shops and catering. It is difficult to apply this marketing concept to the airport sector because of the composite nature of the airport product. both tangible and intangible. there is London City airport in the United Kingdom that targets the business market. For the airline. since time is money in the business world. apron. buildings. the main product feature is time.

even if it may not be particularly close. merchandising. It is very important for the airport to remember this and to focus its marketing on the air services on offer and the airport’s convenience rather than giving every fact about the facilities on offer. The name EuroAirport for Basel-Mulhouse airport has been devised to reflect its central European location and bi-national ownership characteristics. In the same year. Lyon airport in France changed its name from Lyon Satolas to Lyon-Saint-Exupery in an aim to strengthen the airport’s worldwide reputation (European Regions Airline Association. and interior design may also be used for all its airports. Manchester airport has used ‘Manchester Connects’ for its transfer product and ‘En Route to the World’ for its retail product (Teale. Many airports use a number of sub-brands for different areas. Too many brands may confuse passengers. London Gatwick. logos. For example. 187 . Marketers often give considerable attention to the name of the airport. very debatable although it may make the customer feel more at ease because of the familiar surroundings. and London Ashford. it is information about the nature of catchment area and potential demand rather than small details about the airport infrastructure that will most probably sell the airport. they may choose to drop the international name as Manchester airport did in 1986. the airline product) and the proximity of the airport to the potential customer. which all give the product an identity. For example. Within the airport sector it is certainly true that there are widespread attempts to create a corporate identity with the use of catchy publicity slogans. Other interesting examples include Zürich airport. and expanded facilities (Hill.The role of airport marketing Related to the concept of the airport product is the idea of an airport brand. with the London area there is now not only London Heathrow. when marketing to airlines. 1996). especially retail areas (Peterson and Malmgren. London Biggin Hill.e. partial privatization. and Skavsta as Stockholm South. These tangible and intangible features of the identity differentiate the product from its competitors. BAA plc has traditionally used a common and constant brand image for its seven UK airports. 2001). London Manston. and eye-catching logos and designs on promotional information and within the terminal itself. Other airports will include the name of the nearest large city or town. as airports become more developed and more well known for their range of services. signing. design. and London Stansted but also London Luton. however. 2000). Many regional airports like to be called ‘international’ airports to demonstrate that they serve international as well as domestic destinations – even if in some cases there may be only one international route! On the other hand. particular as airlines and their alliance groupings are also becoming increasingly keen to have their own identity represented in the area of the terminal where their passengers are handled. Similarly. however. which was rebranded as ‘Unique Zürich Airport’ in 2000 to reflect a new management structure. In marketing theory a brand is represented by a name. colour schemes. and advertising. Sandefjord-Torp as Oslo South. For instance. London Southend. Ultimately most decisions concerning the choice of airport will be based primarily on the air services available at the airport (i. 2000). No amount of money spent on improving facilities will attract airlines to the airport unless they consider that there is a market for their services. and there may be more conveniently located airports. Whether such ‘branding’ actually gives an airport any competitive edge is. For airport operators who own more that one airport. use of similar signposting. Charleroi is known as Brussels South.

by placing advertisements in trade journals. roadshows. and so on by producing general publicity information. airports promote themselves to airlines. and public relations. the marketing focus is likely to change. for instance. has sold itself as being ‘The high yield airport with surprising low costs’. Price sometimes features in such advertising. for example. tour operators. With other airports the key message may be more specific. and by being represented at exhibitions. while Stansted claimed that it was a ‘London airport where you can call the shots’. Clearly every airport is unique and needs to be marketed in its own specific way. Atlanta airport has invited airlines to become ‘Members of the busiest airport in the world’ while Rome airport has used the message ‘With more than 150 destinations we help half of the world to reach the other half. Airports with considerable spare capacity will adopt different strategies to congested airports. The small Palm Beach airport’s slogan was ‘Touch Down 11:00. For instance. may 188 . Trade At the most basic level. For instance. The aim here is to increase awareness among the trade. sales. and different teams looking at different marketing activities such as market research. which already have a reasonably developed route network. or with regular mail shots and other promotional activities. Sometimes simple messages may be used to sell the airport. may be more concerned with putting forward a good positive image for the airport and building on a corporate identity. Large hub airports may focus on their size to demonstrate that the airport is popular and has connecting traffic possibilities. Towel Down 11:45’. has promoted itself as being ‘Europe’s best address’. Other airports adopt much more vague and less specific messages. whereas at larger airports there may be separate departments for coping with different customers such as the passengers and airlines. Kansas airport told airlines not to ‘Get drawn into a congested hub’. At small airports. travel trade seminars and workshops. the new Incheon Airport is promoted as the ‘The Winged City’ and is described as the ‘21st century airport of your dreams’. Vienna airport. and other similar events. Other airports try to emphasize different product characteristics such as uncongested facilities and quick processing times. And vice versa’. Smaller airports competing with major capital city airports will probably find that they are always faced with an uphill struggle but nevertheless a considerable amount of proactive and aggressive marketing may achieve results. Once an airport gets to a certain size.Managing Airports Airport marketing techniques Successful airport marketing involves focusing on understanding and responding to the needs of the various customer segments. Larger airports. The marketing of airports aiming to be hub or feeder points is totally different from marketing an airport that relies on point-to-point services such as charter or low-cost services. Geneva airport. freight forwarders. Developing regular contact with key airlines and tour operators through visits by airport sales staff. while Macau airport advertised half price landing fees at night with the message ‘Our night fall brings sweet dreams … 50% off at night’. Small airports may concentrate on growing specific services that appear to offer opportunities for the airport. all marketing tasks may be undertaken by a couple of staff. while Nice airport has described itself as the ‘Greatway to Europe’.

Emphasis on architectural excellence and best-quality facilities could even have a negative impact. By the 1990s. the proposed service frequency. The airlines themselves have become awash with route studies from numerous airports and so have become much more skilled in using this information to back-up and verify their own research. These can be particularly important and can be crucial particularly for low-cost carriers. This was a task previously left solely to the airlines. they would provide airlines with information about potential routes and the size of the market and perhaps other factors such as the likely requirements for frequency and aircraft size. airline presentations from the marketing departments of airports to route planners in airlines had become commonplace. Once an airline has shown some interest in a potential route.Times have now moved on in the air transport industry and both the airports and airlines have developed more sophisticated marketing techniques. The airport may also agree to share the costs of further advertising to ensure that the initial level of demand is sustained. Joint advertising and promotional campaigns may be run to promote the new service both through the media and travel agents by pooling resources. 189 . Many of the airports had the advantage that they already kept at least some of these data for their own passenger marketing and forecasting. for example. and the network development potential. This would be supplemented by information about the catchment area. From their databases. The airports that first adopted this more reactive approach to marketing to airlines. the airport will typically agree to provide additional support in a number of ways. Typically. states that marketing support will be considered on an individual airline basis and will depend on the aircraft size on the proposed route. the Irish operator. have claimed many success stories. Airports tend.The role of airport marketing also be effective. So the airports started to take a leading role in initiating interest from airlines. the presentation would give a detailed analysis of the new route or routes. with airlines being concerned that the cost of such infrastructure may be passed on to them. Such discounts will usually diminish as traffic grows and the service becomes sustainable. the cost of undertaking such research could well have been too prohibitive. The airport marketers analysed passenger and catchment area data that gave them adequate information to suggest new route opportunities to potential operators. to deal with potential airlines customers in a much more direct and personal way. Information would also be given about the airport’s facilities and also accessibility by transport links. The airline presentation is still an important element of an airport’s marketing but it has to be highly focused. the potential for market stimulation. This assistance can vary quite considerably. For example. such as Manchester and Vienna. Aer Rianta. and other trade users. tour operators. reduced fees may be offered for a certain period of time. however. For a small airline interested in operating just one or two new routes. in terms of the characteristics of residents and its tourist and business appeal for incoming passengers. although this may develop into an area of considerable friction between the airport operator and airline. This hard-selling approach was developed in the 1980s owing to the realization that airports were actually in a good position to identify new route opportunities for airlines. The emphasis must be very much on the potential demand at the airport with the quality of facilities taking second place. They also benefited from certain cost economies by being able to consider all different markets and routes simultaneously. and route cost and yield considerations.

5 2. retail.5 18.6 shows the costs associated with the marketing support. 1998–2003 Year Marketing costs (£ millions) 6. which successfully helped persuade the regulatory authorities to agree to non-stop services being operated to Shanghai. namely reductions/rebates in airport charges and contributions to joint marketing campaigns. which Manchester airport has given. in a number of bilateral agreements.3 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 (estimate) Of which: Rebates Marketing campaigns Of which: Promotion of new services Prevention of reductions in existing services Promotion of business with tour operators Source: Competition Commission (2002). Manchester airport was particularly active in this activity in the 1970s and 1980s when it frequently attempted to get gateway status.7 Passenger numbers (millions) 17. The airport may also promise to help to lobby government to remove bilateral regulatory obstacles. a quarter to prevent reductions in existing services and the final quarter to help tour operators who brought additional traffic.4 1. who in turn try to sell the virtues of their facilities and services. This has averaged around £5–6 million compared to total costs of about £200 million. it was forecast that rebates would account for about two-thirds of this marketing support. A more recent example is San Francisco airport. but with six receiving 72 per cent of this and 20 receiving 94 per cent.6 1.2 3.Managing Airports Table 7. Table 7. Since 1998. These costs obviously have to be off-set against the additional revenue that will be brought to the airport in terms of airport charges. frequency increases. Such services 190 . For example. 75 airlines have benefited from some help.7 4. Around half of the costs was estimated to be associated with new services. alongside the London airports. In 2002–03. In prearranged. This has been held annually since 1995 and is an opportunity for airport marketers and airline route planners to get together to discuss future market opportunities. and opportunities for connecting traffic may be discussed. An interesting development as regards airline marketing has been the ‘Routes’ conference. £3 additional revenue goes to the airport (Competition Commission. New routes. and car parking income.5 6.1 18. catering.5 6 6. as well as marketing initiatives in the form of discounted fees and other incentives that the airport may be in the position to offer. one-to-one meetings airlines explain their expansion strategies to airports.6 19.4 17. 2002).8 4.6 Airline and tour operators marketing support costs at Manchester airport. Manchester airport has estimated that for every £1 spend on support of tour operators.

particularly if an airline is to benefit from connecting traffic from other airlines. There can be a problem with such a strategy if the low-cost operations prove to be so successful that they necessitate adding extra capacity at the airport which the low cost carriers do not wish to pay for in their fees. a few airports such as Abu Dhabi in the Middle East offer a one-stop approach when there is a single contract for all ground services at the airport. the airport operators are able to offer discounted public transport for the airline passengers. It was at this time that the name 191 . airports will be able to offer discounted airport charges but will have no control over handling or fuel charges. Elsewhere there have been examples of low-cost carriers transferring to other airports once the introductory fees have unwound as has been the case with Ryanair’s operations at Kristenstad. At other airports. Ryanair’s passenger numbers increased from 86 000 in 1997 to 178 000 in 2000 but the airport still remained very much a small regional airport. Since all the facilities. Ryanair began to operate two flights a day to Dublin and the airport passenger numbers increased dramatically to 200 000. in 1997. and Rimini airports. Between 1990 and 1996. A good example of this practice is again Manchester airport. Low-cost operations at Charleroi Brussels South Airport Charleroi airport is a regional airport owned by the Walloon regional government which is 46 km south of Brussels. An example of this occurred with new terminal capacity at Luton with the low-cost carrier easyJet. If the airport is under regional public ownership. Moenchengladbach airport near Düsseldorf.The role of airport marketing began in 2000. are owned by the government. Another way in which an airport can put together an attractive deal for an airline and be costeffective in its marketing is by pairing up and co-operating with the airport at the other end of a route that has been identified as having potential. including aircraft fuelling. The most common airlines to benefit from a total package of measures are the low-cost carriers. Airports may also choose to give advice on scheduling decisions. the new services may be supported because of the potential broader economic benefit that they could have on the whole region. The most significant change came in 2001 when Ryanair decided to make Charleroi its first continental base and began operating 10 routes with 19 daily frequencies. for example. Lamezia. Airports are willing to enter into such agreements due to the additional commercial revenues that the extra passengers will bring and the impact that such services will have on encouraging other carriers to the airport. However. The airport believes that this changed its status from that of a regional airport serving passengers on charter airlines originating from the Walloon region to a larger secondary airport with a much greater traffic base in the whole of Belgium and also cross-border regions in France and Germany. Then. which worked together with airlines to coordinate the arrival and departure time of air services in order to create ‘Manchester Connects’ – the interline hub. In many cases. Airports may be able to make themselves appear particularly attractive if they guarantee that the overall package of costs that an airline is faced with will be reasonable. the airport is in a position to do this and to have complete control over what it offers to the airlines. its passenger levels fluctuated at around 50 000.

It has also expanded the duty free and catering outlets to cope with the additional passengers and increase the overall non-aeronautical revenues. Table 7.13 euros in 2006 and 1. the European Commission was considering whether the Charleroi deal and perhaps other agreements that Ryanair had negotiated were in breach of European competition law on the grounds that it was an exclusive arrangement and could have distorted competition between BSCA and Brussels National airport (Pilling. and Ryanair’s costs for local crew hiring and training. in 2003. The expenses covered by BSCA include marketing support. For example. 2001). Office and hangar space is also provided for a minimal cost.00 Hotels costs/year: 250 000 Payment/new route: 160 000 Recruitment/training (one-off): 768 000 Estimated office costs/year: 250 000 Estimated hangar costs/year: 250 000 Other assumptions (euros) Annual pax: 1 million New routes: 12 Ryanair to BSCA Landing fees Handling fees Total BSCA to Ryanair Marketing fees Hotel costs New route payment Recruitment payment Office costs Hangar costs Total Net benefit 1 000 000 1 000 000 2 000 000 2 000 000 250 000 1 920 000 768 000 250 000 250 000 5 438 000 3 438 000 Source: Aviation Strategy (2001). 2003). 192 . In addition.7 Elements of agreement between Ryanair and BSCA Annual Payments Amount (euros) Cost assumptions (euros) Landing fees/ pax: 1.00 Marketing contribution/pax: 2. The airport offered Ryanair a very favourable deal because it felt that the presence of Ryanair could substantially grow its non-aeronautical revenues and attract other airlines to the airport. For this support from BSCA Ryanair has agreed to base a certain number of aircraft and operate a defined number of flights for 15 years – if not it will have to repay the incentives (Aviation Strategy.Managing Airports was changed from Charleroi Airport to Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) (Jossart. Ryanair pays very low landing and handling charges starting at 1 Euro per passenger which goes up to 1. which together with the low charges results in a net benefit to Ryanair. BSCA also contributes towards other expenses incurred by Ryanair. 2003). Table 7. incentive payments for each route started.3 euros in 2010.7 shows the reported details of the arrangement made between BSCA and Ryanair. However.00 Handling fees/ pax: 1. it has transformed the coach shuttle from the Airport to Brussels City from a loss-making into a profitable activity and has generated a substantial amount of revenue from car parking since it introduced parking charges in 1999.

as are maps and other information about the facilities and services. Sponsorship of key events is also quite common in the airport business. facilities and surface access. and may help to give exposure to the airport and the services that it offers. Numerous airports. There are many stories of regional airports discovering that all their neighbouring travel agents are completely unaware of any local air flights. 1998). Branded giveaways to reinforce the airports image and identity. and other information. Some of the general sales promotions directed at the airlines may be targeted at the travel agency sector as well. Passengers and the local community Generally. The type of information usually available includes airport location details. can be circulated. particularly the regional and smaller ones. this is not enough. have found that it is particularly important to spend some time and effort in developing close and personalized links with travel agents serving the direct catchment area. Tourist and other information about the airport’s catchment area might be included.The role of airport marketing Travel agents In spite of the increased use of the Internet and other direct-booking methods. and stationery items are frequently distributed. Cardiff airport in the United Kingdom overcame this problem by buying a chain of 22 local travel agents in an attempt to promote flights from its airport (Humphreys. with various degrees of sophistication. and local transport details. up-to-date timetables. Norwich airport. even the most basic 193 . libraries. and other promotional literature is commonly distributed to travel agents. shopping centres. This not only has this advantage of sharing the cost but also has the benefit of having the operators’ brand associated with the airport. a much more soft-sell approach is adopted for passengers. In many cases. however. This one-to-one contact can be supplemented with frequent. To increase awareness of the airport and improve relations with the community. Regular mail shots to agents may enhance that awareness. At the airport itself. and so on. has adopted a similar strategy. produced jointly with tour operators or airlines. personalized mail shots giving details of routes launches. and educational visits are also often organized. such as badges. air shows. exhibitions. Very often airports will also organize competitions. car parking. airport tours. the agents will have automatically advised passengers to travel via a larger airport further away. promotions. with perhaps opportunities for pre-booking car parking space or buying public transport tickets online. This usually involves regularly sending out a sales representative who can talk to the agents about new developments at the airport and explore the agents’ knowledge and views of the services on offer. open days. Airport timetables with details of airport services. Airport information is now available on airport websites that have been set up by most airports. and other social events to encourage greater interest in the airport and to forge closer links with the agency sector. T-shirts. Travel brochures. for the moment travel agents still remain highly influential when passengers go through the process of selecting and assessing possible travel options. information services are provided for passengers and visitors. Nearly all the websites. tourist information offices. Instead. new facilities. key rings. also in the United Kingdom.

It also has airport upgrade packages available on the net. online shopping. for example.and tax-free sales. newspapers. for example. 194 . For example. In September 2001. on offer. and advertising can increase non-aeronautical revenues. weather updates. in 2000. and other travel products. and the message that the organization wants to put across. and an increasing number of airports are taking full advantage of this. the target audience. Pre-ordering purchases. Schiphol Travelport. It defines the Internet as the virtual AirportCity and has customized information for specific groups such as business. Customer profile and preference information can automatically be collected from users of the website. whereas more detailed information.com. The local community can find out about achievements. Airports are experimenting with various initiatives. gate. Airlines should be able to retrieve traffic statistics and catchment area information. Moreover. last-minute travel details. radio. such as shops and catering. The advertising may be targeted at certain market segments. Most commonly. airports try to increase the consumer’s awareness of flights and closeness of the airport by listing the destinations on offer or by focusing on the convenience of the public transport links. airports adopt various approaches to woo passenger to their airports. timetable or flights material. while details about customs requirements. BAA plc in co-operation with the travel company expedia UK provides online reservations for many airlines and hotels. However. For instance. and destination profiles. particularly business travellers. and handling and warehousing facilities should be available to cargo customers (Hoevel. Airports advertise to the public through the Internet and all the other usual media channels such as television. rentals car. Shareholders can track the performance of their shares and have instant access to the airports’ financial reports. More specific messages may relate to a certain service or facility at the airport – a notable example being the advertising that various airports have undertaken to recover some of their lost retail trade since the loss of EU duty. Schiphol launched its virtual travel agency. This is bound to become common practice. health advice. magazines. 1999). as with all marketing. The Internet can offer potentially numerous marketing and revenue opportunities. The choice of media. travel plans. It also have the Schiphol Travel Update service. clearly depends on the relative costs. Abu Dhabi’s airport marketing campaign ‘Start at the Heart’ was based around a heart logo designed to inform business travellers that they could check in at the ‘heart’ of the city and take a luxury car to the airport. Amsterdam airport uses the Internet to further develop its concept of its airport being an AirportCity. leisure. As with the marketing to airlines. Many of the major airports have real-time flight information and flight-delay details. needs to be presented in the written form. and posters. include terminal maps and a list of facilities. airport taxis. which uses SMS or e-mail to update passengers and others on arrivals and departures times. It also provides information to customers who are interested in Schiphol real-estate properties and online purchases from the See Buy Fly shopping centre can be made. or baggage carrousel. A basic message or idea can be successfully communicated with radio or television media (although in practice this is rare). BAA plc invested in lastminute. the Internet clearly has a much greater role to play than merely providing information for the traveller. the check-in counter. in environmental protection.Managing Airports ones. and transfer passengers. which allows passengers to book online airline tickets.

but also by generating jobs and other economic benefits. to those carried out by the airport operators. airports tend to receive extensive coverage. and hosting events for journalists and travel writers can increase interest in the airport and stimulate press coverage. and. For example. and freight forwarders. regional. It is worthwhile for airports to put reasonable effort into trying to capitalize on the general interest that people have with airports and to create a degree of goodwill between airports and the community. namely market characteristics in terms of market size. Market research A fundamental element of marketing is market research – in order that organizations can have a thorough understanding of the characteristics and needs of their market. Developing good links with local. national. in some cases.The role of airport marketing The ultimate aim of promotional and advertising activities is usually to sell a product. the quality of commercial facilities is unlikely to have an impact over a passenger’s choice of airport unless perhaps the passenger is transferring flights or the incentives are very considerable – as with the high-value raffles at the airports serving Dubai. In some countries. surveys may be undertaken by the national civil aviation authorities or government transport departments instead of. age. and Abu Dhabi. socio-economic group. segmentation. but the airport has a rather unique relationship with its passengers as it is not directly selling a product to them. flying frequency. foreign media is crucial. sex. Similarly. Information about passengers can be collected from a number of different sources. the CAA regularly surveys passengers at all main airports. the aviation industry being the newest of all transport modes still holds a fascination and wonder for some and a fear for others. The passenger will not go to the airport unless the required airline service is there and marketing communication techniques can usually only encourage use at the margins. For all these reasons. and the more subjective area of passenger satisfaction. Bahrain. Passenger surveys at the airport are the most common but surveys or group interviews at home or at work are also possible. Views about current services and particularly any underserved destinations can be gleaned from organizations such as travel agents. the environmental impacts such as noise and pollution are of major concern. The quality of service paper has already considered passenger satisfaction and so the emphasis of the discussion here is very much on the first area. in the United Kingdom. particularly should anything so wrong. 195 . or in addition. This has the advantage in producing survey data that are directly comparable for different airports. local businesses. have a major impact on the local community not only by providing local flights for the residents. These surveys may be tied in with the quality surveys so that correlations between passenger profiles and levels of satisfaction can be made. share. and trends. Arranging school visits and other trips will also be an essential public relations activity. On the other hand. Generally. of course. and so on. both favourable and otherwise in the press. Most major airports will carry out periodic surveys of their passengers to find out details such as origin and destination. Most research will cover two areas. Airports.

For less popular or longer-distance destinations there is likely to be less competition and so the catchment area will be extended over a greater area. The alternative is to use stated preference techniques when passengers are asked to state their preference between a number of different scenarios. Table 7. supplemented with traffic data. their application within the airport industry is more limited. Usually for short-haul travel to popular destinations there may be considerable competition from other airports and so the catchment area will probably be comparatively small. particularly in the regions. 64 per cent of all passengers through the airport travelled for business purposes. Manchester airport was one of the first airports to use such techniques in the mid-1980s (Swanson. This is the area where most of the local traffic comes from and so will be where airports concentrate their marketing effort. Isochromes of longer times may represent weaker or secondary catchment areas. the demographic characteristics of the residents. The size of the catchment area and the proportion of it which is likely to fly will depend on factors such as the quality of the road network. 1998). the economic. For example.Managing Airports Market research information. The notion of catchment areas for large capital city airports is not generally so applicable since in many cases these airports may offer the only link to the destination under question in the whole country (Humphreys and Gardner. or new or additional services at neighbouring airports. The catchment area is a dynamic rather than static measure that has to be constantly reviewed and revised. 196 . Thirty-two per cent of all passengers had business/first tickets as opposed to only 21 per cent at Heathrow and 12 per cent at Gatwick. The techniques have been used to look at airport choice and also transport modal choice for surface access. Most airports. Data that are particularly useful are the true origin and destination from global distribution systems such as Sabre and Amadeus. While stated preference techniques are widely used for other transport modes. at London City in 2000. by assessing the passenger’s current behaviour to determine future travel patterns. For airports that attract many business travellers. normally beyond the reach of many airport marketing department budgets. can significantly alter the catchment size. The most basic approach to defining a catchment area is by using a certain drive time period criteria – typically 1 hour. market research related to the size of nearby businesses and any new developments can prove very useful in helping to assess the levels of future demand. with over 60 per cent of the passengers working for banking and finance organizations. that is. 1995). and tourist activity within the area. Most of the market analysis that is undertaken is based on revealed preference techniques. Improvements in the road infrastructure or public transport. business. will assist airport operators in the identification of new routes or enhanced frequency opportunities. however. It also changes depending on the destination being assessed. refer to the surrounding population and economy that they serve as their catchment area. For instance.8 shows the main originating areas of the passengers and shows the reasons why the airport thinks the demand for business travel – both currently and in the future – will be so strong. The cost of obtaining such information is. and the competing services at other airports. Many regional airports have overlapping catchment areas. passengers might be asked how they would trade-off higher journey cost to an airport compared with journey time. Such information can give airports invaluable insight into how passengers rate the factors that influence passenger choice.

9 million m2 awaiting planning approval Canary Wharf London’s new business and financial district 10 minutes from City and LCY 738 000 m2 of offices and shops 500 000 m2 being built 180 000 currently in design stage 400 000 available for future use 3 million workers lie within 1 hours’ commute of Canary Whalf and LCY Working population 55 000–100 000 by 2006 Docklands Westminster Canary Wharf just one part of Docklands 565 000 people employed – largest UK 2 Millennium quarter (500 000 m office employment district space) 32% in business and financial services Royal’s business park (150 000 m2 office 47 000 businesses space) 13% increase in GDP forecast for next 2 Excel 65 000 m exhibition hall 5 years Silvertown Quays 92 000 m2 commercial development and 14 000 m2 aquarium Source: Lavelle (2002). Southampton airport Southampton airport’s modern history began in 1961 when the airport was bought by an aviation enthusiast from the public sector owner. 2002 Docklands/Canary Wharf 27% originating passengers in 2000 City of London/Westminster 18% (City of London). Since then BAA plc has invested £27 million on a total redevelopment of the airport that has included a new terminal. mostly in professional or semiprofessional occupations.8 million m2 under construction 0. which was completed in 1997. which was opened at the end of 1994.9). and a runway refurbishment. Business travellers accounted for 49 per cent of the traffic in 2000 compared with only 18 per cent in 1985. Various subsequent changes in ownership took place until the airport was finally purchased by BAA plc in 1990. the airport had scheduled services to a number of domestic destinations. This is also reflected in the fact that two-thirds of the travellers are males.3 million m2 office space exists 0. 14% (Westminster) originating passengers in 2000 City of London 331 000 people work in City 80% in financial services 481 foreign banks 7. Southampton Corporation. is accessible by two motorways. with 72 per cent of them travelling alone (Table 7. In 2002. It is the airport’s intention to become a business airport for local demand and to attract traffic that traditionally has used the congested London airports of Heathrow and Gatwick. A significant proportion of the passengers are relatively frequent travellers. and has a rail station that has direct services to London and other southeast destinations.The role of airport marketing Table 7.8 Main catchment areas of London City airport. 197 .The airport is situated on the south coast of Britain around 80 miles south of London.

At the most basic level it has a request book at the information desk where travellers can fill in suggestions for new destinations. The marketing department meets with a group of frequent business travellers. and the international airports of Amsterdam. overall. it has an airline lounge for business travellers and was the first regional airport in the United Kingdom to introduce electronic ticketing for BA passengers. when BAA plc bought the airport. Much of the leisure traffic in its catchment areas uses services from the nearby airports of Gatwick. 1999). Milan. Bristol.Managing Airports Table 7. Around three-quarters of the airport’s traffic is domestic. Its overall rating in BAA plc’s quality of service monitor in 2001–02 was the best out of all BAA plc UK airports. It also has periodic meetings with the travel and aviation press. Malaga.9 Passenger profile at Southampton airport. Geneva. In the early 1990s. and Bournemouth. traffic growth 198 . Brussels. and Toulouse. Cork. Nice. In spite of its small size. package holiday travellers represented just 6 per cent of total traffic in 2001 – a much lower share than at most other UK regional airports. 2000 Journey purpose % Socio economic group A/B C1 C2 D/E % Sex1 % UK residents business Foreign residents business UK residents leisure Foreign residents leisure Total Flight type Scheduled International Charter International Domestic Total 42 7 47 4 100 21 5 74 100 39 43 11 7 100 Male Female 64 36 100 Group size Alone 2 3–4 Other 72 22 5 1 100 Note: 1Sex breakdown is for 1994/5. The airport considers that its relative small size gives it a significant advantage in terms of the level of personal attention that is provided and the relative short check-in times. the ‘Scoops’ group. Dublin. for example. the annual throughput of passengers at the airport was around 493 000 (Figure 7. The airport has a range of marketing activities to encourage traffic growth. it regularly arranges for current and prospective airlines to meet and hear the views of local corporate travel agents named the ‘Dirty Dozen’ (Airline Business.The airport also aims to forge links with the local community.1). In 1990. by sponsoring the region’s youth games. It also has some limited summer service charters but. Frankfurt. Paris. at least four times a year to discuss future developments at the airport. the so-called ‘High Flyers’. Barcelona. In addition. Source: Civil Aviation Authority (2001). including the nearby Channel Islands.

The airport has one scheduled international flight to Amsterdam and four domestic services. Norwich airport Norwich airport is a regional airport situated in East Anglia in the east of Britain. In the late 1990s. 1990–2002 Source: CAA airport statistics. Twothirds of the traffic is for leisure purposes with a large proportion of the passengers taking charter services (Table 7. but during these years the airport managed to achieve an annual growth rate of 6. A higher proportion of leisure passengers would normally mean a more even split between males and females. It has been operated by the local authorities of Norwich City and Norfolk County as a commercial civil airport since 1969. undoubtedly general factors such as a healthy economic climate and European deregulation had a role to play with this development. which was experienced at all UK airports. was slow while the new facilities were being developed. the airport experienced far greater growth and. although in 2003 there were plans for it to be partially privatized. the airport handled 516 000 passengers. but the dominance of North Sea oil-related business 199 .7 per cent. by 2002. This means that compared with Southampton airport there are more travellers from the C2 and DE socio-economic groups. in the following 4 years. but growth was also considerably less than the average annual rate of 4.1 Total passengers at Southampton airport. However.5 per cent. around 130 miles north of London. This increase of just 1 per cent per annum can be partly explained by general factors such as poor economic conditions and the Gulf War.2 per cent compared with the national average of 5. In 1995.10). was handling 788 000 passengers despite a decline in traffic in 2002 due to the event of 11 September 2001.The role of airport marketing 1000 900 Total Passengers (mns) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Figure 7. with the new facilities in operation and with an increased emphasis on airport marketing.

but has subsequently made a considerable profit from such operations in spite of increased competition from low-cost scheduled operators such as Ryanair and easyJet at neighbouring Stansted and Luton airports. Cyprus.Managing Airports Table 7. Alicante. The service was a success. The success of the agency encouraged the airport to open another five outlets in the surrounding area of the airport in 1998 to further promote the sales of flights from Norwich airport. 1999 % Socio-economic group AB C1 C2 D/E Sex Male Female % Journey purpose UK residents business Foreign residents business UK residents leisure Foreign residents leisure Total Flight type Scheduled International Charter International Domestic Total 31 6 59 4 100 31 47 22 100 35 34 20 11 100 2 61 39 100 Source: Civil Aviation Authority (2000). In 1988. namely Alicante. traffic at Norwich.10 Passenger profile at Norwich airport. and Malta and had allocations on flights to Corfu and Cyprus. bringing in a profit in the region of around £150 000 directly from aeronautical charges and associated increases in non-aeronautical revenue from sources such as car parking. it was offering services to Malaga. Faro. Some of the seats were sold to tour operators and some direct to passengers. retail. The airport initially took the risk of chartering its own aircraft to prove that there was a market at the airport. but also because there was a large number of British-owned villas in this area. and Malaga. however. The airport added summer services to Malaga and Faro in 1996 and a winter service to Malaga in 1997. not only for package holidays. means that male passengers still outnumber females. the airport was down to offering allocations on only four destinations. Like 200 . This move came about because the airport had been unable to persuade the large tour operators to operate programmes from Norwich airport. This also acted as a call centre for London City airport which brought in additional nonaeronautical revenue. Minorca. The other development has been the decision by the airport to operate its own charter flights. By 2000. The airport has adopted a very unusual approach to encourage passengers to use its airport. This was because the airport had proved successful in persuading the tour operators that there was a demand for direct services and the tour operators had therefore taken over the majority of the destinations themselves (Eady. Faro. it opened its own travel agency in the terminal building to persuade passengers to buy flights and package tours departing from Norwich. a weekly service at a total annual cost of £400 000 was operated from the airport to Alicante. This destination was chosen because it was apparent from passenger surveys that there was considerable demand. and catering. In 1995. 2002). By 2002. which consists almost entirely of male travellers.

Southampton. Caves. Norwich and Teesside Airports in 1999. (1989). Bournemouth. Competition Commission (2002). 1990–2002 Source: CAA airport statistics. Exeter and Southampton Airports in 2000. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (1999). Manchester. At the peak time for airport-operated flights in 2000. G. Airline Business (1999). Strategic Airport Planning. 74. London City.5 per cent nationally (Figure 7. Elsevier. Stansted. Passengers at Gatwick. Luton. Heathrow. CAA. Passengers at Birmingham. The airport marketing awards.2 Total passengers at Norwich airport. Cardiff. R. Airline Business. References and further reading ACI-Europe (1999). 201 .4 per cent compared with 5.2). October. Liverpool. Predicting the passengers’ choice of airport.3 per cent between 1990 and 1995 was lower than the national average of 4. Aviation Strategy (2001). and Gosling. July–August. 42–4. Newcastle. ACIEurope. Heathrow and Manchester Airports. CAP 703. Bristol.7 per cent. 3. A report on the economic regulation of Manchester airport plc. Between 1991 and 2002. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2000). Ryanair. Between 1995 and 2002. around 10 per cent of the passenger throughput was associated with these services. Airport Forum. its annual growth of 3. when the charter flights were in operation and with the expanded travel agency business. CAA. traffic grew annually at 7. N. (1999). Leeds–Bradford. the proportion of traffic on international charter services increased from 18 to 49 per cent of the total. just too good a negotiator. The Stationery Office.The role of airport marketing 500 Total passengers (millions) 400 300 200 100 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Figure 7. CAA. R99. 3. Ashford. Humberside. East Midlands. CR00. Passengers at Gatwick. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (2001). ACI Europe Policy Paper on Airport Competition.

V. Unique Zürich airport. E. Southampton Airport (1998). Fourth Air Transport Research Group Conference. ACI-Europe. O. D. Developing a travel product for regional airports. (1998). 12. University of Westminster Regional Airport Seminar. University of Westminster Demand Analysis and Capacity Management Seminar. ACI-Europe. (1995). Jarach. (1994). M. December. Pilling. 17–18. March. Eady. Creating Airport Cities. vol. (1996). (1999). D. Principles of Marketing: The European Edition. The Netherlands. ERA Regional Report. Teale. I. Young. Meznarsic. (1998). 7. Department of Maritime Studies and International Transport Occasional Paper No 49. A. Prentice-Hall. (1998). J. ACI Europe Good Communication and Better Airport Marketing. Criteria for successful airport marketing. December. Humphreys. Humphreys. Structure of airport retail and marketing functions. Airports on the Net. J. University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. M. September. (1995). Kotler. L. Privatization and commercialization: changes in UK airport ownership patterns. J. Name change and airport expansion part of master plan for Lyon. 7. Schiphol Group. London. Airline marketing. P. ACI Europe Marketing and Commercial Strategy Handbook. European Regions Airline Association (2000). D. Hogan. University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. Department of Maritime Studies and International Transport Occasional Paper No 25. March. (2003). (2001). University of Wales. 121–34. G. (1999). I. Economic regulation of Irish airports. University of Westminster Marketing and Market Research Seminar. B. Favotto.. (2003). Saunders.. October. July. Humphreys. (2000). The competitive role of secondary airports in major conurbations. April. London. Armstrong. April. PTRC Annual Conference. (1996). (1996). and Gardner. and Malmgren. London. Southampton Airport Profile. (2002). Hill. (2001). I. (2002). Reantragoon. Commercialization and privatization: the experience of Cardiff Airport. 71–3. The evolution of airport management practices: towards a multipoint. Creating the airport image. Lavelle. December. Not all airports are created equal.. ACI Europe Good Communication and Better Airport Marketing. D. The use of stated preference techniques. Air Transport World. (1995). Warwick. EC investigates Ryanair/Charleroi deal. Southampton Airport. Commercial and Marketing Best Practices Handbook Volume 1 – Commercial Practices.Managing Airports Dennis. August. The airport’s relationship with low cost carriers. I. Airport branding. Airports World. L. July. Airport marketing: an analysis of the use of primary catchment areas. T. Airline Business. Swanson. N. Journal of Transport Geography. 202 . 18. University of Westminster Marketing and Market Research Seminar. and Wong. Airports International. Hoevel. 53–5. December. January. B. May. University of Wales. Peterson. Knowing your customer. (2003). London. Schiphol Group (1999). multi-service marketing driven firm. Jossart.

whereas the negative environmental impacts may be hardest felt by the local community. They want to inform debates about strategic economic investment and to make the economic case for investment in new airport facilities or off-site infrastructure such as roads or rail links. They are doing this for a number of reasons. An increasing number of airports are now undertaking economic impact studies. This chapter looks at the economic impacts of airports while the next chapter discusses the environmental effects.8 The economic impact of airports The wider picture The focus of this book now shifts in the next two chapters from the internal environment within which the airport operates to considering the wider consequences of the airport business. Impact information may also be used for . Alternative expansion options may be evaluated with consideration of the relative economic benefits which they will bring. A key issue for any airport operator is how to optimize the economic potential of an airport while providing acceptable environmental protection. This may be a particular problem when the economic benefits of airport development may be perceived as being the most relevant within a regional or national context. Impact studies may be used for planning purposes to assess whether there is enough land for new commercial projects in the vicinity of the airport or whether there is a sufficient supply of labour and associated housing to support such developments.

These types of activities include the utilities and fuel suppliers.Managing Airports lobbying purposes. This so-called induced impact can be defined as the employment and income generated by the spending of incomes by the direct and indirect employees on local goods and services such as retail. ‘earnings’. and security. airport-related effects – although this is the impact which is most frequently quantified and studied. Airports as generators of economic activity Economic effects can be classified as direct. the concessionaires providing commercial facilities. A key indicator is the number of jobs generated. This impact is associated with the activities of the airport operator itself. which can occur as the result of the presence of the airport. which is defined as the employment and income generated in the chain of suppliers of goods and services to the direct activities that are located both at and in the vicinity of the airport. The role of the suppliers to the airport industry also needs to be considered. Then there is the economic activity or output measure which is the sum of the gross revenues of all the businesses which depend on the airport. This requires an examination of the indirect impact. However. and profits. First. food and retail good suppliers. This indicator can be related to an area’s total income or GDP to assess the relative contribution that the airport has on wealth generation. the economic impact of an airport is not just limited to these direct. The indirect and induced effects are together often known as the secondary effects (Figure 8. freight forwarders and hotels may actually be located off-site. there is income. construction and cleaning companies. the handling agents and other agencies which provide services such air traffic control. within an economic context airports have role to play both by being a significant economic activity in their own right and by supporting business and tourism activity. airport users. 2003). capital investment and tax revenues which airport operations can bring by nature of the fact that they are significant generators of economic activity. and induced impacts. employment. such as car parking. indirect. car hire. 204 . In addition. There are basically two types of economic impacts at airports. This is the most obvious economic impact and is the most easily measured. transport. This is the value that the airport dependent activities add to the economy in terms of wages. or ‘value added’ measure. there is the ‘income’. there are the wider catalytic or spin-off benefits. the airlines. The direct or primary impact is the employment and income generated by the direct operation of the airport. Second. for more direct services. In addition. the impact that these direct and indirect activities have on personal spending also needs to be taken into account. such as inward investment or the development of tourism. in the surrounding area of the airport. This is the most readily understandable measure and can easily be used to determine an airport’s relative importance within an economy. and the general public of the economic value of airports (Mason. interest. to gain regulatory approval. Economic impacts are measured in a variety of ways. Indicators related to capital investment and tax revenues can also be considered. Moreover such studies can have an important public relations role in educating policy-makers. This can contribute to the economic development of the area surrounding the airport. food. Some of these activities. customs and immigration.1). salaries. and housing. in-flight catering. for example. Thus.

During each round of spending. This concept takes account of the successive rounds of spending that arise from the stimulus of the direct impacts and assumes that one individual’s or organization’s spending becomes another individual’s or organization’s income in the next round. many government owners have traditionally allocated considerable public sector funds to aid airport development. Then there are the taxes collected through airport charges. import goods and services. regional and national government revenues. Eventually. and induced activities in the form of airport facilities. distribute wages and salaries. Some of this money will then be re-spent again. and pay government taxes. computer systems. These may be required to cover some specific 205 . Airports. a certain proportion of the money will accrue to local residents in the form of wages. involving an understanding of how the airport interacts with other sectors within the economy. Their combined impact can be measured by the economic multiplier. particularly in the private sector. on the other hand. The suppliers will then make purchases locally. and sales transactions will be subject to sales or value added taxes. Much of the remainder will be spent on labour or will go to the government in the form of taxes. and so on. The rest will be saved and not re-circulated within the economy. will probably also be subject to other taxes such as property or land taxes and business or corporation taxes. the successive rounds of spending will become so small that they will be considered negligible.1 The economic impact of airports These indirect and induced impacts are clearly much more difficult to measure.The economic impact of airports Direct impacts Induced impacts Indirect impacts Direct and secondary impacts Catalytic impacts Total impacts Figure 8. salaries. There will be new investment associated with these direct. and profits. of course. Airport activities can also have a significant impact on local. pass over a considerable share of their profits to their government owners. offices. some airports in the public sector may be exempt from these but may. maintenance facilities. In return. Some of the money spent on airport-related activities will be re-spent on purchases from suppliers of goods and services – the indirect effect – with a proportion of this leaking out of the economy as imports. indirect. The multiplier analysis thus quantifies the economic value and jobs of the financial transactions which take place within any economy. Employees will pay income tax. On the one hand. producing the induced effects.

York Consulting/ACI-Europe. 1993. Then the relevant companies within this area need to be identified by taking into account the knowledge of the airport operator and other industry bodies and. Employers at the airport can be asked to provide details of their employees. of varying levels of sophistication. While such a process for on-site airport activities should not pose too many difficulties. Many airports systematically measure the direct economic impacts – particularly the employment effects. the amount of freight and the actual capacity utilization of the airport. for example. The direct employment at an airport will vary according to a combination of factors such as the volume and structure of passenger traffic. by direct visual inspection. A study of employment in 1996 at European airports showed that the airline and handling agents were.and tax-free sales area of operation it can be argued that the airports and their passengers receive a direct tax subsidy. Direct impacts Direct impacts are clearly the easiest of all the impacts to measure. followed by the airport operators and concessionaires 206 .Managing Airports airport service such as immigration and public health inspection as in the United States. to provide funds for investment such as the US transportation tax. 2000). ACI-Europe has become actively involved with promoting best practice within the industry and has published two airport impact study kits (ACI-Europe. Measuring the direct. 2000). For example. or just to boost public sector funds as in the United Kingdom with the air passenger duty. Then every few years BAA plc also undertakes a survey to find out details of employees characteristics such as home address. at London Heathrow airport. in more recent years other airports have been becoming increasingly interested in assessing their overall economic value. which produces total numbers of staff by type of employer. how much they earn and where they live. However. there is an annual spring census of all airport-related employers. in the duty. travel to work mode and whether they are engaged in functions more related to passengers. the off-site data collection may be more difficult. Historically. location of suppliers. or cargo (Maiden. aircraft movements. whether it acts as a base for airline activity and whether it provides other opportunities such as office or other commercial development. whether it is a major hub. 1995). First. on average the largest employers at the airport. The role of the airport also has to be considered. a definition of ‘off-site’ needs to be established – a rule-of-thumb figure is an area within a 20-minute drive time (York Consulting/ACI-Europe. This is particularly the case in Europe. Conversely. expenditures. it has been in the United States where these techniques have been developed and where most of the economic impact studies have been undertaken. Details concerning purchases of goods and services. and induced impacts There are a number of different techniques. perhaps. available to airports which want to measure their economic impacts. revenues. indirect. and capital expenditure also need to be gathered.

and 2 900 jobs (Department for Transport. tourist generator airports. Amsterdam. For meaningful airport comparisons to be made. Paris CDG. although it obviously masks wide variations in employment at different airports. Eighty per cent of the employees were male – although women made up 60 per cent of the part-time workforce. primarily because of higher than average involvement in freight operations at Brussels and major maintenance facilities being located at the other two airports (ACI-Europe. respectively whilst using the density assumption would give estimates of 6 600. Malaga. namely international gateway airports. Within Europe. and transit and interline airports. The actual direct employment figures for these airports were 5 390. airports such as Brussels. in 2001 it has been estimated that there were 333 000 airport operator employees and a total of over 3 446 000 employed at the airport. AENA.2 Employment at European airports in 1996 Source: ACI-Europe.The economic impact of airports Freight companies 8% Control agencies 7% Other 12% Airline/handling agents 52% Concessionaries 10% Airport operator 11% Figure 8. The international gateways. Cardiff. This is usually equivalent to the number of employees per million passengers per annum (jobs per mppa) or per WLU if freight is an important activity at the airport. such as Heathrow. and Frankfurt. dependence on incoming tourism traffic. (Figure 8. and Hamburg have density values of over 1 500. Airports such as Barcelona. It has been suggested that airports can be classified according to their economic impact characteristics. national hub airports. and Newcastle. They are also run by the operator. This ratio was much higher for the North American and Pacific airports since many more activities are outsourced (ACI. and Gran Canaria in Spain have much lower values – below 500 – because of limited development at the airports. tourist receiver airports. A study in the United Kingdom in 1998 has shown the ‘rule-of-thumb’ density figure of 1 000 for the regional airports of Birmingham. For every person employed by an airport operator. and 2 560. jobs per mppa figures average around 1 100. 2002). 16 400. 2002). particularly in the form of international 207 . there were another nine working for other companies at the airport. A figure of 1 000 jobs for every million passengers equal to a density figure of 1 000 tends to be the rule-of-thumb figure generally accepted by the industry. Also at airports serving low-cost airlines. 1998). the employment levels tend to be lower. This gave an overall employment density figure of 1 616. regional airports. which concentrates most of its resources at Madrid. have the ability to attract extensive off-airport business. By contrast. There are six main groups of airports. Manchester. airport direct employment is related to the traffic throughput of an airport to produce an employment density figure. and no base airlines. 17 200.2). Globally.

This technique will thus allow the impact of additional spending in any one specific economic activity to be identified sector by sector as well as for the area as a whole.g. These should be derived from historical trends and experience elsewhere. aircraft size may rise with traffic growth which will increase staff productivity in certain areas. and to encourage long-haul tourism.Managing Airports company headquarters and distribution and retail centres. which indicates that a 1 per cent change in passenger numbers brings a 0. and air traffic control) activities are 0.97 per cent change in related employment. Each sector is shown as a column representing purchases from other sectors and as a row representing sales to the other sectors. and commercial facilities) the elasticity value is 0. cabin crew. Since the 1980s.g.77 and 0. One country which has extensive experience of using the input–output method to measure impacts is the United States. Corresponding values for freight-related (e.g. construction. manufacturing. Indirect and induced impacts There are two main approaches to estimating the multiplier effect and measuring the indirect and induced impacts. The national hubs. From this table. With passengerrelated employment (e. coefficients or multiplier values can be obtained for each economic activity.g. can act as airline bases and encourage capital city tourism. the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of Commerce has been developing their regional input–output modelling system. This has been used widely to estimate regional impacts in both the public 208 . and services) within a certain area.97. and Stockholm. maintenance. RIMS II. Tourist generator airports. Analysis of past trends at Amsterdam airport has enabled ‘elasticity’ values to be produced for various types of employment. At Heathrow (assuming that a fifth terminal is built) values of 0.46 (York Consulting/ACI-Europe. This model looks at the linkages which exist within any economy by considering the relationships between the different economic sectors (e. fuel. This will involve some assessment of the productivity gains which are likely to occur. in money terms. check-in. 1996). the input–output relationships for the sectors in the economy. For example.61 for cargo have been estimated for the future (Maiden. The first method involves using multiplier values that have been calculated by using information which has been gathered from surveys of on-site and off-site employers and by making assumptions about the tax rate and the share of purchases which are imported. Any economies of scale that also apply to labour productivity should be taken into account. This methodology involves constructing a transaction table which shows. such as London Luton can be bases for charter airlines or low-cost carriers while tourist airports such as Dubai can be important for duty-free trade and cargo operations (Andrew and Bailey. 2000). Oslo. agriculture. handling and freight forwarders) and aircraft-related (e. such as Madrid. 1995). and should also take account of the changing demands on airport employment due to more stringent security and quality requirements and technological developments.83 for passenger-related employment and 0. Very often in using economic impact studies to support proposals for future development. A more sophisticated approach involves using an input–output model. airport operators will have to project their employment figures into the future.

In Canada. direct and secondary) per mppa ranges between 2 500 and 8 000. The choice of study area will depend primarily on the role and size of the airport and the reason for measuring the impact. or secondary. these aggregate figures will hide significant variations which exist between different airports. may be more appropriately considered at a regional or local level. in 2001 the comparable figures are broadly 1 640 (direct) and 1 850 (secondary) with a secondary:direct ratio of 1.62. on average. 2002. propensity to travel characteristics. Globally.2 for the small airports (ACI-North America. and only 0. The indirect impacts tend to increase with the size of the study area as this increases the likelihood of goods and services required by airport-related companies being supplied within the area. with between 750 and 2 000 of these jobs being direct airport-related employment (ATAG. Clearly. Specifically within the United Kingdom. 1998). 2003). recent research has tended to consider the indirect jobs to be broadly equivalent to a third of the direct jobs. and this technique tends only to be used at a national or regional level. respectively. If a more local situation is being assessed. Individual values will depend on many factors such as the nature of the traffic at the airport. 2000). regional. Even. which gives a secondary:direct jobs ratio in the range of 0. This ratio ranges from 2. 1999. in addition to 1 100 direct jobs. or local situation is being assessed. it has been suggested that on average the number of total jobs (i. particularly related to the employment market.6–0. 1997).1 (ACI-North America. Within Europe it is estimated that. there are the same number of indirect and induced.The economic impact of airports and private sector. 1998).32 for the medium-sized airports.e. at smaller regional airports (Mason. The input and output structure of nearly 500 US industries is contained within the model (US Department of Commerce. to 1. 2002). and likewise for the induced jobs. They will also be related to the size of the economy under consideration. rather than being imported from outside. The impacts of smaller airports clearly need to be considered within a narrower context. employment sector mixes and the role of the airport. Clearly. the other approach may be more appropriate. Large capital city and main international airports tend to have such an important impact on the overall economy. The choice of method will usually depend on the amount of data which is available and the resources which can be utilized. that it makes sense to assess their impact within a national context. of adapting the national or regional input–output model. in the United States where the FAA recommends procedures for identifying and quantifying the economic impacts of airports there are substantial 209 . jobs (ACI-Europe. the data requirements will be greatest for the input–output models. Specific issues. Another estimate is 2 700 total jobs per mppa. With this estimation a distinction was made between international hub airports which were assumed to generate 1 500 direct jobs per mppa and 2 100 secondary jobs compared with lower values of 1 000 and 1 100.32 for the larger airports. Halcrow. 2002b). depending on whether the national. however. with a considerable degree of caution. Estimates for airports may vary quite widely because of the use of different terminology and methodology or the adoption of models of varying levels of sophistication.7 (Oxford Economic Forecasting. or there may be the option. In the United States average direct figures are 1 270 staff per mppa and secondary are 2 063 – which gives a ratio value of secondary to direct jobs of 1. and forms the basis of many of the airport economic impact studies. Department for Transport. of which 1 200 are direct and 1 500 are secondary.

These jobs are thus in tourism industry activities such as hotels. restaurants. This means that the secondary : direct jobs ratio is very varied – ranging from as little as 0. and Vancouver airports have been estimated to generate over 2 000 secondary jobs per mppa. such as a new runway or terminal. and Newcastle airports this value is less than 500. For example. For example. Phoenix. particularly in the United States. Induced 19% Indirect 4% Direct off-airport 10% Direct on-airport 67% Figure 8. or adopt a more qualitative approach to assessing this effect. Gatwick. Then there is the problem of how to treat any activities which are based at the airport but not actually related to airport operations.3). One of the major areas of discrepancy is in the treatment of jobs associated with leisure and business tourists who arrive via the airport. and exhibitions.3 Employment at Gatwick airport in 1997 Source: BAA Gatwick (2000). Very often the split of activities on and off-site will depend on whether the actual site is constrained or not. These differences largely will be responsible for the spread of employment density figures which have been estimated for a number of European and North American airports (Table 8.3 at the airports of Cardiff and Gatwick to 2.1). About 15 per cent of direct employment was off-site (Figure 8. 210 . Munich. irrespective of whether the activities are directly airport related. Other studies separately identify the visitor impacts. treat these as indirect jobs. airports tend to identify the impacts separately to add additional support to the case for new capacity. Direct jobs per mppa range from as little as 646 at Washington National airport to 1 656 at Winnipeg airport.5 Cardiff airports between 1 but less than 2 for Düsseldorf airport and around 2 for the Paris airports. the secondary : direct income ratio has been estimated to be below 0.5 at Phoenix. Sometimes the temporary staff employed in the construction industry will be included in the impact figures and sometimes they will not.Managing Airports differences in the detailed methodologies used. When income generation is considered. When there is a major capital investment programme. just as wide-ranging impact values are obtained. Cardiff. Studies adopt different definitions of multipliers and interpret direct and indirect impacts in a number of ways. whereas at Birmingham. This makes it very difficult to compare multiplier values. the secondary : direct ratio was also estimated to be around 0.3 with the bulk of the secondary employment coming from induced effects. conferences. At Gatwick airport. Some airports. sometimes all off-site impacts are considered as indirect impacts. Another area of inconsistency between airports occurs with the treatment of construction activities. attractions. which can have a dramatic effect on the overall magnitude of indirect impacts.

2 billion to UK GDP which is 1.1 1 581 816 1 570 774 1 023 1 147 953 1 075 858 854 1 560 1 068 1 142 806 408 483 966 1 023 354 781 2 131 446 1 195 1 910 828 1 082 2 387 1 224 2 053 1 740 2 046 1 501 1 734 3 206 1 304 2 049 3 470 1 896 2 224 0. 2000b).8 1. Source: Individual airport economic studies as reported by the airports themselves and ACI-Europe (1998).6 0. ACI-North America (1998.9 951 1 213 1 546 812 992 646 1 656 1 202 2 998 2 005 733 796 402 951 2 153 4 211 3 551 1 545 1 788 1 048 2 607 1.1 Employment impacts at European and North American airports Airport Year Passengers (millions) Direct Secondary jobs jobs per per mppaa mppaa Direct and secondary jobs per mppaa Direct jobs : secondary jobs Europe Amsterdam Birmingham Cardiff Düsseldorf Geneva London Gatwick Manchester Munich Newcastle Oslo Paris CDG Paris Orly Vienna North America Ottawa Phoenix Vancouver Victoria Washington Dulles Washington National Winnipeg 1997 1998 1997 1997 1998 1997 1998 1996 1998 1996 1996 1996 1996 31.3 17. studies are undertaken to assess the overall economic impact of aviation.0 30.7 27.4 per cent of total GDP and at least £2.3 million jobs (Wilbur Smith Associates.0 0.0 0. 1999.4 27.0 6.4 14.8 0.6 Note: a mppa million passengers per annum. 2000). Figures for 1998 estimate that the aviation industry generated US$911 billion in economic activity. US$259 billion in annual earnings and 10. In the United Kingdom.6 15.7 2.3 0.8 2. the Department of Transportation’s databases and the RIMS II model are used to assess the overall impact. At a national level in various countries. Aviation’s contribution to GDP was estimated to be 4. National estimates for just the airport sector are more difficult to obtain.2 15.5 0.5 0.5 1. The industry is thought to contribute £10. 1999).7 per cent.8 0.6 1.3 0.5 billion goes to the government in the form of taxes (Oxford Economic Forecasting.2 0.2 15.3 2. including airport operations. and Department for Transport (2002). in the absence of any equivalent of RIMS II.2 1. an input–output model of Oxford Economic Forecasting has been expanded to include the aviation rather than just the transport sector in order to assess the overall economic impact of aviation.5 6.4 1.5 1.1 15. For example. ACI-North America has calculated values 211 .9 0.9 11. in the United States.4 9.The economic impact of airports Table 8.1 31.3 1.9 1997 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 2000 3.8 2.

communications.1 billion in economic activity. This impact can be defined as the employment. The increasing reliance on just-in-time inventory systems for these expanding industries and more traditional sectors. 2002a.b). These businesses will not rely directly on the airport for their operation. an airport can also play a role in attracting and sustaining wider economic activity in the surrounding area – both in terms of business and tourism development. airports have become increasingly more important for businesses operating in global marketplace. The trend towards globalization. airports can play an important role in influencing company location decisions.7 million jobs in total. investment. such as car manufacturing. In short. A good illustration of this was the recent planning enquiry for Manchester airport’s second runway. These arguments are frequently used to gain approval for airport expansion or development. as has been the situation in some developing countries in Africa and Latin America where air travel has enabled the export of fresh and perishable fruit and flowers to Western economies. Manchester airport claimed there would be some much 212 . has meant that air travel has become a critical element for a quick and efficient distribution system and rapid delivery times. In some cases the airport can be the lifeline to local economies. They are estimated to produce US$507 billion in economic activity and US$33. In Canada. or spin-off impact. Moreover.9 million direct jobs and 6. it is estimated that there are 304 000 jobs in total with the airports generating Canadian $34. They can encourage inward investment and the relocations of businesses by attracting industries which rely on quick and convenient access to air services for both people and goods. (ACI-North America. Some of the fastest growing knowledge-based industrial sectors such as computing.Managing Airports for both Canada and the United States by using the individual airport studies in both countries in 2001. creating wealth and regenerating the area. has increased the importance of locating in the vicinity of an international airport. Airports and economic development As well as being a generator of economic activities in its own right. electronics. and are heavily reliant on air travel for the transportation of their high-value/lowweight products.5 billion in taxes. Airports can also help retain current businesses or encourage them to expand. and pharmaceuticals are the most international. In economically disadvantaged areas. Hence. US airports are estimated to generate 1. by providing access to a wide range of both passenger and freight services. and can offer speed and security for goods being transported. but they will have a preference for a location near an airport because of the accessibility benefits which can be gained. magnetic. Airports can give a company easy assess to other parts of the company as well as to suppliers and customers. and tax revenues generated by the wider role which an airport can play by being an economic magnet for the region it serves. income. an airport can enhance the competitiveness of the economy and can contribute to the export success of the businesses located in the vicinity of the airport. airport development is often seen as a way of generating new employment. where unemployment is high and there is a narrow declining economic base. Overall. This is the catalytic. both in terms of multinational companies and also in terms of increased reliance on imported components and products.

for example. very critically. which has encouraged airlines to operate from the airport. not the quality of the infrastructure (Graham and Guyer. and conference business. whereas neighbouring Liverpool airport. city break tourism. Certain regions will find it difficult to attract inward investment if their airports have not reached the critical mass needed to provide an adequate range of services. In the end. The situation is also made more complex by the fact that many economic regions are served by a number of airports. claimed that there would substantial economic benefits for the Liverpool area if the runway was not built and Liverpool airport expanded instead. The exact location of any business activity will be only partially related to the existence of any nearby airport services. rather than the development of air services influencing the economy. and areas which are relatively inaccessible by air will be at a distinct economic drawback.The economic impact of airports needed economic development as the result of the second runway. Asia and Pacific. evidence suggests that the links between air transport and economic growth are largely historical (Graham. 1995). in choosing whether to operate from the airport or not. However. The ability of airports to generate jobs and attract new business should never be used as the main justification for new airport construction. and transport infrastructure. trade policy. particularly in developing areas such as the Caribbean. 2000). and the supporting communications. it will be the airlines that will determine the success of an airport and broader economic impacts. quality and cost of any potential development sites. Thus airports are often considered as a vital component of a regional development policy and can be viewed as giving a real advantage to competing regions. It is extremely difficult to isolate and quantify the economic effects which are due to the presence of the airport from the wide range of other factors which will affect a company’s location decision. where the tourism potential of a destination has only been realized after direct services and suitable airport infrastructure have been provided. or do more bedspaces encourage more frequent flights? Some impact 213 . Airports can play a role in encouraging both business and leisure visitors to the surrounding area. Causality between airport growth and tourism development. its ability to attract air services. The wider economic benefits will depend very much on the scale of the airport and. Their primary concerns will be whether sufficient passenger demand exists and the airport’s strategic and geographic location. with other factors being the availability. and exhibitions. 1999). with either complementary or competing roles. is it new air services at a resort which encourage new hotel development. There are many examples of countries. it is very difficult to formally establish the causality between the expansion of an airport and wider economic development (Caves and Gosling. as with business development. tax incentives. The increase in visitor numbers may then have a spin-off effect on the income and employment generation in tourism industry activities such hotels. In many cases it is impossible to establish whether it is the nature of the surrounding economy of an airport. the nature of the local labour market. restaurants. conferences. Airports undoubtedly play an integral part in economic development. It is certainly true that investment in airport infrastructure is not usually sufficient in itself to generate sustained increases in economic growth. long-haul travel. For example. in terms of wealth and population size and distribution. is very difficult to prove. which opposed the plans. attractions. In the United States. Tourism markets which are particularly dependent on air travel include package holiday travel.

or the amount of income which is generated from these catalytic or spin-off impacts. and Brussels. and Toronto were opened. A more qualitative approach is often adopted which will involve investigating factors such as the significance of the airport to location decision. There is a danger. unskilled labour. Düsseldorf. namely London. 2000). An average figure is 1 800 jobs per mppa (ACI-Europe. For instance. the impact of opening up new routes can be considered in order to see how air services directly impact on business or tourism development (Button and Taylor. 2003). Amsterdam. property costs. competitiveness and business performance by surveying and holding discussions with relevant businesses. were also rated as the top five cities in which to locate a business (Mason. Other factors mentioned included financial incentives. Since it is very difficult to prove any direct causality between airports and broader business and tourism development. except in an isolated island situation. It thus seems rather inappropriate to include these tourism impacts as indirect impacts. indirect. and the skills. but it unlikely. however. that this tourism industry would not exist if a certain airport was not present. Paris. that by including crude estimates for these catalytic impacts that these have the effect of reducing the credibility of the more accurate direct. have a separate visitor impact category. three major non-stop international routes to London. An estimate of spending is often calculated by multiplying the visitor numbers by average daily spend and length of stay. a survey of US corporate executives found over 50 per cent of the sample felt that the road infrastructure. the school system. For example. They will often have a very positive but perhaps not totally realistic view of the value of new air services. many of these tourism businesses will be reliant on air services for their tourism demand. it is more preferable to consider them alongside the catalytic impacts causing business development. and Newcastle in the United Kingdom. environmental regulations. raw materials. Birmingham. in 1996 at Phoenix Sky Harbor International. wage rate and trade union profile of the local labour market were very important locational decision factors. Similarly trends in business and leisure tourism can be investigated and the importance of the role of the airport discussed among industry experts. it is not usually feasible or suitable to identify with any certainty the exact number of jobs. since the respondents will bear no direct costs associated with the new services but may benefit from the gains. In another survey in Europe in 2002. the top five cities for transport links with other cities. 2000). 1998). Alternatively. and the health system. housing.Managing Airports studies. Other airports choose to categorize the visitors’ impact as indirect. Some studies have made some estimates by usually assuming that a certain proportion of jobs within the business and tourism industries in the vicinity of the airport exists because of the airport. telecommunications. Instead. and Oslo to above 2 000 at Barcelona. and induced impact measurements (York Consulting/ACI-Europe. Within Europe such estimates have ranged from below 1 000 jobs per mppa for airports such as Amsterdam. Düsseldorf. proximity of markets. for example. This will be in order to gain a closer understanding of the nature of the interaction between the airport and the wider elements in the local economy. It was calculated that in the first year of operation the routes generated 214 . A difficulty with this interview approach is to ensure that respondents give genuine comments. Frankfurt. particularly in the United States. 2000). Eighteen per cent identified the presence of major airport as being important (Mason. Brussels. Admittedly.

Brisbane. 1994). The negative or adverse potential impacts of airport development.8 per cent of the gross state product. The positive effects may not be very substantial if the tourism industry has to be supported by a substantial level of imports and foreign investment (Wheatcroft. For example. Manchester–Hong Kong. although many of the wider economic benefits are likely to be less linked to passenger volume.4 million at Geneva airport to 15. such as city centres. in addition to the tourism activities. It was also estimated that the routes created US$351 million air exports income. such as extensive urbanization and industrialization. and Birmingham–New York. For comparative purposes. with the income accounting for 6. which was undertaken by the UK CAA (CAA. The crossover effects on other industries. The Washington airports also estimate the impacts of the US$31 million capital expenditure programme at National airport and the US$57 million capital programme at Dulles airport. Table 8. The overall impact on the local community of tourism development related to aviation activity also needs to be assessed. Alternative developments could have a better overall impact on the economy. Geneva. The impacts should also ideally be compared with possible alternative. At Geneva airport the catalytic impacts associated with business development. it is the net benefits which should be considered (Caves and Gosling. and Vienna airports to give an example of the range and type of measures which are available in different areas of the world.2 per cent of employment in Queensland.7 new annual tax revenues (ACI-North America. Manchester–Dubai. The total employment is estimated to represent 5. By way of illustration. Washington National airport has the least jobs per mppa primarily because of the domestic nature of the passengers and less involvement in other activities such as freight. overheating of the economy and consequences of local labour shortages. These airports are all medium-sized airports with passenger throughput varying from 6. Increased industrial and economic activity around an airport may merely be draining resources from other areas. and US$52. Each of the studies have been undertaken separately so there is no consistency in the method used – which may explain some of the differences. Similarly. airports cannot only encourage visitors to the local region but can also enable local residents to holiday abroad rather than staying in the local region. 215 . have been identified.2 presents a selection of economic impact measures for the Washington.8 million at Washington National. The total jobs and output at Brisbane is very high. the measure have been divided by passenger throughput. economic activities with an assessment being made of the comparative economic benefits and opportunity costs.The economic impact of airports US$39 million direct income and 366 jobs. and it is likely that this is reflecting the impact of aviation on the neighbouring Australia TradeCoast economic development area. all need to be considered. for example. with indirect/induced income of US$97 million and 915 jobs. also need to be taken into account. the impact on other modes of transport. 1999). 1994). non-airport related. the availability of nearby direct air services may increase the use of imported goods and services at the expense of local products. With some of the airports visitors activities are identified separately and so the impact of including them in the economic assessment can be seen. namely Manchester–Atlanta. 1998). In assessing the impact that airports have on the wider economy. Other interesting examples include an assessment of the impact of the four long-haul routes. 3 323 jobs.

and Vienna airports Jobs Income Output (million (million US $) US $) Taxes (million US $) Jobs per mppaa Income per ppab (US$) Output per ppab (US$) Taxes per ppab (US$) Washington Dulles (1998) 15. it is likely that in the future more consistent and accurate approaches to measuring economic impacts will be developed. While concepts such as the multiplier or the catalytic effects are reasonably straightforward to understand. Brisbane. Geneva Airport (2000). As research into this area continues.2 Economic impacts at Washington. dIncluded in ‘total’. Sources: Brisbane Airport Corporation (1998).0 million passengers Direct 16 400 N/A N/A Totalc 83 600 1 596 8 685 Geneva (1998) 6.Managing Airports Table 8.8 million passengers Direct 10 394 1 058 N/A Totalc 20 234 2 361 N/A Visitors N/A N/A 2 361 N/A 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A 255 462 N/A 992 1 788 3 076 50 82 646 1 048 4 418 26 41 1 547 7 887 1 029 2 058 1 684 d 35 64 64 2 4 24 42 85 1 2 N/A 151 N/A N/A N/A N/A 116 259 N/A 264 N/A 128 N/A N/A 153 N/A 184 N/A N/A N/A 819 226 N/A 684 231 N/A N/A 262 28 N/A 18 0 N/A 19 N/A 27 0 N/A N/A 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 28 51 N/A 1 142 2 224 N/A Notes: a mppa million passengers per annum.6 million passengers Direct 15 481 548 4 125 440 Totalc 27 888 992 N/A N/A Visitors 47 981 998 1 989 277 Construction: Direct 778 31 N/A 7 Totalc 1 281 56 N/A N/A Washington National (1998) 15. there is little doubt that airports have a substantial economic effect on the region in which they are located. More and more airports are showing interest in measuring their economic impact but still there are considerable inconsistencies in the terminologies and methodologies used.8 million passengers Direct 10 211 384 2 414 295 Totalc 16 562 664 N/A N/A Visitors 69 805 1 347 2 909 425 Construction: Direct 417 19 N/A 4 Totalc 650 32 N/A N/A Brisbane (1996–7) 10. Vienna International Airport (1998). bppa passengers per annum. In conclusion. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (1999).4 million passengers Direct 6 587 N/A 1 458 Totalc 13 174 N/A N/A Catalytic 10 779 N/A 4 404 d Visitors N/A 1 488 Vienna (1996) 9. Geneva. This chapter has discussed these various economic impacts. 216 . c Direct and secondary impacts. they are very difficult to actually quantify with any degree of confidence.

The Economic Impact of New Air Services. Mason. The Economic Impact of Canadian Airports. ACI-North America (1998). 3rd edn. Geography and Air Transport. R. (1995). ACINorth America. Regional Air Services Co-ordination Study. 8. OEF. S. University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. 217 . Geneva Airport (2000). ACI Airport Economics Survey 2001. DOC. ACINorth America. Strategic Airport Planning. The Economic Impact Study Kit. Pergamon. BAA. 6. CAA. MWAA. C. Geneva Airport. (1995). The contribution of airports to regional economic development. DTLR. Brisbane Airport Corporation (1998). Maiden. (2003). and Guyer. ACI-North America (1999). B. The Economic Impact of US Airports. and Gosling. ACI. BAA/31. Graham. G. ACI-North America. 249–62. B. The Economic Benefits of Air Transport. (2000). CAP 638. (2000). (1996). R. International air transportation and economic development. and Bailey. ACI-North America (2002b). US Department of Commerce (1997). Graham. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (1999). Creating Employment and Prosperity in Europe. (1999). 209–22. A User Handbook for the Regional Input–Output Modelling System (RIMS II). Mason. N. Airports Council International (ACI) (2002). BAA Gatwick. PTRC European Transport Forum. Halcrow (2002). ACI-North America (2002a). ACI-Europe. The economic impact of airports. ACI-Europe. K. The Economic Impact of Geneva International Airport – Summary. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (1994). September. March. Gatwick Airport Sustainable Development Strategy. Button. Regional Economic Impact.The economic impact of airports References and further reading ACI-Europe (1993). BAA Gatwick (2000). H. R. Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) (2000). Wiley. SERAS Stage two: Methodology report. BAC. The Economic Impact of US Airports. Journal of Air Transport Management. The Economic Impact of Canadian Airports. Andrew. Proof of Evidence: Forecasting – Heathrow Terminal 5 Enquiry. University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. (2000). The role of regional airports and air services in the United Kingdom. Caves. Oxford Economic Forecasting (1999). DfT. Department for Transport (DfT) (2002). and Taylor. The Contribution of the Aviation Industry to the UK Economy. S. Master Plan – Executive Summary. Brunel University. Journal of Transport Geography. ACI-North America. The economic impacts of airports. ACI-Europe (1998). N. March. ATAG.

Aviation and Tourism Policies: Balancing the Benefits. ACI-Europe. (1994). The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the US Economy – 2000. York Consulting/ACI-Europe (2000). Europe’s Airports: Creating Employment and Prosperity – An Economic Impact Study Kit. Routledge. S. Wilbur Smith Associates. Introducing our Airport and its Economic Potential.Managing Airports Vienna International Airport (1998). Vienna International Airport. Wilbur Smith Associates (2000). Wheatcroft. 218 .

The problems are particularly acute for airports which are popular because of their proximity to local population centres but which means that a significant proportion of the community is affected by airport operators. In short. For this reason it has become increasingly difficult to substantially expand airport operations or to build new airports.9 The environmental impact of airports Growing concerns for the environment In the 1990s. and possible constraints upon. In many countries increased prosperity has led to greater expectation for the quality of life and more sensitivity to the environmental impacts of airports. faced the effects of increasing environmental pressure. All indications are that this will become even more difficult in the future as concern for the environment grows. The environmental impacts have to be considered at two levels. the future activities of the air transport industry. The level of environmental concern varies from country to country or indeed from one airport to another. namely global and local. Within a . like all other industries. depending on views about aviation and other social and political attitudes. the airport industry. environmental issues must be seen as one of the greatest challenges to. continual growth in demand is putting greater commercial pressures on airports to develop activities. At the same time.

Waste and energy management. Noise Aircraft noise has traditionally been considered the most important environmental problem at airports and. Pressures from the environmentalist lobby for a reduction in air transport because of overall environmental needs. This is in spite of the fact that over the years the noise levels 220 . the role that aviation plays in contributing to world problems such as global warming and ozone depletion is increasingly coming under scrutiny. In some areas of operation airport operators may be legally required to minimize the adverse effects. for example. although some investigation of the global developments has also been made to put the local issues into a broader context.Managing Airports global context. and local residents. The main impacts The main environmental impacts can be divided into five categories: 1 2 3 4 5 Noise. amenity and conservation groups. 2000a). These will have a complexity of different. CEDelft. when mitigation measures are considered. closeness to residential areas and overall environmental sensitivity of the community. At a local level. or loss of wildlife habitat can cause anxiety among certain sectors of society and generate considerable emotive concern. heritage. It is the more local problems which airport operators mostly have to address on a day-to-day basis. public tolerance of aircraft noise has been diminishing. impacts due. airport operations. at the expense of economic growth. Consideration of the environmental impacts at airports is made that much more difficult because of the many different bodies involved in. most standard procedures have to be adapted to suit each airport’s individual circumstances because of variation in aircraft use. is very much at the local level. Other impacts may require complex technical data to be assessed. and landscape. interests. The meeting of governments in Kyoto in 1997 was one of the first attempts to introduce constraints upon environmental impacts at a global level although aviation currently is excluded from this. in many cases. Wildlife. concerning airport noise. 2000a. Water pollution and use. governments and statutory organizations. or affected by. which may be difficult for all interested parties to fully understand. therefore. These are long-term issues which society as a whole has to address. Issues such as resident safety. Public concern at a local level. for example. is a much more difficult challenge to face – even quantifying the environmental costs is very problematic (DETR. Then. the airlines. Some impacts cannot adequately be measured. night flights. to aircraft noise and air quality have to be considered. These include the airport operator. Emissions. can be accurately assessed by monitoring noise levels at airports. and often conflicting. land-use rules. The focus of this chapter. whereas elsewhere many airport operators are increasingly voluntarily introducing measures to mitigate the impacts.

for phasing them out. 2001). to be applied to all new aircraft designs. In 1977. in the EU it was estimated that there were two chapter 1 aircraft. 19 per cent was hushkitted or re-engined.e. For example. ICAO adopted similar international standards in 1971. have been prohibited. This largely explained the difference of opinion over this issue (Gill and George. Newer aircraft certificated under chapter 3 include the Boeing 757. however. Since 1990. By far the greatest proportion of chapter 2 aircraft is in Latin America and Africa where they accounted for over half the total. based on the maximum noise level given a certain flight procedure. DC-9 and older types of Boeing 737 and 747. Baker and George. 221 . 2000). 31 per cent of aircraft were hushkitted and 60 per cent are chapter 3 compliant. This has been the cause of a very major dispute between European and American authorities. This was because the United States was the sole supplier of hushkit technology and US airlines had a higher proportion of hushkitted equipment than any others. A standard was finally established in 2001 (Feldman. The Americans were strongly opposed to this unilateral action by the EU. These standards were included in the Environmental Protection Annex 16 of the Chicago Convention. the noisiest of the chapter 3 aircraft and so there have been pressures. 224 chapter 2 aircraft. known as chapter or stage 3. These are chapter 2 jets which have been modified to comply with the chapter 3 rules. became known as ‘chapter’ 2 or ‘stage’ 2 in the United States. such as the Boeing 707. They are. and 13 supersonic in the world’s fleet (European Commission. globally 15 per cent was certified chapter 1 or 2. This reduction has been primarily due to the development of less noisy aircraft and the pressure of more stringent requirements for noise certification of new aircraft types. 2 448 chapter 3. The initial standards for jet aircraft. compared with corresponding global figures of 9 and 86 per cent. claiming that it discriminated against the US aviation industry. more stringent standards. 1999). 2000. particularly in Europe. Noise certification was first introduced in 1969 by the United States in the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36 (FAR Part 36). 767. with all single-aisle aircraft in January 2000. Current aircraft types are typically 20 dB quieter than aircraft of 30 years ago – reducing noise annoyance by around 75 per cent (ATAG.The environmental impact of airports associated with aircraft movements has been declining. 2000). and all the airbus family of aircraft. In 1998. The absence of an agreed standard from ICAO meant that the EU in the interim introduced its own regulation. The first measure was originally to become effective from 1999 but was delayed in the hope that an agreement with the Americans could be reached. George. An issue which has complicated this noise certification process is the treatment of hushkitted or re-engined jets. In the United States. the first generation of noisy aircraft (i. Since that time the second generation Chapter 2 aircraft have become the noisiest types. Chapter 2 aircraft include the Boeing 727. 777. 1999. chapter/stage 1). and the remaining 66 per cent were chapter 3 compliant. They were phased out completely in the United States at the end of 1999 and internationally ICAO required these aircraft to be phased out by 2002. were adopted by the ICAO. For some time ICAO through the Committee on Aviation and Environmental Protection (CAEP) explored the scope for a new chapter 4 noise standard but reaching agreement between all ICAO member states proved very difficult. This banned the addition of new hushkitted aircraft to European registers from 2000 and excluded all this type of aircraft entirely after 2002.

and track-monitoring procedures can be provided for the airlines. A common restriction is a night curfew or limitations on night flights. noise abatement operational procedures. and the long lifetime of an aircraft. This concept of a ‘balanced approach’ to noise management comprised four principal elements: 1 2 3 4 reduction of aircraft noise at source. and a growing number of airports actually publish the results. airport operators may impose financial penalties on airlines that deviate from their required flight track. Money from penalties may be used for soundproofing or other community projects. In most cases. or to enforce noise limits. because airlines quite legitimately may be required to depart from their preferred route for ATC reasons. In addition no agreement was reached regarding the phasing-out of the marginally-compliant chapter 3 aircraft such as the hushkitted aircraft although ICAO did agree to airports considering operating restrictions as part of a balanced programme of noise mitigation. Undoubtedly. In some cases.Managing Airports The new chapter 4 standards will apply to all new aircraft designs beginning 2006 which have to cumulatively be 10 decibels quieter than chapter 3. and make scheduling long-haul services more difficult. This is usually done by directing aircraft away from the most densely populated areas. Airports may also choose to place restrictions on flight procedures by requiring. For example. or a limit on the noisier aircraft. The directive allows operating restrictions to be placed on marginally compliant aircraft that have a cumulative margin of no more than 5 decibels in relation to the chapter 3 certification limits but it is not yet clear how many airports will choose to impose such a restriction (Pilling. for example. however. local community. restrictions on noisier aircraft only apply at night 222 . reduced power and flap settings for take-off or approach. governments and other interested parties. However these standards are already achieved by existing designs and so the EU and most airports were disappointed that their demands for a much tighter cumulative 14 decibel reduction were not met. for example. Many airports also use noisemonitoring equipment. land-use planning and management measures. This can be used to measure local noise levels and calculate noise contours. many airports have introduced preferred noise routes (PNRs) to minimize the noise impact on the surrounding population. introduce unilateral noise abatement operating measures which can more immediately reduce the annoyance caused by aircraft noise. Individual airports can. There may be difficulties with this. Airports can also impose other operational measures to reduce the noise impact. The acceptance of this approach meant that in 2002 the European regulation regarding hushkits was repealed following the adoption of a new directive which incorporated ICAO’s balanced programme. Such constraints may significantly impact on the development of freight or charter traffic which often rely on night movements. however. This may involve a blanket ban on all aircraft. 2002). international certification has an impact on reducing aircraft noise levels but these take a considerable length of time to achieve – given the heavy investment needed by both aircraft manufacturers and airlines. Flight-track monitoring equipment when combined with airport surveillance radar is used to improve airline departure and arrival procedures and to monitor the adherence to the PNRs. local noise-related operating restrictions. The information gathered from the noise.

7 tonnes MTOW in the busiest 6 months of the year. Frankfurt airport was one of the first airports to introduce such charges in 1974. 2000a. These charging policies are. but due to pressure from the airport and DHL which has its European base there. In December 1997. There is also the noise from airline engines running. due to political and environmental pressures. However. Noise has been reduced at a number of US airports which have mostly 223 . Many airports also impose noise surcharges for noisier aircraft and an incentive to use quieter aircraft. or engine testing. Salzburg was one of the first European airports to ban all chapter 2 aircraft as early as 1991. The UK Government appealed against this ruling in 2002 arguing that it was up to national governments to strike a balance between individuals’ rights and the country’s economic interests but by the beginning of 2003. unlikely to influence an airline’s choice of aircraft unless the fee differential is very large. taxiing. The airport consequently applied to fully utilize the single runway capacity of 120 650 movements and was granted approval in 2000 (Düsseldorf Airport. however. these became increasingly popular – particularly in Europe (see Chapter 5). a so-called ‘noise budget’ was approved which made an allowance for a gradual increase in the number of flight movements because of the use of quieter aircraft. In the 1980s and 1990s. is an interesting example of an airport which has had its operations restricted by noise concerns. The airport also has daily movement limits and a night ban between 2300 and 0600 hours. a number of airports have introduced mufflers or noise attenuating walls and special noise attenuating hangars. Restrictions have also been placed on the use of reverse thrust by airlines.b). A second runway was completed in 1992 but because of environmental pressures. To reduce the noise emission levels. The government of Belgium proposed a total night-time ban at Brussels airport in 2003. Eight members of an organisation called Heathrow Action for the Control of Aviation Noise (HACAN Clear Skies) complained to the European Court of Human Rights that the sleep disturbance caused by night flights was a breach of their human rights and the Court agreed in 2001 that a good night’s sleep was a human right. Restrictions have been placed on when and how engine tests can be undertaken. however. the budget was repealed in 1999. which is situated relatively close to the city of Düsseldorf. the noise problem is not just limited to the aircraft landing. There has been an interesting development relating to London Heathrow airport which could lead to further restrictions on night flights. the airport had invested in the nearby small airport of Moenchengladbach. On both runways. However. taking-off. Düsseldorf airport. Airports may also choose to use the runways in a such a way as to minimize the number of people being affected by take-off or landing-related noise. There is. no consistency in the way that these noise charges are structured although within Europe it is likely that a directive aimed at harmonizing the noise charging schemes to promote greater use of quieter aircraft will be introduced. no decision had been reached. In order to provide capacity for smaller aircraft operating regional services. has a very restrictive upper limit on movements. especially during maintenance. the airport was restricted to 91 000 aircraft movements of over 5.The environmental impact of airports but in some case they have been imposed during the day as well. These limitations over the years have placed restraints on the growth of both passenger and freight traffic at the airport. this blanket ban has been replaced by night noise quotas. There is the noise from ground vehicles and auxiliary power units. This allowed a maximum of 120 000 movements in the 6-month period.

1996). This is in order to prevent the gains which have be achieved by using quieter aircraft being offset by people living closer to the airport. Some of these gases. is considered to be fairly small. there is a ‘new’ environmental threat which has been growing in recent years – that of aircraft emissions. nitrogen oxides. which is the most important of all the greenhouse gases. around an airport where the construction of new houses and other noise-sensitive buildings is not allowed.75 million grant money was allocated to 624 sound insulation projects from tax income (Aeroports de Paris. Housing and also buildings such as schools and hospitals may be insulated. and various hydrocarbons. a flight-track monitoring system was added. carbon monoxide. In 1964. as is the case of some European airports such as Zürich and Copenhagen. it employed its first noise abatement employee and in 1966. The present fleet of subsonic aircraft globally consumed around 130 million tonnes of fuel in 1992. However. noise zoning is often applied to airports. Surrounding this area is zone B where industrial buildings are permitted. Sometimes the funds may come from airport noise charges or noise taxes as it the case with the Paris airports where. Noise abatement procedures have existed at most major airports for some time. 1999). To overcome this problem. The appropriate control of land use near the airport is vital when the mitigation of the noise impacts is being considered. there have been night-time restrictions and in 1980 noiserelated surcharges to the landing charges were introduced. FF37. primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour are greenhouse gases which contribute to global warming and climate change. or noise buffer. For some time the airport has had three noise zones. By consuming fuel. This is expected to reach 300 million tonnes in 2015 and 450 million tonnes in 2050 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This involves defining a certain area. particles (mainly soot) of sulphur oxides. 2000). However. although technology is increasing the sophistication of such practices. most airports have managed to contain many of the problems arising from aircraft noise. at around 2 per cent. in 1999. there will always be some residents who will be subject to noise annoyance. Then there is zone C where housing with special noise insulation is allowed – but the cost must be borne by the house owner or developer (Meyer. Zürich airport was one of the first airports to address noise issues seriously. In 1984. Zone A is in the centre of all airport activities where only airport-related buildings are allowed and residential property is prohibited. a simple noisemonitoring system was introduced. for example. federal law in Germany requires airports to provide and pay for sound insulation within a noise zone around the airports. By contrast. water vapour. and for this reason many airport operators will fund or assist in the funding of noise insulation for properties in the vicinity of the airport – either voluntarily or because it is a legal requirement. Since 1972. the aircraft are producing emissions of carbon dioxide. Emissions Through the combination of the development of quieter aircraft and noise abatement operating procedures. The radiative forcing or global warming effect of all aircraft 224 . Globally aviation’s contribution to the world total of human-made CO2.Managing Airports fixed rather than auxiliary power units.

Of more certainty is that future global air traffic will increase at growth rates which will outperform the impact of any technology improvements which will reduce engine emissions. By 2050. In addition. depending on different growth scenarios and other assumptions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Within the EU. At present there does not appear to be a viable alternative to jet fuel. 1999). when the aircraft are flying at altitudes of between 9 and 13 km.5 per cent. The alternative of taxing all flights was estimated to bring down the results of EU carriers by 15 per cent and other carriers by 4 per cent. 2000). Thus. the exact effect is unclear. just taxing EU carriers on intra-EU flights and.5 per cent. the European Commission expressed significant interest in the introduction of an EU-wide fuel tax. Although the absolute amount of emissions is relatively small. the scale of these developments will only be sufficient to partially offset the growth effect. Improved operational procedures. they directly occur in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. while greater fuel efficient aircraft will may produce less emissions such as CO2. As yet. again.The environmental impact of airports emissions is estimated to be around 3. 1999). second. 1999). The environmental effectiveness of taxing all routes would be far greater but this option would be very difficult to implement since this would involve complicated reworking of bilateral agreements or amending global Chicago Convention policies – most probably through agreement with 225 . It is projected that there will be a 20 per cent improvement in fuel efficiency by 2015 and a 40–50 per cent improvement by 2050 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1999). It was estimated that. The subsequent effect on the operating result of the airlines with the first option was predicted to be a reduction of 12 per cent for EU carriers and a 4 per cent increase for other carriers. This was not considered to be acceptable. Market-based options are another alternative. However. nitrogen oxides (NOx) are also thought to have a significant impact on the ozone layer but. Aircraft in the 1990s were 70 per cent more fuel efficient than 40 years ago. In the UK air emissions represent 18 per cent of all transport emissions and 5 per cent of all emissions (DfT. The taxing of EU carriers would therefore give them a distinct competitive disadvantage and produce fairly marginal emission savings. the higher combustion temperatures needed for greater efficient may actually produce more NOx emissions. It considered two options. could bring about a further reduction in fuel burn of around 8–18 per cent in the next 20 years – but still these developments by the themselves are not likely to reduce emissions to an acceptable level (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The second option would bring a greater saving of 2. if such a tax was introduced in 1998. These include a kerosene tax. As well as the greenhouse gases. the effect of these emissions at high altitudes is not fully understood. Currently aviation kerosene fuel is exempt from tax on international flights under the 1944 Chicago Convention and also the many bilateral air service agreements between countries prohibit such a tax. In the late 1990s. the aviation industry is looking at other ways to mitigate aviation emissions. taxing all flights of all carriers operating within the EU. such as more efficient air traffic management. All this also has to be viewed within the global context where major CO2 reduction efforts are taking place in other industrial sectors. this global share may have risen to around 4–15 per cent. In Europe. the first option would reduce fuel consumption by 0.5 per cent between 1992 and 2005. first. CO2 emissions from all forms of transport account for around 26 per cent of all CO2 emissions with air accounting for 12 per cent of the total transport impacts (AEA. 2003). the AEA fleet is predicted to be 22 per cent more fuel efficient by 2012 (AEA.

1994). In the UK the environmental costs have been estimated to range from £3 to £35 per passenger for a single trip (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.1 Emission charges at Swedish airports in 2002 Class of aircraft Average value of emissions during LTO a cycle Increase in landing charge (%) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 19 g/kN HC or 80 g/kN NOx 19 g/kN HC and 80 g/kN NOx 19 g/kN HC and 70 g/kN NOx 19 g/kN HC and 60 g/kN NOx 19 g/kN HC and 50 g/kN NOx 19 g/kN HC and 40 g/kN NOx 19 g/kN HC and 30 g/kN NOx Note: a LTO landing and take-off. 2002b). Therefore. 2002). 226 . this type of tax was not allowed in Europe and was also seen as discriminatory towards Swedish carriers once full European liberalization has occurred. It was concluded that this it was not a feasible option in the short term (European Commission. Such charges would be levied through the air traffic control system and the research explored two main alternatives. There is actually some limited experience of such a charge in Sweden and Switzerland. unlike fuel taxes.25 per kilogram of CO2 initially in 1989 (Alamdara and Brewer. the Swedish government abandoned this tax in 1997 and replaced it with an emission charge (Table 9. The first was a charge proportional to the volume of greenhouse gas emissions discharged in EU Table 9. The European Commission has also been looking at a more boarder application of emission charges as an alternative to a fuel tax having commissioned a major study of this option in 2002 (CE Delft. nor would they create any distortions of competition. according to EU directives. The Swedish government levied an emission tax on Swedish domestic flights at a rate of 12 Swedish Crowns per kilogram of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons and 0. and 67 per cent would not consider doing so despite the fact that 73 per cent were now paying high charges as a result of the schemes (McNamara. The impact of such unilateral policies on fleet choice seems to have been rather limited – which. as with the noise surcharges. is the result of the relative price inelastic demand at airports. The Swiss and Swedish authorities are working together towards a harmonized system with the aim of making it easier for users and for other countries to adopt. An alternative to a tax is an emission charge which could be levied as part of the airport or ATC charge. Geneva and Zürich also introduced an emissions charge in 1997. However. 2003). Source: International Air Transport Association (2002). 1999). 2000). It has also been estimated that demand would decrease by 10 per cent if environmental costs are passed onto passengers (DfT. A survey of airlines of the European Regions Airline Association found that 91 per cent had not yet altered their fleet mix as a result of the charges in Switzerland and Sweden.1). This research concluded that emissions charges. if limited to flights within EU airspace would not give rise to legal objections from third countries.Managing Airports ICAO.

ICAO has laid down standards for four categories of engine emissions. Some airports use these systems to help them model predicted air quality in the future. carbon monoxide. As with the noise issue. the actual airport operators have very little control over this matter.The environmental impact of airports airspace. electric vehicles which are more economically and environmentally 227 . In addition to considering the most appropriate standards and the best operating practices to reduce emissions. clearly they are not the only impacts which need to be considered. While the ICAO emission standards can have an influence over aircraft emissions at airports.g. While the global impacts of aircraft emissions have attracted a great deal of attention in recent years. hydrocarbons. taxes and levies (e. If charges of 30 euros per tonne of CO2 and 3. en route emission charges) and emissions trading options whereby airlines would buy licences to pollute that can be traded with other industries. namely smoke. At a local level the air quality of the area in the immediate vicinity of the airport can be affected – primarily due to emissions of hydrocarbons. It was estimated that this could produce annual revenues of 1–9 billion euros. which tend to be fuel powered. With this option if an aircraft performed better than a performance standard it would receive money but if it performed worse it would pay money. and nitrogen oxides. they are not legally binding and it is up to member states to include these standards into their law. Encouraging more fuel-efficient operating procedures such as continuous descent approach may help a little. These include voluntary programmes.The second alternative which the research explored was a revenue-neutral charge or performance standard incentive (PSI). The additional revenue generated could be allocated to individual EU member states or to a supranational fund for financing emission abatement measures. Overall the years these standards have been strengthened. It was estimated that this would cause a five per cent reduction in emissions coming almost entirely from technical and operational measures introduced by the airlines and. it was estimated that emissions could be reduced by 9 per cent in 2010. An increasing number of airports monitor local air quality at airports. At a regional level the emissions from aviation are thought to contribute to acid rain. At some airports. It was estimated that ticket prices would rise by roughly 3–5 euros for short-haul one way flights and 10–16 euros for long-haul flights. as such a scheme would be revenue-neutral. since they are based on the aircraft landing and take-off (LTO) cycle and do not cover emissions during the cruise phase.6 euros per kg of NOx were used. About half of this reduction would be due to technical and operational changes introduced by the airlines and about half would be due to a reduction in air travel demand because of the rise in ticket prices. The monitoring systems vary considerably in their level of sophistication and accuracy. the problem at airports is not just limited to aircraft operations since the local air quality may also be affected by the ground service vehicles. Since 1981. Very often independent companies will undertake the monitoring. However. These standards are aimed at local air pollution problems. and nitrogen oxides. ICAO has also been looking at various market-based options. The operator can also seek to reduce the impact of running engines while the aircraft are on the ground. fuel tax. Emissions from international flights are excluded from the Kyoto Protocol – if it is ever ratified – and instead ICAO through CAEP has been given the responsibility for developing proposals on international aviation emissions. depending on the exact valuations which were used. there would be no additional funds to distribute. carbon monoxide.

to improve cleaning processes and to minimize the spillage and leakages. especially the airlines. and insurance restrictions. reusing or recycling waste. and grass fertilizers used in landscaping activities can contaminate the soil. Most of the individual companies. as well as fire training activities and fuel spillages. can also contribute to this pollution. as it is with most other industrial activities. Then there are emissions from maintenance and cleaning processes. An increasing number of airports now monitor water quality as well as air quality and have adopted various measures to minimize this water pollution. For example. airports are also faced with specific operating restrictions because of the nature of the aviation business. and other airport-related companies. not directly related to emissions but to the trail of turbulent air left behind by an aircraft. car parks and other land development may be contaminated by anti-icing and de-icing fluids such as glycol which are used during the winter months. Waste and energy management Waste pollution is also an issue. The chemicals used in maintaining and washing aircraft and vehicles. While most of the waste comes from the airlines. Another impact. with the disposable nature of most of the packaging. airports need to incinerate or send to a controlled landfill site all ‘international’ food waste from aircraft. is considered to be a particular problem. have been considered and used in a few instances. However. but more often with the airline. Surface water discharge or run-off which goes into local watercourses from runways. The waste at airports is generated by airlines. Off-airport disposal methods which typically involve incineration and landfill also need to be considered. Then there is the normal wastewater from buildings and facilities such as domestic sewerage. is wake vortices which can damage the tiles and windows of property under flight paths. airport operators. Improvements can usually be brought about by an assessment of on-airport treatment methods and the scope for reducing. Responsibility for this sometimes rests with the airport operator or property owner. In-flight catering waste. However. These include revised operational practices to reduce the use of the harmful chemicals. it is usually the airport operators who have overall responsibility for waste management for the entire airport activities. 228 . In many cases there may be general legislation related to waste management. do not have enough space for waste management facilities and there are cost economies of scale to be gained by having communal recycling and other waste management procedures.Managing Airports favourable. auxiliary power units and from the cars and other surface transport modes. Leakages from underground tanks and pipes. aprons. In addition. Water pollution and use Water pollution at airports can occur for a number of different reasons. customs. Balancing reservoir treatment may be undertaken before the surface water joins local watercourses. it is very difficult to identify the specific airline involved and so the airport operators often provide a repair service and introduce measures to minimize the likelihood of this happening. the transfer of waste from airside to landsite at airports is problematic because of security.

air conditioning. At Oslo Gardermoen airport. because it involved the restoration of 55 acres of wetlands in the San Francisco Bay area (Gethin. At Miami airport. Some airports undertake energy audits. and a rare breed of new had to be protected when the second runway was being built. for example. a bridge had to be built to prevent the 1 000 moose who annually migrate across the region from wandering onto the airport approach roads (Anker. there may be some 229 . First. However. a 1-km exclusion zone for dolphins was set up to ensure that their sensitive hearing was not harmed during blasting work. badger sets had to be relocated. When Stansted airport in London was developed. The need to protect the wildlife. 1998). 1997). At Indianapolis airport. While the new Chek Lap Kok airport in Hong Kong was being built. An unusual example is San Francisco airport. associated with the provision of heating. development was halted when a rare western swamp tortoise colony was discovered. the death of four manatees beneath the runway forced the airport operator to take action to protect this endangered species. There are many examples of how specific airport operators have tackled the disturbance of certain wildlife habitats – particularly during the construction of a new airport or during airport expansion. At Perth airport. Landscapes can be radically changed by airport development. to other locations. 1995). heritage.The environmental impact of airports Energy management. as with waste and water management. there are good financial reasons for why airports should address these issues since environmental improvements may bring about considerable cost savings. For example. this has meant that such buildings have been moved. rather than being opposed to it. Heritage may also be affected by airport development. a considerable amount of time and effort was expended in attempting to integrate the airport as much as possible into the local landscape. it is not just the effects on the daily life of people that the airport operator has to consider. and the landscape of the local environment also needs to be addressed. Energy conservation techniques can reduce this by between 5 and 20 per cent (ACI-Europe. and landscape The major impacts of noise and emission clearly can have a significant affect on the population living in the vicinity of the airport. heritage. Here. is also very important. Wildlife. and lighting. which can disturb the ecosystem and can be visually intrusive. With energy conservation. ventilation. The role of other transport modes There are two ways in which the use of other transport modes can affect the direct and indirect environmental impacts of airports. It has been estimated that energy costs account for about 5 per cent of the operating costs of an airport. 3000 new bat homes for the Indiana bat had to be installed due to a new maintenance building which displaced the bats. At Manchester airport. environmental lobbyists were actually in favour of airport development. In the case of Manchester and Copenhagen airports. historic buildings may be situated within the area which has been allocated for airport expansion.

1999). Lufthansa and the railway company. 2000). Elsewhere. On the Stockholm–Gothenburg route. 1999). 2000b). 2002). it was estimated that the rail share of traffic on the Frankfurt–Munich route increased from 30 to 37 per cent in the first year of operation with a drop in airline share from 27 to 23 per cent. Moreover. 1998a). In a recent study in the United Kingdom. with the impacts rising as the transport system becomes congested. The individual airport operator has far greater control in influencing the mode of surface travel used by passengers and employees to reach the airport – which is the other aspect of surface transport that needs to be considered. There is some evidence to suggest that this has been partly due to the availability of much cheaper air fares on the London–Brussels route (Dennis. it was recommended that high-speed rail should be encouraged for domestic and some intra-European journeys to reduce the environmental impacts of air transport (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Research undertaken for Friends of the Earth (UK) quantified the environmental benefits from transferring domestic flights to rail as being in the range of 118 000–362 000 tonnes in reductions in CO2 emissions and 18 000–58 000 tonnes for NOx emissions by 2015. 2000). Many airports are trying to develop more effective public transport alternatives to the car for accessing the airport. Deutsche Bahn. they are clearly not usually an attractive option for transfer traffic unless the high-speed network is linked to airports. Such rail links also require huge capital investment. switching from air to rail is only feasible when dense routes are being considered. An interesting development occurred in Germany when. For transfer to rail of flights to nearby European destinations comparable reductions of 145 000–402 000 and 23 000–64 000 were identified (Friends of the Earth. signed a memorandum of understanding. the rail share was estimated to have increased from 40 to 55 per cent in the first 4 years of operation and the first TGV route in France between Paris and Lyons was claimed to have gained an 90 per cent market share (CAA.Managing Airports opportunity for passengers on short and medium distance flights to be diverted on to high-speed rail services. However. They have also introduced many initiatives to encourage passengers and airport employees to use public transport. in 1998. In the 1980s and 1990s there was a continuing growth in the number of high-speed rail services notably in France and Germany. For example. the diversion rate of air to rail on the Eurotunnel London–Paris route has been far greater than that for the London–Brussels routes. Various studies have shown that a quick city centre to city centre rail service have been quite successful in attracting a certain share of the population away from competing air services. Ground transport makes a major contribution to the overall noise levels and air pollution at an airport. for instance. an agreement between the French and Americans has been reached which allows the airlines to offer passenger services which include a rail connection or other surface mode of transport (DETR. The appeal of the rail alternative will also depend very much on the comparable level of fares and the quality of service on offer. This relates to short routes from air to rail once the high-speed network in Germany has been completed. In Europe. For example. it is estimated that around 10 per cent of passengers could be transferred from aircraft to high-speed trains (International Panel on Climate Change. as at Frankfurt. 230 . It is Lufthansa’s aim to gain more slots for longerhaul services. It has been calculated that for flights between 500 and 1000 km than a high speed alternative could typically consume one third less fuel per passenger kilometre than an aircraft (Friends of the Earth.

Other dedicated airport rail link examples include Gardermoen in Oslo.1 Existing and planned rail links to airports Source: ATAG. Stuttgart. Leipzig/Hall Amsterdam. There are many more rail links in Europe than in North America as they are considered to be a much more acceptable and attractive surface access option in Europe. Heathrow in London. 1998. most passengers arrived at airports by private car or taxi. A number of airports have also developed high-speed links connecting airport terminals to international routes such as Charles de Gaulle in Paris. They may be popular with employees but are less attractive to passengers. underground or light rail services) were extended to reach the airport.1 shows the total number of rail links to airports – both currently in existence and planned. Munich. Figure 9. Stockholm airport’s third runway was only approved subject to a rail link being built. 231 . With airport growth in the 1970s and 1980s. 1998. have instead developed high-speed dedicated links. Few of the North American links integrate effectively 60 50 Number of rail links Existing Planned 40 30 20 10 0 Europe North America Asia Africa Australia South America Figure 9. Indeed. particularly those with large traffic volumes or a long journey away from the city centre. with a rather basic quality of service. Frankfurt airport has three railway interfaces. Barcelona. and are not dedicated links to the airport. Some airports also have integrated regional and high-speed rail links – Paris Charles de Gaulle being a good example. with only a small proportion using bus or coach transport. with many examples being found in North America and other airports such as Düsseldorf. Janic. and Amsterdam. historically. Chek Lap Kok in Hong Kong.g. Such links bring environmental benefits and alleviate road congestion as well as bringing extra convenience for passengers. and Shanghai. Many of these services are relatively slow. Milan. the only freight transported has been aviation fuel. Lyon. This is a relatively new idea since. and London Heathrow (IARO/ATAG/ACI. some existing suburban rail services (e. Frankfurt. 2003). They are still the most common form of rail link today.The environmental impact of airports Historically. Zürich. Other airports as well are looking at rail links for the carriage of freight. Arlanda. This has meant that a number of airports. There is a regional train station below Terminal 1. and Sepang in Kuala Lumpur. Changi Singapore. Airports particularly interested in developing rail freight include Liege. Paris Charles de Gaulle. an AIRail terminal for long distance services and a rail connection to Cargo City South.

ease of transfer to the airport and arrangements for baggage. A study of 18 European airports found that passenger public transport use varied from 1 per cent at Lelystad to 41 per cent at Munich airport. These factors plus the greater car dependency in North America explains why rail modal share and the actual number of rail links is far less common there than in Europe. At London Heathrow in 2001. and offering more remote check-in. Others have tried making improvements in marketing. For example. The most developed service of this type is the Fly Rail Baggage system in Switzerland which provides two-way check-in for Zürich. The average was around 21 per cent – 9 per cent for rail and 12 per cent for buses (Navarre.Managing Airports with other rail services as is the case with a growing number of links in Europe. signage and the availability of information. has a very high share of 59 per cent of passengers accessing the airport by public transport (Grossenbacher. It also includes looking at the accessibility of the surface modes. Many airports now set targets for public transport use. and Geneva at 116 rail stations. For UK business passengers this figure was 23 per cent and for UK leisure passengers it was 31 per cent. 232 Am . 1999). complete check-in can be made for flights of Swissair and partner airlines. Manchester airport has a target of 25 per cent for all public 70 60 % passengers on public transport 50 40 30 20 10 0 H Lo ea n th do ro n w Lo G n at do w n i Pa ck ris O rly M an ch es te r o h sl ic da st er Zu r O an St st ed m Figure 9.2 shows the public transport share for some other European airports. 1996). Figure 9. For foreign passengers. which was not included in the original study. 34 per cent of passenger trips were on public transport (Figure 9. Remote baggage services are also frequently available in Europe but not in North America. 2001 Source: Compiled by author from various sources. Some airports are designing better interchange processes between public transport and the airport. More recent studies show that Zürich airport. At 23 rail stations. Heathrow has set a target for passenger public transport trips of 40 per cent by 2007 and Gatwick has an identical target for 2008. A growing number of airport operators have recognized that encouraging passengers onto public transport is very much more than just consideration of journey time.2 Public transport usage by passengers to and from the airport. the comparable figures were 38 and 50 per cent (BAA Heathrow. Basel.3). 2002a).

rail being the quickest way of getting to the airport (17 per cent) and parking costs at the airport being too high (20 per cent) (Grossenbacher.The environmental impact of airports Bus/coach 13% Underground 13% Rail/other 8% Car 39% Taxi 27% Figure 9. Many of the jobs tend to be on a shift basis. while the equivalent figure for employees was 92 per cent (Manchester Airport. 1997). Moreover. Employees’ residences tend to be dispersed around the vicinity of the airport which makes it much more difficult to provide an effective public transport system. and because a friend or relative was available to offer a lift (CAA. airport employees have traditionally been provided with free parking spaces at airports – thus increasing the attractiveness of car transport. 80 per cent of passengers used private cars or taxis. 1999). For Zürich the key reasons for using rail transport were comfortable access (46 per cent). over 75 per cent of staff arrive by car (Figure 9. Amsterdam has a target of 40 per cent of by 2003 – this airport nearly achieved this target in 2001 with 38 per cent. Inherently there are a number of characteristics of airport employment which encourage the use of private car. For example. rail ticket included in package (17 per cent).4). At Heathrow. 1998b).3 Mode of surface transport used by passengers at London Heathrow airport in 2001 Source: BAA (2002a). Airport operators have also been trying to encourage more airport employees to use public transport. The most popular reasons for car use at the major UK airports have been identified as cost and convenience. at Manchester airport in 1996. car use tends to be even higher for employees than for passengers. transport journeys by 2005. As a result of these factors. Surveys at other airports also show this greater dependence on car 233 . Underground Bus/coach 12% 6% Taxi 1% Rail/other 6% Car 75% Figure 9.4 Mode of surface transport used by employees at London Heathrow airport in 1999 Source: BAA (2002a). often at unsociable times when public transport services are inadequate.

current or new New New Current Current Current New New Travelling to and from Heathrow Rail 40% of air passengers by public transport by 2007 Long-term target of 50% BAA to work with Railtrack to introduce an interim stopping service between Heathrow and Central London by end of 2000 BAA to work with Railtrack for approval of Heathrow express service to London St Pancras with first phase operational by end of 2002 BAA and Railtrack to work with promoters group to prepare a Transport and Works Act application for Airtrack scheme To begin a Heathrow Express Shuttle to Hayes in 2001 To work with London Underground to ensure the tunnel and station infrastructure for the Piccadilly Line extension to Terminal 5 is completed on time BAA to work with the Strategic Rail Authority and Railtrack to progress the proposals to link Terminal 5 to Staines (Airtrack) To prepare a strategy for the provision of on-airport bus priority by the end of 1999 The ATF (through the bus working groups) to work to develop performance indicators by end of 2000 To work with bus and coach operators to deliver customer service training to bus drivers by end of 2001 To introduce eight mercedes-benz Citaro buses to the Slough-Heathrow corridor by end of 2002 To introduce a bus priority cut through from the A4 to Nettleton Road by end of 2002 To produce a cycle implementation plan by end of 1999 To double the number of employees cycling to work by end of 2002 To identify and deliver two new or improved cycle parks for airport staff by 2003 Bus and coach $ $ $ New New $ Current New Cycling and walking .2 Targets and commitments – Heathrow airport surface access strategy. 2002 Targets and commitments Achieved ($).Table 9.

to produce their own travel plans by end of 2000 To double the number of car shares by end of 2001 The ATF to continue to operate for the foreseeable future To increase the number of car shares with 65% actively sharing cars at least once a week by March 2003 To publish a Green Travel Plan for Terminal 5 construction workers To introduce an Employee Commuter Centre by 2003 To develop a computerized surface access database by end of 1999 To publish each year a report on progress against the targets in the surface access strategy $ $ and current Current Current $ $ $ Current New New New $ $ Note : $ achieved Source: BAA Heathrow (2002a). encouraging ten of the.Road Accessibility and interchange Parking Managing demand Monitoring To introduce road traffic monitoring at all airport entrances and exits by 1999 BAA to continue to consult with transport operators. To limit the number of parking spaces under BAA control to 46 000 BAA to research the potential to relate employee car parking provision to individual need and public transport accessibility Journey planner to be available to all Heathrow and off-airport employees by end of 1999 BAA to work with on-airport employers. . business partners and user groups on design of public transport interchange at Terminal 5 and Hatton Cross and improvements to existing Central Terminal Area interchange.

Another very obvious social role played by certain airports is that of providing lifeline links to remote areas which might otherwise remain isolated. London Stansted in 1999. In 1999. car sharing has been encouraged at some airports. 1996). Heathrow was the first UK airport to launch its 5-year ASAS setting out nineteen targets and commitments. From 1998 in the United Kingdom all airports with scheduled services were required to form airport transport forums (ATFs) and prepare airport surface access strategies (ASASs) as part of a national policy framework for integrated transport (DETR. For example. education. In preparing the ASASs the forum has to ensure that the proposals are consistent with the broader integrated transport plans for the area. enhancing opportunities for travel and increasing consumer choices for foodstuffs and other products. Some airports have also set targets for public transport use for staff. 1998). carpooling etc. In acting as a catalyst for economic development. The social consequences So far. and rising prices. and other interested parties. It was followed by London Gatwick airport in 1997. The most recent targets and commitments are shown in Table 9. airports will also have a major social impact on the surrounding area. health. Staff initiatives to encourage public transport use include discounted bus and rail travel. and park and ride schemes. fuel odour. ecological damage and the safety of aircraft. It reached this target in 1998 with a share of 42 per cent (Schiphol Group. Employment and living patterns will change with implications for housing. While the exact relationship 236 . consideration has been given to the economic and environmental impacts of airports. in 1995 – before this became official government policy. 3 To oversee implementation of the strategy. and other social needs. it is often claimed that air travel brings wider benefits to society in the form of strengthening ethnic and cultural links between countries. insufficient housing. dedicated airport workers buses. 2 To devise a strategy for achieving these targets. These are all very general impacts. London Heathrow airport was the first UK airport to establish an ATF. The major areas of concern are aircraft noise.e. air pollution. public transport plus cycling. 2000).and long-term targets for decreasing the private car usage to and from airports.). Restrictions on car use within the airport area have also been introduced. transport operators.Managing Airports transport for employees (Niblett. and Manchester in 2000. airport environmental impacts can have a detrimental impact on the quality of life of residents in the vicinity of the airport.2. which are extremely difficult to quantify or contribute to any one airport. The ATFs have three specific objectives (DETR. Aviation can clearly have a multitude of impacts on society as well. Amsterdam airport had a target of 40 per cent of employees using ‘environment-friendly’ transport (i. The ATF consists of the airport operator and representatives from local businesses. An overheated economy associated with a successful airport development may bring problems of labour shortages. 1999): 1 To agree to short. In the broadest context. the local community. local government. the development of cycling networks. Clearly. When car use is still necessary.

In some areas. and encourage the use of renewables and public transport. Many airports have seen their environmental control processes develop into comprehensive environment management systems. The rising number of aircraft movements has also increased concerns about aircraft safety and has resulted in some airports establishing risk contours around airports associated with third party death and injury. These provide the framework for airport operators to develop an effective and co-ordinated response to all the environmental issues. a key to any successful environmental strategy is a partnership approach between all the different interests on the airport site. users and other bodies have made it essential for airports to address environmental issues very seriously. and developing educational links. In Australia. most major airports in the Western world now have well-established environmental strategies and relatively sophisticated policies which typically seek to reduce noise and emissions. local commerce and industry. this may involve consideration of issues such as equal opportunities. These may be a legal requirement. Airports have recognized. supporting and sponsoring local events. clearly defined objectives and targets are set for reducing the impacts and the most appropriate mitigation methods are identified. Since airport operators themselves produce relative little of the direct environmental impacts. the Airports Act of 1997 actually requires airport operators to prepare airport environmental strategies for government approval. amenity groups. reduce waste and energy use. ethics policies. 237 . control pollution. Through adopting such an approach the airport operator also sends messages to the outside world that it is tackling the environmental issues in a responsible manner. For airport employees. and airport users. that sound environmental practice can also bring financial benefits through the effective management of resources such as energy. and workplace safety and security. Some airports set up residents’ forums. though. As a result. Environmental management For many airport operators.The environmental impact of airports between human health and wellbeing and these factors is still not entirely clear. offering a complaints-handling service. skills training. Many airports also have consultative committees with representatives from local government. Moreover. such as air or water quality. Within any system. forging strong links with the community and ensuring continual public dialogue with all interested parties is often considered an important role. an area which has received particular attention is the problem of sleep disturbance due to night flying. Many airports address some of the social issues raised by airport operations within the framework of a broader environmental or sustainability strategy. Increased technology and new mitigation methods are constantly enabling improvements in the efficiencies of such policies. Smaller airports and airports in the developing world have more basic approaches – but few have managed to escape the whole issue of environmental management entirely. environmental policies increasingly are becoming a core component of their overall business strategy. It is for this reason that many airports restrict aircraft movements at nights or ban noisier aircraft types. waste and water. Environmental pressures from governments. Most airports get involved in community relations such as the provision of information about environmental and other developments. airports often have to comply with environmental legislation.

as well as the implementation of the management system. airports need to review their environmental impacts. is subject to external scrutiny. Athens. Rome.3 Key environmental performance indicators at airports Impact Noise Performance indicator Population within specified noise contour Number of noise limit infringements Number of engine testing rules infringements Proportion of aircraft on track CO2 and NOx emissions per passenger (and other emissions) Fixed electrical power usage Number of spillages per 1000 atms Water consumption per passenger Waste per passenger Proportion of waste recycled Proportion of waste going to landfill sites Energy consumption (gas. For example. One of the key elements of any environmental management system is the identification of suitable environmental indicators which can be used to monitor performance and set targets. easy to interpret and able to show time trends. The results should be available to everybody who has an interest in the airport. ensure that their practices comply with all relevance legislation. This is equivalent to ISO 9000 standard for quality management (see Chapter 4). Within the EU. The indicators should provide a representative picture of the issue under consideration and it must be possible to obtain relatively easily and accurately the data required for such indicators.Managing Airports Some airports choose to formalize their environmental management system by conforming to the International Environmental Management system standards ISO 14001.. Dublin airport became one of the first European airports to receive ISO 14001 certification in 1999 and other European airports such as Zürich. in 2002. electricity. fuel) per passenger Proportion of passengers using public transport Proportion of staff using public transport Ethnic origin of staff Gender split of staff Number of complaints Response time for complaints Emissions Water Waste Energy Transport Social policy Community relations 238 . The indicators need to be fairly simple. there is an additional system called the Eco Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) which is based on 1993 European regulation. This report. set objectives and targets to improve environment performance and demonstrate that appropriate measures have been introduced so that environmental practice can be monitored and targets can be reached. formulate an environmental policy. To meet the requirements of ISO 14001. Airport companies such as Schiphol and Fraport have reached these standards. 2003). and Paris have subsequently been certified (Hooper et al. Toronto Lester B. Heathrow had 12 key environmental targets and since 2000 these Table 9. Pearson was the first airport in North America to achieve this standard in 1998. The EMAS takes the ISO 14001 standard that much further by requiring companies to report to the public about their environmental performance. The exact number and range of objectives and targets will vary considerably. including the local community.

In 2000. a survey of 200 of the world’s largest airports was undertaken by Loughborough University and the UK Open University to investigate how airports themselves were measuring their performance (Francis et al. It should possible. transport. Geneva airport launched an environmental action plan which had 27 key measures to be addressed. it is usually required by law to undertake an environmental impact assessment (EIA) as part of the planning approval process. The savings were in energy and water consumption. 1006. In 1999. and waste management. This will examine the potential impacts of the proposed development during the construction and operational stages. economic. Many of these tend to be further disaggregated when detailed targets are being set In 2000.6 11519. Some of the most popular environmental measures used were found to be number of complaints which was used by 84 per cent of the airports. Nice airport adopted an environmental charter which identified a total of 15 objectives and these were broken down into 46 detailed actions.Managing Airports Table 9. 2001–02 Expenditure ( 1000£) Environmental communications/PR Staff Revenue/consultancy/research projects On-going management and maintenance Regulatory charges Capital projects/infrastructure Monitoring Total Savings Source: BAA Heathrow (2002b).4 6526. as part of the environmental management system. However.2 1178. 2001).0 270.4 shows these for Heathrow airport. The greatest expenditure was related to water quality.4 Environmental. to identify the expenditure and savings related to their environmental..6 159.9 6. the population within a specified noise contour by 67 per cent. The results of this assessment are summarized in an environmental impact statement (EIS). and social management policies. situated close to Oslo city centre was beginning to reach capacity but could not be expanded because of physical constraints and environmental pressures.0 targets have played a part of the senior management salary incentive scheme – just as with the financial and surface quality targets.7 46. passengers using public transport (53 per cent) and waste recycled (50 per cent). economic. and social expenditure and savings at Heathrow airport. Table 9.6 2594. Table 9. A 239 . by the 1980s this airport.3 shows some common key environmental performance indicators used by airports. EIA for the new Oslo airport at Gardermoen Since 1939. Oslo has been served by Fornebu airport. When an airport is planning a major extension of its facilities.

in 1991. (b) social impacts. (c) impacts on municipal economy.While the CAA. The EIA for Gardermoen considered the following impacts (Luftfartsverket. (c) outdoor recreational areas. (e) minerals. At this stage there were two options with a runway. (b) air pollution. (c) climate. 1991): 1 Pollution factors (a) noise. 3 Impact on cultural heritage (a) pre-Reformation heritage. For each impact an investigation of the current situation was made. (d) landscape. (b) water resources. The decision to build the new airport was made in 1992 and it was opened in 1998 (Gaustad. which operates airports in Norway was responsible for assessing the environmental impact of the airport itself. 1996). the existing military airport site of Gardemoen was chosen. the Public Roads Administration and Norwegian State Railways analysed the impact of the access system. (f) flora and fauna. 4 Social factors (a) impact on the employment market. 2 Impact on natural resources and natural conditions (a) land and forest resources. either to the east or to west of the existing runway. The Department of Environment and Department of Agriculture were involved in the investigation of the regional and social impacts. Environmental issues and a new runway at Manchester airport Manchester airport which is owned by the Manchester Airport Group plc (MAG) handled 19 million passengers and 112 000 tonnes of freight tonnes in 2001. (d) impacts on land utilization. By the early 1990s this runway was becoming full at peak hours and so the draft development strategy published in 1991 identified the need for a second runway. For this reason.Managing Airports number of new airport sites were assessed and. (b) post-Reformation heritage. 16 groups of environmental experts were appointed to look at the whole range of possible impacts associated with the second runway scheme and 240 . Its runway had a declared hourly capacity of 47 movements. along with an impact assessment of the two alternative options. In addition evaluation of possible mitigation measures and proposals for monitoring programmes were made.

This ranged from private meetings with individuals to large-scale public gatherings. The points of agreement were related to various stages during construction and operation Table 9. community relations and social policy. environmental works. to show its commitment to the environmental issues. identifying the need for the second runway Public consultation period and eight public meetings held Results from public consultation were considered and environment impacts of development options were assessed. local authorities. the idea of a full-length parallel taxiway was abandoned and the runway site was modified to reduce the length of river tunnel that would have been required. the environmental team and the engineering design team worked together in developing the runway scheme. Further consultation and public exhibitions took place Final development option was selected Final development strategy was published and the EIA completed Planning application submitted to local authorities Public exhibitions held over 22 days at 9 locations Public inquiry opened Public inquiry closed Planning permission granted Commencement of development Runway opened March 1993 June 1993 July 1993 July–August 1993 June 1994 March 1995 January 1997 Summer 1997 Spring 2000 Source: Twigg (2000). The proposals were subsequently developed into a planning application which was subject to a planning inquiry which lasted from June 1994 to March 1995.5). Planning permission was granted in January 1997 (Table 9. This formed the basis of Manchester airport’s ‘green charter’ (Table 9. 241 . at an early stage. Public consultation also took place at this time. and other interested parties. Continual dialogue also had to be maintained with airport users. Specialist engineering consultants were also appointed at this time.5 Key events in the development of Manchester airport’s second runway Date August 1991 September–November 1991 December 1991–March 1993 Event Draft development strategy to 2005 published. Further consultation and assessment of the impacts took place until a final development option was selected in 1993. and the ultimate capacity of the airport. Before the decision had been made. government agencies. highway improvements and public transport. Primarily as a result of environmental considerations. The airport operator. This enabled the environmental effects of engineering solutions to be assessed.The environmental impact of airports to provide input into the environmental impact assessment. the airport entered into a legal agreement with the local planning authorities concerning its proposed package of environmental mitigation measures.This package contained over 100 different measures of targets and guarantees covering noise control and night flying.6). The feedback from the initial assessment of the environmental impacts and key areas of public concern were used to influence the design details of the runway scheme. and mitigation measures to be considered.

Managing Airports Table 9. and encourage use of fixed electrical power The night noise level will be controlled up to at least 2011 and will be no worse than in 1992 Night movements will not exceed 7% of total movements Chapter 2 aircraft will not operate at night Financial noise penalties will apply at night The use of reverse thrust will be restricted at night The second runway will not normally be used at night More than twice as many ponds will be created or restored than those lost Landscape and ecological mitigation works proposal will be submitted to the local authority for agreement A 15-year landscape and management plan will be developed Ecologists and landscape architects will oversee and implement the environmental works MA. require the use of the engine test bay. 96% by 2000 A preferential charging system for quieter aircraft will be developed MA will continue to seek powers to penalize aircraft that deviate from the set departure routes A ground noise policy will limit night ground engine tests to 20 per year.6 Manchester airport’s ‘green charter’ Environmental topic Noise control Main measures Night flying Environmental works Highway improvements Public transport Community relations The noise impact will be controlled up to at least 2011 and will be no worse than in 1992 A noise and aircraft track monitoring system will be maintained Monthly monitoring reports will be produced and an annual external audit undertaken 100% of scheduled night movements to be by the quieter chapter 3 aircraft 92% of total scheduled operations to be by chapter 3 aircraft by 1998. local authorities. permission will be sought to relocate two of the four affected listed buildings The aviation viewing park will be relocated MA will fund a number of road improvements Restrictions will be placed on operation times and routes taken on construction traffic and construction material is to be brought by rail 25% of all trips to the airport will be made by public transport MA will promote the extension of Metrolink and development of heavy rail services A ground transport group will promote and develop enhanced public transport services and a ground transport strategy will be introduced 10% of the annual marketing budget will be used to promote public transport services The sound insulation grant scheme will be maintained Local environmental projects will be supported by a community trust fund with an annual budget of at least £100 000 242 . statutory bodies and local wildlife groups will form a nature conservation steering group The MA will financially support the Bollin Valley project and upgrade the River Bollin channel to encourage the migration of fish Where possible.

and by striving to achieve a representative ethnic mix of employees There will be no consideration of a third runway until at least 2011 MA will oppose inappropriate development in the area other than that related to the airport’s technical efficiency Source: Twigg (2000). Increased environmental awareness by employees and partners. 1996. these two airports handled 18. older aircraft. In 2001. As regards noise. This approach to the environmental effects was costly. around 98 per cent of all movements at Kastrup take place on the two main runways. This was due to greater use of newer. but the airport viewed it as an investment and considered such an approach fundamental to gaining permission to build the additional runway (Thomas. the overall noise impact declined by 2. Improvement is provided through: I I I I Environmental considerations in all decisions.6 (Continued ) Main measures Environmental topic Social policy Ultimate capacity MA’s recruitment policy will offer a fair and equal opportunity to applicants by advertising jobs in the airport job centre and local media. Between 1997 and 2001. of the airport up until 2011 when the agreement will be reviewed. Preventive action and the use of cleaner technology. Table 9. and so it is only used when special weather and wind conditions make it necessary for safety reasons. the airport operates and develops in a way that improves its environmental results (CPH. An open dialogue on the environmental state of the airport. The environmental policy of CPH establishes the fact that as an environmentally responsible company. In other areas. has made improvements to its impact monitoring process and has been developing new techniques which could reduce the detrimental environmental effects. in 1999 new facilities 243 . This company manages the two Copenhagen airports. by operating a crèche. Twigg. Environmental practice at Copenhagen Copenhagen Airport A/S (CPH) is a good example of an airport operator which has developed a comprehensive environmental policy. For example. like many other airports. 2000).7 dB although the number of air transport movement increased by 2 per cent during the same period.1 million passenger numbers and 379 000 tonnes of freight.The environmental impact of airports Table 9. There are rules related to noise levels. There is a third runway which involves aircraft passing over more built-up residential areas. quieter aircraft and less use of the noisier. and engine testing and airline performance in these areas is monitored. amounting to over £20 million. 2002). how the data is collected and the indicator value for 2001. namely Kastrup and Roskilde.7 summarizes the main environmental indicators used. CPH.

8.7 Main environmental indicators used by Copenhagen airport A/S Impact Means of data collection Main indicators 2001 indicator value 150 Traffic and noise Night time noise Engine testing Waste water Traffic statistics system: ATMs by aircraft type. cadmium 0. 244 .g. cadmium 0.9.1.9 Surface water Oil and fuel spills De-icing Resources and energy Discharged volume on the basis of the pump effect of CPH’s pumps or volume of participation reported by Danish Meteorological Institute Water quality assessed by monthly water samples made by third-party laboratory Reports filed by CPH’s safety service. lead 1. take-off weight. fire services and other in-house and third-party sources Volume of glycol used calculated by companies handling de-icing Contents of collected glycol are registered for each truck load moved away Consumption based on volumes purchased less quantities sold to other companies at the airport Discharged surface water quality: Substances (kg) Number of spills Volume of spills (litres) Consumption of glycol (cubic metres) Collection of glycol (cubic metres) Electricity consumption (Tera Joule TJ) Heating consumption (Tera Joule TJ) Fuel consumption (litres) Water consumption (000 cubic metres) Consumption of herbicides (litres) Waste per 1 000 passengers (kg) Industrial accidents per one million working hours 271 10 201 763 444 173 118 775 143 40 144 16 Weed control Consumption of herbicides based on volumes purchased Waste Weighing slips or monthly statements from recipients of the waste Working Reported number of industrial environment accidents Source: Copenhagen Airport A/S (2002).Managing Airports Table 9. lead 1.g. use of runway and time Noise monitoring system Engine test monitoring Discharged volume by means of metres Water quality assessed by monthly water samples made by third-party laboratory TDENL: total-day–evening– night-level method (decibel dB) Infringement of 85 dB (A) noise limit (number) Infringement of engine testing rules (number) Waste water discharged per 1 000 passengers (cubic metre) Discharged waste water quality: Substances (kg) 13 8 13.4 e. chrome 0.9 e. chrome 1.1.

However. and security issues at the airport and equal opportunities employment policies is also seen as promoting sustainability. Social equity and improvements in the quality of life are often cited as key aims of sustainable development. Many of the measures described in this chapter. was relocated. can be considered as helping to encourage a more sustainable industry. In 1997 this building had been listed as a protected building by the Historic Buildings Council.The environmental impact of airports to monitor air quality and surface water quality were introduced and in 2000 the airport established permanent air quality monitoring.8 km from the east to the west of the airport. see IPPR. 2001. is the concept of sustainability and sustainable development. Most definitions of sustainability tend to be rather vague and imprecise. sharing the theme of meeting today’s needs without sacrificing tomorrow. Most definitions also identify the need for a balance between social. Copenhagen Airport A/S has also prepared a manual on environmentally sound design and planning.g. for example. The responsible management of employee health. From 1999. From an economic viewpoint. CPH annually produces an environmental report which is externally audited. and economic impacts of any activity. which weighed more than 2600 tonnes and covered more than 4000 square metres in area. safety. which was designed in 1939. Following various developments such as the publication of the Brandtland report in 1987 and the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 there has been an increasing awareness and commitment to the principles of sustainable development in many industries – the aviation sector being no exception. The airport has also introduced a waste-handling plan to enhance waste sorting and increase recycling and CPH and the airlines have investigated ways in which the environmental impact from aircraft washing could be reduced. and adequate investment in infrastructure. The largest single environmental investment that CPH has made took place in 1999 when the old terminal building. waste and energy management programmes. Sustainability and environmental capacity Fundamental to the discussions of the environmental and other impacts. The concept of sustainable development 245 . 2001). No overall consensus has yet been reached as to exactly how sustainability can be defined in the context of the aviation industry although there have a number of recent studies which have investigated this area (e. it was taking up valuable space for future terminal expansion – hence the need for relocation. ATAG/UNEP. Complementary social policies include active involvement by the airport operator in the local community and an effective community relations programme. the environmental aspect of sustainable development is all about effective environmental protection and prudent use of natural resources. which can be used to ensure that any expansion conforms to the objectives defined in the environmental policy. noise and emission mitigation initiatives and water. This process took place over one weekend and involved shifting the airport terminal. For airports. Thus the benefits of any development must be carefully weighed against the resources to be consumed. environmental. a distance of 3. sustainability is to do with the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. all new purchasing contracts between CPH and suppliers stipulate that the supplier’s business is to be operated in an environmentally responsible manner.

rather than assessing the physical capacity of the infrastructure. However. However. Throughout the early 1990s 246 . airports will reach their environmental capacity before making full use of existing infrastructure. to the long-term use of the environment. They can also be adjusted to take account of new mitigation measures. aircraft noise is a short-term quality of life issue rather than being related. If growth has to be regulated. or apron areas. In many cases. 2000). rather than any physical or financial considerations (Coleman. They should not be treated as being in conflict. The environmental capacity can de defined as ‘the extent to which the environment and the local community is able to tolerate. many in the industry consider that such environmental controls are more appropriate than placing an overall limit. For example. many of these are separate and uncoordinated and. which will determine the ultimate overall capacity of an airport. handled 40 million passengers.Managing Airports recognizes that economic growth. like emissions. it has been suggested that in order to take on fully the ideas of sustainability. 1999). such as the number of runway slots. the approach to environmental capacity must go further (Gillingwater. and 1. 1999). Environmental capacity consideration at Amsterdam airport Amsterdam airport. and environmental quality are not mutually exclusive events. Another area of consideration is where to draw the boundary between global and local impacts when determining environmental capacity. so. 2000). social benefits. should there be some trade-off between costs and benefits associated with all the different environmental impacts and also consideration of their effects throughout time? For instance. on passenger throughput. for example. While environmental capacity as a concept is relatively easy to understand. or capacity of terminals. it is clearly very much more difficult to put the idea into practice. which is set by consideration of the impacts of an airport’s operation upon the local environment and the lives of residents of local communities. gates. increasingly it is the environmental capacity. The capacity limits can be set using environmental criteria related to noise. surface transport and so on. an airport’s capacity can be defined in a variety of ways. Airports may also not be able to make changes to the physical infrastructure if this involves exceeding the environmental capacity limits. In effect. and water quality. Central to the notion of sustainability is the idea of environmental capacity. which is owned by the Schiphol Group. This can be done by looking at all the individual impacts at airports and ways to reduce them. air. In a purely physical sense. airport operators and airlines are free to expand or modify their services (Graham.2 million tonnes of freight in 2001. These environmental threshold values ideally should be based on scientific research and sociological research on the tolerance of local communities to environmental impacts. assimilate or process outputs derived from airport activities’ (London Luton Airport. airports will only be able to grow if they minimize the impact of these expanding activities on the environment and the community. Within these predetermined threshold capacity values. It is the environmental capacity of airports which is likely to constrain growth.

The model used assumed that passenger numbers would grow unconstrained to 65 million passengers in 2010. A number of environmental limits were also established: 1 The acceptable noise contour was to be no larger than 15 000 houses until completion of the fifth runway in 2003. These options were assessed by analysing the impact on traffic. The options for the short-term optimization of the capacity have been considered by the Dutch civil aviation department to assess which measures are the most efficient and lead to a minimum of economic costs and a maximum of environmental benefits. noise. At the end of 1999. The impact on jobs was also considered.8. after 2010.The airline Table 9. In the longer term. and airline cost or passenger fare. although the houses affected still remained under 15 000.8 The impacts of different options for optimizing noise capacity at Amsterdam airport Impact of option (% change 1996–2010) Unconstrained growth 44 million passenger limit 7 euro passenger levy 1–4 euro noise surcharge Slot trading with 600 000 movements limit 18 10 6 40 21 Movements Passengers Fares Noise Jobs 128 141 0 43 43 31 32 20 35 18 15 11 7 39 24 8 3 2 32 18 247 . 2 Passenger numbers could not exceed 44 million in any year. the government stated its views for the long-term development of the airport. 3 Cargo tonnes could not exceed 3.The environmental impact of airports traffic was forecast to grow steadily.The environmental limits were still to be applied but further growth could be possible until 2010 by optimizing the environmental capacity. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 9. in terms of the house affected. A simple levy to reduce passenger numbers to 44 million proved to be very costly for the airlines. but instead at diverting traffic to a less noise-sensitive approach. The government granted Schiphol an exemption from the noise limits. and then no larger than 10 000. The airport also became slot co-ordinated in 1998.3 million in any year. a 7-euro surcharge on all passengers and a noise surcharge related to different levels of noise. healthy growth in 1997 and 1998 meant that in both these years the noise contour limitation was exceeded. It gave approval for a fifth runway (opened in 2003) which was aimed. However. a redesign of Schiphol might be possible or beyond 2020 the development of a new offshore airport might be considered – although this project has now been dropped from the official planning procedure. but instead imposed a limit of 380 000 movements in 1998 and then annual growth limits of 20 000 movements. not at increasing capacity. so in 1995 a decision was made by the government about the future development of the airport. Slot trading to achieve a maximum of 600 000 annual movements was also considered. Various measures were then tested such as a regulatory limit on passenger numbers.

(2000). Aeroports de Paris. Geneva. Environmental issues are beginning to affect most aspects of airport operations – even the EU proposal on slot allocations suggests that environmental as well as physical capacity should be considered. BAA Heathrow. ATAG. December–January. Airport Business Communique (2000). 12 August. In conclusion. The Times. Association of European Airlines (AEA) (2000). Policy paper 6. Taxation policy for aircraft emissions. 1 (3). operational. the growth rates being predicted for air transport. which aims to balance the social. Yearbook 2000. (1997). 149–59. University of Westminster Airport Policy and Planning Seminar. ACI-Europe. (1994). 6. In spite of technological. J. will mean that the environmental impacts will increase. ATAG/UNEP. Transport Policy. Air Transport Action Group/United Nations Environment Programme (2002). BAA Heathrow towards Sustainability. The chapter has also discussed how environmental concerns can be viewed within the context of sustainable development. Airport Business Communique. There is still a great deal of uncertainty as to how this can be achieved. APC. and other mitigation measures to minimize the environmental impacts. BAA Heathrow (2002a). London. On the Path of Environmental Limits. and Brewer. and economic impacts of any activity. Aeroports de la Cote d’Azur. Aviation and the environment. Air Transport Action Group (2000). BAA Heathrow (1999). Anker. AEA. A Surface Access Strategy for Heathrow: The Next Five Years. 248 . 26. this challenge is how to maintain economic and social benefits from air transport.Managing Airports cost fell when the option of a 600 000 movement limit and slot trading was considered. this chapter has identified the major environmental impacts associated with airport operations and has described various environmental management approaches designed to reduce these effects. Airports Policy Consortium (1997). References and further reading ACI-Europe (1995). May. The noise surcharge provided a more optimal balance between economic costs and environmental benefits. Some combination of these measures may have to be introduced at Amsterdam and other airports in the future to enable airports to grow within the boundaries of environmental limits (Veldhuis. Airports and the environment. Ashworth. Therefore. BAA Heathrow (2002b). Annual Report 1999. but still the economic costs were comparatively high compared with the environmental benefits. AEA. Annual Report 1999. Environmental Handbook. encourage economic development through mobility and yet respond to the increasing environmental pressures being placed on the industry. BAA Heathrow. p. Yearbook 1999. 2000). F. D. Alamdara. the aviation industry clearly faces a major challenge in the future. Industry as a partner for sustainable development. In essence. New York’s answer to Heathrow. environmental. A Surface Access Strategy for Heathrow – The Next Five Years. Europe’s airports could face a 30% reduction in operations. BAA Heathrow. R. Aeroports de la Cote d’Azur (2000). Association of European Airlines (AEA) (1999). if allowed to take place. Aeroports de Paris (2000).

Jane’s Airport Review. An environmental lead. Dennis. C. G. J. Annual Report 1999. DETR. 51–3. N. Department of the Environment. Düsseldorf International granted permission to increase number of aircraft movements. Press release. Good neighbour project ensures local environmental voice. A. DETR (2000a). Aviation and the environment: Using economic instruments. Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1999). January. Gillingwater. I. Valuing the external costs of aviation. April. (1996). The Stationery Office. Heathrow and Manchester Airports in 1997. A New Deal for Transport. FoE. C. T. Air Transport World. CE Delft (2000a). Winter. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (1998a). Environmentally sustainable capacity. Fry. Air Transport and the Environment: Towards Meeting the Challenges of Sustainable Development. The next chapter. and J. Environmental impact assessment: the Norwegian experience. Annual Report 1999. George. European Commission (1999). Airline Business. CAP 685. CPH. D. DFT. 32–3. Europe breaks ranks on noise. Open University Business School Research Paper 01/4. External costs of aviation. (2000). EU challengers ICAO in hushkit case. Communique Airport Business (1998). 22 September. Brussels International Airport Company. May. DfT (2003). Department of the Environment. CAA. CAP 690. CAA.The environmental impact of airports Baker. October. London.. 21. Gill. Düsseldorf Airport (2000b). Consultation document. Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1998). DETR. (2001). A. The Future of Aviation. CE Delft. (1999). Gethin. 36–7. (1998). Düsseldorf Airport. White Paper. Passengers at Gatwick. March. Baker. Low cost carriers and scheduled airline operations. Pedoe. Holden eds). Transport and the Regions (DETR) (2000b). (2000). Airline Business. London. Environmental Report 2001. An international survey of performance measurement in airports. DETR. In Environmental Management at Airports (N. A user-friendly decision. and Humphreys. and George. From Planes to Trains. ECAC/EU dialogue with the European air transport industry: aviation capacity – challenges for the future. Communique Airport Business. (2000). S. Environmental capacity – the challenge for the aviation industry. Brussels International Airport Company (2000). 10. Feldman. and George. J.. April. (2000). CPH. Coleman. Sustainable Cities and Aviation Network UK Workshop Conference. March. Emission impossible. EC. R. Salzburg. CE Delft. D. Frankfurt Airport. 54–7. 249 . Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (1998b). Frankfurt Airport (2000). Friends of the Earth (UK) (2000). (1999). Guidance on Airport Transport Forums and Airport Surface Access. A. CE Delft (2002b) Economic incentives to mitigate green house gas emissions from air transport in Europe. Airline Business. October. The Single European Aviation Market: The First Five Years. Airline Business. Thomas Telford. Environmental Report 1999. Gaustad. Francis. Copenhagen Airport A/S (CPH) (2000). University of Westminster Aviation and Tourism Seminar. June. Annual Report 1999. A. (1999). Düsseldorf Airport (2000a). Copenhagen Airport A/S (CPH) (2002). Department of the Environment. Raper. 26. COM (1999) 640 final. (2001).

(1999). London. ERA Regional Report. Holden eds). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1999). Annual Report 1998/9. 7. Schiphol Group. 250 . 165–80. Development Brief. LLA. Upham. (2000). (1999). Airport and En-route Charges Manual. Maughan. A. Thomas eds). Thomas Telford. (1996). Environmental Report 1999. Twigg. D. The environmental effects of civil aviation in flight. Pedoe.. Air Rail Links: Guide to Best Practice. Pilling. S. Raper and C. Jane’s Airport Review. Raper. D. 23. New Oslo Airport Gardermoen Master Plan. D. RCEP. J. J. (1996). Zürich flughafen as a model number 1 in Europe regarding integration of the rail and air modes. 9. The potential for modal substitutions. IPCC. P. Grossenbacher. April–May. IARO/ATAG/ACI. September. ECAC/EU dialogue with the European air transport industry: aviation capacity – challenges for the future. Navarre. Second Airport Regions Conference. November. October. M. Holden eds). C. Aviation and the Global Atmosphere: Summary for Policymakers. Manchester Airport (1997). London Luton Airport (2000). J. Noise related to airport operations – community impacts. Thomas eds). Manchester Airport. International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2000). R. (2002). Airport World. Veldhuis. Brunel University. Balancing act. Salzburg. Los Angeles airports on environment fast track. Earthscan. Environmental sustainability. Luftfartsverket (1991). Pedoe. Hooper. In Towards sustainable aviation (P. Heath. McNamara. IARO/ATAG/ACI (1998). April. B. (1996). Comparison of airport accessibility by land transport. 22–4. Luftfartsverket. Environmental management and the aviation industry. (2000). and J. Jane’s Airport Review (1999). Ground Transport Policy. University of Westminster Demand Analysis and Capacity Seminar. In Environmental Management at Airports (N. Thomas. Maughan. Determining environmental capacity at Amsterdam airport Schiphol. The true cost of environmental issues. March. J. Janic. Raper and C. Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) (2001) Sustainable Aviation 2030. Upham. Long distance rail services to airports. D. June. IPPR. London. IATA. Earthscan. Schiphol Group (2000). (2000). G. and J. Meyer. D. Newcastle Airport (1999). Vantaa. November. (2003). In Environmental Management at Airports (N. Noise abatement at Zürich airport. (1996). Niblett. airport capacity and European air transport liberalisation: irreconcilable goals? Journal of Transport Geography. PTRC Annual Conference. M. Raper. J. (2003).Managing Airports Graham. Newcastle Airport. Thomas Telford. University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2002). Towards sustainable aviation (P. B. Continuous descent approach trials reveal significant improvements in emissions and fuel consumption. and Maughan.

Enhanced competitive pressures from airline deregulation and airport privatization coupled with increased demands for a more sustainable and quality conscious industry have brought many new challenges for the airports. was spreading to Europe. In addition. This chapter begins by considering just how the airports have been affected by these terrorist attacks and then goes on to assess more broadly the prospects for the industry in the future.10 The impact of 11 September 2001 and future prospects A dominant theme running through this book is that airports are going through a period of unprecedented change. airports have had to face the unparalleled consequences of the events of 11 September 2001 and a much more volatile environment. which was already in existence in the United States and Japan. Economic recession. Overall effect on the air transport industry . In many ways it is very difficult to isolate the effects of 11 September 2001 and other changes that were also taking place in parallel. depressing demand for travel and leading to passengers trading .

and then 14 per cent. Passenger-kilometres for both European and Asia/Pacific airlines were down around 22 per cent in October 2001. made before 11 September 2001. There was only modest improvements for all airlines right through until the end of 2001. such as the fact that the low-cost airlines were more profitable than the majors prior to 11 September 2001. Various reasons. These low-cost carriers appeared to be seemingly immune to the problems facing the rest of the airline industry after 11 September 2001. protected traffic in the latter part. which made them more able to offer price cuts to stimulate demand. the American carriers experienced decreases in passenger-kilometres on the previous year of 32. and November. Elsewhere. It needs to be noted that the European airline traffic statistics are for the Association of European Airlines. which includes all the major European ‘flag carriers’. By contrast. These airlines had no routes to North America or the Middle East where the decline in traffic was the most dramatic. freight tonne-kilometres declined by 24. but excludes most of the European low-cost airlines. The most obvious impact of the events of 11 September 2001 was the decline in traffic initially caused by the closure of US airspace and then loss of passenger confidence in flying. Ryanair maintained a 20 per cent profit margin while the traffic of easyJet and go rose by a third (Dennis and Graham. and this coupled with a rapid growth of low-cost airlines in some regions was causing airline yields to fall. traffic was down by about 10 per cent in both markets. and 20 per cent. 2002a). caused by the pressure on business travel budgets brought on primarily by recessionary factors. 26. for American and Asia/Pacific airlines although a decline of 4 per cent was still recorded for the European airlines (Airline Business. as a string of air disasters in Europe and the United States coupled with a suspected bomb on a Paris–Miami flight just before Christmas continued to make the general public very nervous of flying. to encourage passengers to switch from more traditional airlines. the Asia/Pacific airlines recovered more quickly although they still only experienced zero growth during this period. It had already been widely predicted that the airline industry was heading towards a cyclical downturn and it is certainly quite probable that some of the changes that were accelerated by the crisis following the events of 11 September 2001 would have happened anyway. Monthly traffic numbers in 2002 remained at a lower level for both American and European carriers until September when growth returned because of the very depressed 2001 figures. Between January and August. In the United States.com’ and technology boom years of the 1990s. respectively. freight traffic started to increase again for many airlines during these 8 months and growth rates of 3 and 13 per cent were achieved. However. October. 252 . coupled with their lower costs. helped explain this situation. Overcapacity existed in many markets. Labour costs were rising in the airline industry as were fuel prices. Freight demand was also down due to poor economic conditions and ending of the ‘dot. especially long-haul. 2002).Managing Airports down to cheaper fares. Similarly. 23. They were also able to take the opportunity. for the months of September. In addition. such as Ryanair and easyJet. October 2001 was the worst month as September had some normal days at the beginning and advance bookings. respectively. In the last quarter of 2001. they stimulated demand and grew their traffic by launching new routes that previously had not been served.

rather than at major hubs. particularly associated with security. SAS. in Europe. Many airlines took quite drastic measures to reduce their costs. 20 000 at each company. The reduction in airline demand and revenues coupled with rising costs. In North America. British Airways made a quarter of their workforce. 2002). although some of their services were taken over by the new airlines SN Brussels Airlines and Swiss. however. Austrian. Airlines also dropped frequencies or abandoned services entirely. 2002). 9 000 employees. that is. Smaller European airlines such as Gill Airways and National Jet Italia also went out of business. the airline industry made a net loss of almost US$12 billion. Since the terrorist attacks. For the Asia/Pacific airlines. A result of all these strategies meant that most airlines made significant capacity cutbacks post11 September 2001. Overall.1 shows monthly growth rates of airports. By August 2002. For example. some airlines laid off a significant proportion of their staff. the cutbacks were less dramatic. insurance. Alitalia. the RJ100s had been replaced by the smaller ATR72 aircraft with the RJ100s providing less capacity on the Frankfurt route (Dennis and Graham. 2002). averaging less than 10 per cent (Doganis. Unsurprisingly. for example. the financial problems were the most acute in the United States and resulted in US Airways and then later United Airlines declaring bankruptcy and filing for Chapter 11 protection under Federal Law.The impact of 11 September 2001 and future prospects The major airlines adopted a number of strategies to cope with the declining demand. representing a third of the total. Other airline failures included the Australian carrier Ansett and Canada 3000. Within Europe. were laid off post-11 September 2001 (Doganis. Again. Airport traffic levels These changes in airline operations since 11 September 2001 clearly had a major impact on airport operations as well. namely 13 000 employees. compared to the previous year. For the US major airlines this was in the region of 15–25 per cent of their total capacity and for most of the major European airlines the reduction was around 10–20 per cent. in August 2001. redundant and Aer Lingus reduced their work force by an equivalent amount by losing 2 500 employees. which greatly surpassed any of the losses during the early 1990s Gulf War and recession period. British Airways used Boeing 737s on its Frankfurt and Munich routes out of Gatwick and Avro RJ100s on its Dusseldorf and Hanover services. 253 . For example. and air traffic control. Figure 10. in 2001. went at Air Canada and a fifth of the staff at both American and United. there was the demise of the two major carriers Sabena and Swissair. Some decided to reduce aircraft size rather than cutting frequencies in order to maintain flights for schedule-sensitive business passengers and to protect their slots at airports. meant that there have been a number of airline failures and bankruptcies since 11 September 2001. and Virgin Atlantic all made around 15 per cent of their workforce redundant. especially out of secondary hubs or where there were isolated free-standing routes. it is important to emphasize that many of the airlines were in a poor financial position even prior to 11 September 2001 and this event only made the situation considerably worse. Reduction in traffic levels was experienced and airports had much greater instability in their customer base as airlines cut capacity or in some cases disappeared altogether because of financial collapse. American also had major financial problems.

and then grew by 5 per cent. the demise of Sabena in November led to traffic falling by almost 40 per cent. such as Oakland. Washington National was closed for nearly a month following the terrorist attacks and experienced a traffic decline of 55 per cent in November. and Baltimore faired better because of increases in low-cost passenger numbers. by global region for November 2001. growth was once more being experienced in the Middle East and the African region. 2. March 2002. that is. whilst elsewhere in Europe and the Americas traffic levels were still depressed compared with the year before. The changes in airport traffic levels for the year following 11 September 2001 for a number of European airports is shown in Table 10. Likewise.1 Airport passenger growth by world region since 11 September 2001 Source: ACI. significant increases in passenger numbers were experienced at Chinese airports and Tokyo Haneda because of new runway capacity. A similar less substantial reduction of traffic was experienced at one of American Airlines’ main hubs. London Gatwick was the principal loser whilst at London Stansted. By August 2002. the main base of the low-cost airlines. For example. Zürich airport also lost a substantial amount of traffic because of the collapse of Swissair. it was North America that felt the brunt of the crisis with traffic down by almost a fifth in November 2001. and August 2002. As a consequence. 254 M id dl e –5 . It can be seen that the airports’ performance is closely correlated with that of their base airline(s). Clearly. In the United Kingdom.1. For the same 3 months global cargo traffic declined by 9. Traffic was down for all regions in November 2001 and in March 2002 with the exception of Asia/Pacific where growth of nearly 5 per cent returned. the passenger loss at Chicago was not as large. Fort Lauderdale. which showed that generally cargo flows were less affected by the crisis and recovered more quickly. Other airports. just 17 per cent in November. Dallas Fort-Worth. Traffic at San Francisco airport also declined significantly by 29 per cent in November as United regrouped at its Chicago hub. In particular.Managing Airports Monthly growth compared to previous year (%) 5 0 a fic a Ea st Eu ro pe Af ri c ia /P ac i To ta l er ic er ic Am N or th a Am La tin As –10 –15 Nov ’01 Mar ’02 Aug ’02 –20 Figure 10. passenger numbers were dramatically lower at the east coast airport of Boston and fell by 32 per cent. Milan Malpensa suffered because of Alitalia’s failure to establish it as its main hub. Some US airports suffered much more than others. In the case of Brussels.

9 12. in other cases.8 8.4 passenger number continued to grow throughout the time period.2 London Heathrow 13.6 1. also experienced traffic growth between January and August 2002.0 10.8 London Gatwick 6.0 23. However. Elsewhere.9 10. Airport financial performance These reduced traffic levels clearly had a major impact on airport revenues.2 9.8 12.3 4.0 Paris Orly 12.6 13.The impact of 11 September 2001 and future prospects Table 10.2 16.7 34. notably in the United States.8 13. 01 Amsterdam 5. have had to redesign many of their commercial facilities in order to 255 .7 Lisbon 3.3 6.0 0. As discussed in Chapter 5.4 34.4 6.5 N/A Jan.1 3.4 6.7 20.8 4. where underlying growth rates had also been high in recent years.1 N/A Nov.2 14.1 19.6 Milan Malpensa 14. some airports increased their charges.4 12.0 2.2 Helsinki 2.7 26.6 5. Oct.9 13.4 9. Other airports such as Barcelona and Dublin.1 21. Income from passenger charges contracted with the fall in passengers numbers and income from landing charges also decreased at many airports as airlines reduced their capacity by downsizing their aircraft types or lowering their frequency.8 8.1 Copenhagen 0.4 Madrid 2.8 29.8 8. Some airports.3 14.8 6.7 9. 01 9.2 6.8 6.2 Barcelona 3. particularly to cover the increased costs of implementing extra security measures.3 7. there are have been a number of impacts to consider as discussed in Chapter 6.6 36. The decline in passenger numbers meant that there were less commercial customers at the airports and also in some cases they had less dwell time because of more stringent security requirements.–Aug.2 Dublin 2.1 2.1 Manchester 2.8 18.6 Zürich N/A Source: ACI Europe.5 7.1 4.0 London Stansted 11.1 5.5 3.3 4.9 19.6 N/A Dec. 01 4.5 7.4 13.1 Change in passenger numbers at major European airports since 11 September 2001 Airport % Change relative to same period in previous year Sept.2 13.3 0.0 4.5 4.6 1.8 15.7 Brussels 9.1 0.9 7.3 Frankfurt 7.9 21. 01 12.8 Dusseldorf 5. 02 0.0 Paris Charles de Gaulle 9. As regards commercial or non-aeronautical revenue.2 5.5 3.8 N/A 15.4 11.1 33.1 4.9 12.5 10.9 8. some airports lowered their charges in order to encourage the airlines to maintain or even grow their airport operations and other airports postponed planned increases. passengers had more time to shop because they arrived earlier – again for security reasons.2 Vienna 3.

and San Francisco airports were put on hold whilst at Los Angeles the funds for expansion were directed towards security and safety improvements instead. 2002). However. At Arlanda airport in Stockholm. As regards costs. being balanced by a decrease in commercial revenues as a result of a decline in numbers and changes in the non-aeronautical facilities because of new security requirements. at Detroit airport it was decided that the construction of 25 new gates would still go ahead. It is much more difficult for airports to downsize or get rid of excess capacity when demand is reduced. due partly to an increase in fees.2 shows the operating revenues and costs for the US airport industry for 2000 and 2001 with estimates for 2002. which has led to a decline in non-aeronautical revenues. generally these have gone up since 11 September 2001 particularly because of increased insurance and security costs. Rome continued to implement its major 10 year development programme and Frankfurt airport kept all major expansion work on schedule. Boston Massport. as fixed assets cannot be moved or closed when traffic goes down. it was estimated that total revenues in 2002 would be fairly similar to 2001 with an increase in aeronautical revenues. For example. the crisis situation after 11 September 2001 was rather overshadowed by the more normal situation for the rest of the year. For 2001. Table 10. However. In a special survey conducted by ACI. Amsterdam airport also put some major investment projects on hold. partly because passengers were spending longer at the airport and also because the airlines had cut back on their food service as a costsaving measure that encouraged more food buying in the terminal. These include restrictions on staff travel and either freezing recruitment or employee redundancy. it was found that almost one-half of the 60 largest airports had introduced such policies (Behnke. Overall revenues increased by around 5 per cent in 2001 with more or less equal increases coming from aeronautical and non-aeronautical sources. it was estimated that airport revenues would recover and grow by 5. some airports decided to go ahead with their future investment as planned. and rental cars down 5. For the other commercial revenues it was estimated that retail revenue would be down by 9 per cent. Airports also have to plan and build for the long-term and this is very difficult in any period of uncertainty. Other expansion plans at Phoenix.Managing Airports conform with new security measures. construction of the new South terminal was postponed although the expansion plans for the North terminal went ahead. new restrictions on the movements of meeters and greeters have limited their access to certain retail and catering outlets and many car parks have had to close. however. For example. For 2003. It was estimated that food and beverage revenue would only be down by 0.8 per cent. Approval for the development of London Heathrow Terminal 5 was given shortly after 11 September 2001. Immediately after 11 September 2001. Work on the fourth runway at Orlando airport continued post-11 September 2001 but the new South terminal could not be built as planned because of new security requirements. Airports have introduced cost-cutting measures as well. car parking down 6.4 per cent.7 per cent. the cost-cutting measures that the airport industry have used are not nearly as dramatic as those implemented in the airline industry. if and when normal conditions return.7 per cent 256 . The consequences for planned future investment in the United States was also mixed. For example. Charlotte. Holding back on any planned investment because of the downturn in traffic may constrain growth in the future.

3 0. the Investor Service. both of which recorded above-average increases in revenues in 2001. for example. In the United States.9 3. Different financial years exist. revenues were up in spite of declines in traffic after 11 September 2001.3 0. Brussels Copenhagen. This situation has meant that airlines have exerted increased pressure on the airports regarding their airport charges (Airline Business. primarily because of the growth of low-cost carriers at this airport.3 Notes: a Based on a sample of 100 airports that are used to estimate industry totals. 2002b). However. Table 10.0 4. At other airports. (ACI-North America. and Zürich.8 38. These results are considerably more healthy than those of the 150 leading airline groups who experienced an EBIT margin of 4 per cent in 2000 and of 2 per cent in 2001. in 2002.9 Aeronautical Non-aeronautical Total Operating costsb ($US millions) Security Insurance Other Total 4 869 5 677 10 546 5 101 5 987 11 088 5 456 5 732 11 188 4. The exceptions were the Schiphol Group and Stansted airport. As regards operating costs (excluding depreciation) in 2001 these increased by around 9 per cent with security and insurance costs going up by 11 and 10 per cent. All airports showed increases in costs.8 37.3 shows the financial results for some of the major airports for 2001 and a decline in revenue for certain airports such as Geneva. London Gatwick. increased security and insurance payments have been major factors influencing all the airports. Whilst there may have been specific reasons for some airports for these increases. downgraded the credit rating of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 257 . Paris. Globally. both these items were expected to rise very substantially by 38 per cent.3 9. the EBIT margin for the 50 leading airport groups in 2001 was 23 per cent compared with 28 per cent in 2000. 2002). Putting the revenue and cost trends together meant that the profitability (measured by the EBIT or operating margin) of most airports declined in 2001.5 5. and Vienna is evident.8 5. Revenues were substantially higher at London Stansted.1 556 89 5 501 6 147 619 98 5 971 6 689 853 136 5 920 6 909 11.The impact of 11 September 2001 and future prospects Table 10.5 8. Amsterdam.2 Change in financial performance of the US airport industrya since 11 September 2001 Operating revenues (US$ millions) 2000 2001 2002 (estimate) % change 01/00 % change 02/01 (estimate) 7. Source: ACI North America. Frankfurt. The short-term impact of the reduction in traffic volumes and the uncertain situation caused by the events of 11 September 2001 was a loss of confidence in airports as attractive investments. The two items are discussed in further detail later on in this chapter.8 8. Moody’s. The exceptionally large increase in costs at Zürich airport was due to bad debt write-offs connected with Swissair Group. respectively. b Excludes depreciation.

1 16.0 42. Washington.7 6. 01 12 Oct.8 9.6 32.4 5.4 Share prices of airport companies since 11 September 2001 13 Aug.1 EBIT margin.7 2.1 0.0 12. the decline in passenger numbers meant that two key sources of finance for investment.3 28.0 16.2 0. EBIT margin earnings before interest and tax as percentage of revenues.1 28. and Detroit on its watchlist for possible downgrade.4 6.8 25.1 1.2 0. Source: Jane’s Airport Review.6 37.8 9.6 5.0 11.1 28. and Boston Massport and had a number of other US airports such as Charlotte.8 1.3 Change in financial performance at major European airports since 11 September 2001a 01/00 change in revenues (%) ADP (Paris) Aer Rianta (Ireland) Copenhagen Brussels Dusseldorf Fraport Geneva London Gatwick London Heathrow London Stansted SEA (Milan) Schiphol Vienna Zürich 2.6 21. Miami.7 2.6 25. Standard and Poor’s also placed US airports on creditwatch.2 8. 01 70 99 87 102 77 71 88 85 73 50 16 Apr.0 15. 2000 (%)b 2001 (%)b 20.0 6. Chicago O’Hare.5 28.4 Notes: a Different financial years exist.5 40. b Table 10. In addition.1 27.4 0. Elsewhere.9 01/00 change in costs (%) 4.2 13. namely the Aviation Trust Fund and the Passenger Facility Charge – both directly related to traffic throughput – were reduced.9 6.3 7. Source: Airport Annual Accounts. 01 72 97 83 115 86 77 94 94 76 48 12 Nov.2 16. 02 95 128 100 99 100 85 115 102 97 56 21 May 02 98 127 96 99 109 78 110 105 96 58 ASUR (Mexico) Auckland BAA Beijing Copenhagen Fraport Malaysia TBI Vienna Zürich 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: Values are indexed with 13 August values set at 100. the share price of the listed privatized airports fell quite substantially but within most 258 . EBIT margin.7 2.9 1.Managing Airports Table 10.6 20.6 15.7 3.9 12.8 27.9 18.6 13.9 39.8 8.0 14.5 36.0 42.9 1. Los Angeles.8 9.

Congress quickly developed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA). became a national concern and high-profile issue that received a considerable amount of media attention. At a global level. The collapse of Swissair and Sabena clearly had a major impact on both Zürich and Brussels airports. The situation was made worse at both airports since there were major expansion schemes in progress that were planned around the assumption that the home carriers would have a major input into the operations at the airport. security.4). which was signed by President Bush on 19 November 2001. At Zürich airport. because of other specific problems such as its investment with Manila airport and Zürich suffered because of the collapse of Swissair. with the successful privatizations of Sydney and Malta airports. the problems were compounded by the fact that Swissair had subsidiary businesses. Previously. However. The depressed position of the airport sector immediately after the events of 11 September 2001 meant that various privatizations at airports such as Milan and Sydney were postponed. The most sweeping changes occurred in the United States where traditionally security measures were relatively lax compared with the rest of the world. based at the airport.The impact of 11 September 2001 and future prospects cases returned to pre-September values within 8 months (Table 10. with many additional security measures being introduced. new mandatory security standards were agreed ranging from locking flight deck doors. security at airports had been undertaken by private security company staff who were often underpaid and poorly qualified but the Act provided for these to be replaced by a federal workforce of initially 28 000 properly trained staff who had a mandatory requirement to be a US citizen (Bacon. Security issues The events of 11 September 2001 led to aviation security coming under close scrutiny for both airports and airlines. At Zürich airport the work continued on the new terminal post11 September 2001 although the opening was delayed. 2000a).5). Suddenly. For this 3 year programme it was agreed that regular and mandatory audits would be conducted of member states to identify and correct deficiencies in the implementation of ICAO security-related standards. by mid-2002 though there were signs that airport privatization was back on the agenda for a number of airports. In addition. particular in the United States. 2002). for example. Brussels airport had also planned to be privatized but these proposals have been put on hold. and ensuring that the security measures were implemented in a non-discriminatory manner (Jane’s Airport Review. related to maintenance and cargo. sharing information about potential security risks. 2002.4 that the share value at Zürich airport (a partially private airport) was very significantly reduced by Swissair’s failure. Neubauer. ICAO adopted an Aviation Security Plan of Action. This set a number of important deadlines regarding security that had to be met by the end of 2002 and transferred direct responsibility for security to the Federal Government with the setting up of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (Table 10. It may be seen from Table 10. for example. The local canton of Zürich agreed to provide a credit line of SFr100 million partly for the airport to acquire some of these former Swissair subsidiaries (Baker. in 2002. Fraport did not do so well. 259 . 2002).

a massive 38 per cent rise in 2002. In addition. The ATSA authorized US$1. One of the major areas of discontent was the deadline for all checked baggage to be screened by explosive detective systems (EDS) by the end of 2002. Express systems for frequent fliers were considered and the TSA also introduced more effective queue management techniques. 2001–02 19 November 2001 18 January 2002 1 February 2002 18 February 2002 18 May 2002 18 November 2002 31 December 2002 Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed and the establishment of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Deadline for the requirement of screening all checked baggage or the matching of passengers with bags New security charge of $2. The act also gave airports the flexibility to use PFC or AIP funding to pay for any additional security-related activity required by law or the Department of Transportation between 11 September 2001 and 1 October 2002.50 per sector introduced at all airports Federal Government assumes direct responsibility for civil aviation security Deadline for review of the effectiveness of biometrics and other security access systems Deadline for all federal passenger screening personnel to be in place Deadline for the requirement of screening of all checked baggage by explosive detective systems (EDS) at 429 major airports The new security policies received considerable criticism from the airline and airport industries in terms of the practicalities of introducing enhanced security measures.Managing Airports Table 10. allowing a mixture of scanning and manual checks. despite pressure from the airports this deadline was not extended although a few concessions were granted. In response to this various concessions were granted to try and reduce the security hassles such as letting passenger carry take-away coffee through the security checks and axing the rule that required passengers to be asked if they had packed their own baggage. whilst the deadline meant that over 2000 EDS would be needed at 429 airports (Jane’s Airport Review.5 billion for 2002 and 2003 to allow airports to meet FAA mandated security expenses. It may be seen from Table 10. it also permitted airports to use AIP funds for other expenses related to changes in security requirements such as the replacement of airport 260 .5 Important dates for new security measures in the United States. This was viewed as being totally unrealistic. taking advice from experts such as the Walt Disney Corporation. it was estimated that 90 per cent rather than total 100 per cent screening by EDS had been achieved. only 150 EDS were in operation at a total of 47 airports. They were estimated to increase to $US853. However.2 that security costs incurred by the airports rose from $US556 million in 2000 to $US619 million in 2001. There were numerous complaints that the new security procedures and rules were inconveniencing passengers and that this significant ‘hassle’ factor was putting passengers off flying or encouraging them to travel by different modes of transport. because of the enhanced security measures that were required. an increase of 11 per cent. By 31 December 2002. 2002b). the feasibility of meeting the tight deadlines and in relation to how the measures would be financed. As of February 2002. Such fundamental changes to the country’s airport security system were costly to implement.

A US$2. 261 . in spite of all this additional funding for security. or a subcontractor may play a role (Airports Council International.3 million.3 billion available for AIP grants in 2002. Whilst the industry acknowledged that this short-term help was much needed. This accounted for 17 per cent of US$3. and Toyko Narita US$2. responsibility for designing security measures lies with the airport operator in Athens and Helsinki. Sometimes.6). a US$10 million runway extension project that was to be financed from AIP funds was deferred as was a US$10 million new runway at Cincinnati airport and new apron and taxiway infrastructure costing $7. At some airports the security costs are borne by the government that is paid for in many cases by a security tax – as at Amsterdam and Frankfurt – or otherwise out of general taxation. for example. Traditionally. a wide range of different organizations such as the airport operator. the FAA authorized US$561 million in AIP funds to airports for security projects related to the events of 11 September 2001. Lisbon. In 2002.6 million (Behnke. and Vienna. for example. In addition to the funding provided by the ATSA. for other security activities. virtually all terminal protection is provided by the government through the police and also in most cases checks on passengers and luggage are the responsibility of the airport operators. 2002). and is shared between these two and the airlines in Munich. the police. As regards the provision of the security services. 2003).5 million at Indianapolis airport (General Accounting Office.4 million. However.50 per sector security fee was also been introduced to cover some of the costs of the TSA (Field. particularly as the initial plans for the TSA had proved totally inadequate with the budget demands and the staff requirements more than doubling (Power. compared to previous years when security expenditure averaged less than 2 per cent. For example. Munich airport provided a figure of US$5. security is paid for by the airport operator through normal airport charges or special security fees as is the case with UK airports. in 2002. the airline. Nairobi US$3. in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001 there was still serious concern in the United States as to how the extra security costs would be covered. at Paris. there were fears that the use of AIP funds for security projects would mean that there would be less money available for other items and that this would effect long-term expansion and development.The impact of 11 September 2001 and future prospects baggage systems and the reconfiguration of terminal baggage areas to accommodate the explosive detective systems. the airport operator may receive a refund from this tax revenue to cover the costs of the provision of certain security services. such as staff access checks/badge control. Often there may be a combination of these different these types of funding (Table 10. 2002). that Paris CDG airport estimated this to be US$20 million. Outside of the United States. within Europe the situation as regards who has responsibility for security measures at airports and who funds them varies considerably between each country and even between individual airports in some countries. For example. 2002). Elsewhere. in 2001 Congress authorized an extra US$175 million to aid airports for unexpected post-11 September 2001 security costs. the government in Amsterdam and Lisbon. An ACI study undertaken shortly after 11 September 2001 attempted to quantify the security costs directly attributable to the terrorist attacks and found. Milan. However. much attention was also paid to improving security methods at airports and numerous changes have been made. and cargo checks. 2002). aircraft protection.

The airports and airlines called for the governments to pay for the extra security measures required – such as additional security equipment. it was very difficult to reach any consensus as to how any extra security measures should be financed given the varied traditional approach to security funding. which could produce increases in security costs in some countries but not others. infrastructure. They also argued that an inconsistent approach to funding. and staff training – claiming that since terrorist acts are targeted at states it is the responsibility of states to finance countermeasures to protect the travelling public. 2002 Government security taxa? $ Security tax refunded to airport operator? Airport charges? Amsterdam Athens Brussels Copenhagen Dublin Frankfurt Helsinki Lisbon London Heathrow Madrid Manchester Milan Oslo Paris Stockholm Vienna Zürich $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Note: a The security tax may not cover the cost of all the services provided by the Government and general taxation may be used as well. this was rejected by the EU member states so the Parliament suggested that member states should at least shoulder some of the financial burden. could distort competition. Again this was not agreed to by the Council of Transport Minister but eventually in December 2002 a compromise was reached between the Parliament and Council of Ministers which left individual countries with the final say on funding but included a ‘recognition’ by the member states that they had a responsibility to assist with additional costs. Post-11 September 2001. the European Parliament took this view with its proposal for an EU-wide framework for security regulations based on European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) Document 30 guidelines.Managing Airports Table 10. it was decided that the European Commission would carry out a study on how the financing burden should be shared between airports. They cited the United States as an example as where this was happening with the various security funds which had been approved by Congress. Originally. there was general agreement that security measures should be harmonized throughout the European region. Source: ACI-Europe and individual airports. However. airlines. However.6 Airport Funding of security at European airports. To fully resolve this issue. and the member 262 .

which involved frequent travellers to European destinations on nine participating airlines. for example. The measures included unannounced airport inspections by independent European Union inspectors. immigration authorities. Prior to 11 September 2001. the immigration authorities. 100 per cent staff searches in restricted areas.The impact of 11 September 2001 and future prospects states as part of its wider analysis of intra-airport competition in Europe. various airports began experimenting with new types of security measures such as biometric identification (Cruz. However. In parallel with these developments to enhance security procedures. or speech. particularly within the United States and Europe. 2002). even by March 2002. and a new ‘travel trips and security advice’ card that was distributed to airlines and travel agents (BAA. BAA found that 91 per cent of travellers knew that airport procedures for security had changed and 81 per cent claimed to know that there were new hand luggage security restrictions. Eight airports in Canada in 2003 were also testing iris scanning. the ATSA required biometric testing to be undertaken at a minimum of 20 airports and allocated US$50 million a year for biometric activities. The enhanced security procedures that were agreed by the 15 EU states plus a further 23 states that are members of the ECAC covered various aspects of airport security. For example. and 2 000 invited frequent flyers (Farmer. finger prints. Therefore. An additional problem associated with the new security measures at airports was that the travelling public had to be made aware of the changes. Virgin. which included off-airport advertising. whilst San Francisco and Chicago investigated fingerprint techniques. The original aim of this initiative was to see how passenger journey times could be reduced but the post-11 September 2001 need for enhanced security measures added another dimension to this. Other airports such as Boston experimented with face recognition. These use unique physical characteristics to ensure that a passenger or member of staff is known and is allowed to proceed. The industry had been developing the technology needed for such biometric processes for some time before 11 September 2001. in a survey undertaken shortly after 11 September 2001. improved staff background checks. BAA launched a campaign over Easter 2002 to increase public awareness. airlines. and more stringent baggage screening methods such as limiting personnel to 20 minutes ‘screen-time’. 2002). 2002). The airport also launched a second initiative aimed at the 263 . with the aim of speeding up processing times as well as improving security. IATA had set up a ‘Simplifying Passenger Travel’ interest group that included airports. this technology concentrates on the individual themselves rather than the more traditional approach of focusing much more on the passenger’s baggage. and technological suppliers. Such techniques can be as simple as a specialized identity card or as sophisticated as the recognition of retina patterns. As a result of this. An industry coalition called the National Safe Skies Alliance was set up and tested some of these measures at Orlando International airport. A 5-month trial of iris recognition under this scheme was undertaken in 2002 at London Heathrow with the participation of British Airways. In the United States. Membership cost 99 euros for the 1-year trial and entitled the passengers to priority parking and check-in. but the terrorist attacks obviously made the case for using such measures that very much more convincing. At Amsterdam airports iris recognition was also introduced at the end of 2001 under a scheme called ‘Privium’. through a gate or door. BAA was still confiscating 15 000 sharp items daily that were no longer permitted in hand luggage at its seven UK airports. increased signage asking passengers to put sharp objects into their hold luggage.

After intense pressure from the airlines and airports. Sydney airport tested facial recognition. a number of other airports experimented with biometric technology. was proposing an insurance plan called Equitime (named after the point in flight at which the risk of going forward is equal to the risk of returning). Tel Aviv airport used hand scanning. For example. the European Commission had allowed the member state governments to provide temporary cover on a rolling 30-day basis. namely $US50–150 million compared to the previous $US1 billion per airport or airline at much higher premiums. Initially this fund would require government to take most of the risk until the fund was of a sufficient size that the industry could take over full responsibility. the airline industry.Managing Airports 80 000 employees at the airport and tested the technology that controlled access to secure areas (Lanza. particularly from certain European governments. However. Prior to this insurance had been a fairly routine and low-profile cost item but suddenly failure to reach agreement could technically have led to a complete grounding of the whole of the industry. 264 . 2002). ICAO has been investigating the setting up a ‘not-for-profit’ mutual insurance fund called GlobalTime. at only 7 days notice. in 2002 and was planned to come into effect once it was approved by a sufficient number of ICAO contracting states that represented 51 per cent of the organization’s annual budget. which had to be renewed several times. At the same time. enabled operations to continue as normal. the air transport industry has been looking at new ways whereby it would actually have responsibility for the third-party insurance. It was agreed. Meanwhile for the short-term in November 2002 the US government enacted the Homeland Security Act. which caused such problems for the airlines and airports after 11 September 2001. notably in Britain and the Netherlands. all third-party cover for risks of war and terrorism and instead offered unacceptable reduced cover. by the beginning of 2003 there were still considerable doubts as to whether such approval could be achieved and if the scheme would ever be implemented. and Dubai and Singapore airports investigated fingerprint identification. Elsewhere. Globally. regional solutions were also being considered which could potentially be quicker to introduce. namely Eurotime. which would involve the major carriers setting up a company that would sell insurance coverage and collect premiums. which allowed for the FAA to provide war risk cover. However. This would initially be a 5-year war risk insurance plan. in co-operation with the Department of Transportation. It would also have a cancellation period of at least 90 days rather that just 7 days. the situation was temporarily resolved with most governments agreeing to provide cover until a more realistic long-term solution could be found. Throughout 2002 these short-term emergency government guarantees. as yet there has been no co-ordination with all the different schemes that have been introduced and no common consensus as to which technique is the most effective. was also proposed. The insurance problem After the events of 11 September 2001 the insurance companies withdrew. A similar fund to Equitime. in principle. backed by government support. there was not total widespread support for such a scheme. As a result of this. In the United States. However. and the European Commission. Within Europe.

all indications are that more privatizations are planned for the early years of the twenty first century in spite of the short-term uncertainty and the depressed aviation market. There will be new markets available for airport management companies who have more limited possibilities for expansion at home. has had a major impact on airport operations. One of the most important changes that has occurred within the airport industry is privatization. Future prospects 11 September 2001 has undoubtedly left the airport industry operating in a much more uncertain and volatile environment. With the increased emphasis on security post-11 September 2001 further technology advances can be expected in both the processing of individuals and their baggage. While a number of significant airport privatizations have taken place. some of the gloomier predictions following 11 September 2001 such as the demise of Europe’s entire independent airline sector or the desertion of less popular airports have failed to come to fruition. currently the degree of concentration and private sector involvement within the airport industry is fairly small – much less than in the airline industry. Whilst unsurprisingly this was also the view held by the insurance industry itself. Investors are. such the A380. It is important to acknowledge that none of the challenges that faced the industry prior to 11 September 2001 have gone away. Technological improvements to airfield and airspace infrastructure and aircraft may improve efficiency and reduce some of the undesirable environmental impacts of airports. Changes have taken place in both the airline and airport industry but it is difficult to attribute all of these to the terrorist attacks and the resulting fall in demand for air travel. 2002. The more competitive environment brought about by the deregulation of the airline industry. As the airline industry evolves and as further deregulation occurs. in Bali. likely to be more much cautious than they were in the late 1990s. such as alliances and low-cost carriers. However. first in the United States. The evolving e-economy will also continue to have a major impact on the nature of freight operations at airports just as e-procurement policies are bound to play an increasing role. 2002). Airports are functioning in an increasingly commercial marketplace and are having to modify their product to meet the needs of new airline customers. The introduction of new aircraft types. Casablanca). Pinkman.The impact of 11 September 2001 and future prospects who considered the industry to be best served by the commercial insurance market. the airlines and airports did not agree particularly as they felt at a disadvantage compared with the United States where the government was seen as being much more supportive (Frank-Keyes. However. then Europe and to a lesser extent Asia. Saudi Arabia.g. There are also now a significant number of non-airport organizations who may 265 . the Iraq War and the outbreak of SARS. however. will have major infrastructure and capacity implications for the airports. although the whole air transport industry still remains particularly vulnerable to external problems such as further terrorists attacks (e. airports will need to continue to adapt to new demands. with governments playing no further role. New developments such as EU enlargement and even perhaps the collapse of the traditional bilateral system based around sovereign states and national carriers could potentially have far reaching impacts on an airport’s customer base.

like the airline industry. The impact of such fundamental changes within the airport industry cannot be assessed without considering the parallel airline developments towards deregulation. this raises the fundamental question. The charter industry. It appears that those most likely to achieve success will be the companies who already have had both the ability and the foresight to establish themselves as international companies. irreversibly change the traditional airline–airport roles and interactions that have existed for many years. For some other airports. Greater co-operation between airports. after being fairly concentrated in just Britain and Ireland. and global alliances. This situation is set to continue particularly in Europe as the low-cost carriers expand into the mainland region. given the apparent lack of synergy between the current airline and airport groupings.Managing Airports hope to use these opportunities to become global airport players. are better equipped to run airports than more recently established airport management companies such as TBI. Such developments will. which 266 . for example. There probably will eventually be only space for a limited number of players. particularly those serving the same airline alliance. Indeed. or which will bring the greatest value added. It is difficult to see how such a system would work. This sector also appears to be consolidating within Europe. seems set to become more consolidated and more airport alliances and co-operation seems likely in the future. war and SARS coupled with the global economic downturn has resulted in such pressures becoming that very much greater. It is very difficult to predict the exact impact that globalization will have on both industries – particularly whether it will lead to greater co-operation or conflict between the two. of course. albeit often in protected quasi-monopolistic markets. Moreover. each teamed up with a large airline alliance. may. These airlines have different requirements at airports and can attract different types of passengers. but increasing globalization within the airport industry might help to balance out this. with the 2001 purchase of Go by easyJet and the 2003 purchase of Buzz by Ryanair. privatization. Falls in demand due to fear of terrorism. They operate in a much more cost conscious environment than most other airlines and hence make different demands on airport management.There has been considerable debate as to whether the traditional airport companies with a long track record of operating airports. however. Some industry commentators have argued that ultimately the air transport industry will be dominated by a few powerful airport global players. The post-deregulation environment meant that airlines were trying hard to control costs to improve their operating margins and were consequently exerting pressure on the airports to control their costs and keep down their level of airport charges. change this. The airport industry. namely the emergence of the low-cost scheduled airline sector. the creation of airline alliances has meant that airlines are no longer automatically linked to the national airport of the country. are airports really any different from any other business once the technical and operations know-how has been acquired? It is too early in the evolutionary stage of airport globalization to answer this question with any degree of certainty or to identify the factors which will determine the most successful type of airport management in this new global environment. the relationship with their airline customers has also changed in recent years due to another post-deregulation development. if permitted on fair competition grounds. Airline alliances could potentially become very powerful partners in the airport–airline relationship.

7 4. Airbus. healthy long-term growth rates in the region of 4 per cent were predicted (Table 10. This tends to push up passenger forecasts by up to 1 per cent per annum as the average distance flown is predicted to increase.7 Base year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2000 2005 2010 Source: IATA. which are more relevant to airlines than airports. 267 .7 per cent. Many funds traditionally came from public sources.7).9 4. IATA.4 Table 10.5–4. Boeing and Airbus were also predicting long-term average annual growth rates in the region of 4. A key reason behind airport privatization is the need to find new funding for investment. which means that overall the forecasts of the manufacturers Table 10.9 7.9 5.9 3. IATA forecasts of international scheduled passengers Forecast period 2002 2003 2004 2005 2001–2005 2006–2010 2011–2015 Annual growth rate (%) 0. but the passenger forecasts produced by IATA in 2002 showed that after a couple of years of high growth to compensate for depressed traffic levels in 2001–02.The impact of 11 September 2001 and future prospects again has different expectations at airports. All indications are that the air transport demand is set to continue to grow – putting pressure on airports to expand their capacity.5 4. Clearly the uncertainty brought about by the events of 11 September 2001 meant that forecasting in the short term was very difficult.8 Organization Long-term forecasts of global traffic growth Time period (base year 2000) Traffic measure Average annual growth rate (%) Passengers Boeing Airbus IATA Freight Boeing Airbus 2001–21 2001–20 2001–15 2001–20 2001–20 Passengers-kilometer Passengers-kilometer International scheduled passengers Freight tonne-kilometers Freight tonne-kilometers 4. The units of these forecasts are passengerkilometres.9 5. is becoming more concentrated as well and is dominated by a few very large vertically integrated European countries. but increasingly this sector is unable or unwilling to provide such support. In 2002.5 Sources: Boeing.6 4.2 5.7 4.

Intra-European traffic is expected to grow at 4. 2002–21 Source: Boeing. therefore is that global passenger numbers will grow at around 4 per cent per annum.2 Average annual pax-km forecasts of main regional flows.2). Elsewhere. Boeing. Boeing predicts that the relatively mature North Atlantic market will grow by only 3. For example. 2002. the relative immature market and higher than average predicted economic growth will ensure high growth rates. and the cost of travel.5 per cent compared with the higher growth rates for the more rapidly developing markets of Europe–Asia/Pacific and North America–Asia/Pacific – 5. For certain markets. Therefore in the long-term the impact of these terrorist attacks was forecast to be fairly small. 268 . particularly in developing areas of the world. as has been experienced in Europe with the new breed of low-cost airlines.7 per cent per annum (Figure 10. will continue to play a major role in shaping the growth of passenger demand.2). which reflects business activity and personal wealth. respectively.8). Airbus. 2002. 2002).5 per cent. the responsiveness of demand to changes to income may be weakening as demand maturity sets in. More sophisticated telecommunication links may facilitate more effective teleconferencing and could reduce the demand for business travel. particularly within the United States and Europe. Similarly the differences between the Airbus forecasts made before and after 11 September 2001 represented just one year’s traffic growth.Managing Airports were very similar to those produced by IATA. Deregulation and particularly the introduction of low fares may stimulate new growth. 2002.4 and 5. Economic growth. Air freight demand is. These forecasts also did not take into account any physical or environmental constraints that might may occur (IATA. primarily driven by economic growth and Average annual pax-km growth (%) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Intra-North Europe–North Intra-Europe Europe– America America Asia/Pacific North America– Asia/Pacific Total Figure 10. although clearly it was not foreseen that there would be continued volatily well in 2003 due to terrorism and other threats (Table 10. The Boeing forecasts prepared before 11 September 2001 and using the same base year predicted an average growth rate of 4. The general. perhaps somewhat optimistic view.7 per cent compared to the post-11 September 2001 growth rate of 4.5 per cent. likewise. Freight traffic is generally expected to increase at a faster rate than passenger traffic with Asia/Pacific markets having the highest average growth rates (Table 10. may actually encourage more global trade and act as a complement to air travel rather than as a substitute. Such links. however.

competitive pressures and the rapid growth of low-cost carriers. In Europe. Technical improvements at the airport. and Bangalore. such as Africa and Middle East. electronics. Airports lack this flexibility. The new Athens airport opened in 2001 and the expanded airport in Berlin-Schonefeld may be ready for operation in the late 2000s. and Milan are the only examples. communications. A number of privatizations in South America should enable greater investment in this region. These freight aircraft are increasingly likely to use uncongested hubs with no environmental restrictions – particularly at night – but such hubs may be more difficult to find in the future! In most cases it is passenger growth that drives airport development. partly due to the high growth of the express sector and partly because the current bellyhold capacity of passenger aircraft is insufficient. Hong Kong. Oslo. The shortage of airport capacity in Asia is currently not too serious an issue due to the recent opening of new airports in. Denver. Seoul. E-commerce has also brought substantial reductions in the distribution costs of air freight and increased demand for the integrators and the express mail sector. Macau. some of these difficulties could potentially be reduced through greater ATC co-ordination and harmonization. In spite of this. Very few new airports or fully expanded airports have been built in the United States or Europe in 1990s. the sheer volume of traffic at many airports means that even relatively small growth rates still produce large increases in the absolute number of air passengers. Bangkok. The London Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry in the late 1990s in the United Kingdom lasted more than 4 years and was one of the longest planning enquiries in UK history. The consequences are growing congestion and delays although. The rapidly expanding knowledge-based industrial sectors such as computing.The impact of 11 September 2001 and future prospects travel cost – as well as international trade. and Kuala Lumpur. advanced wake vortex technologies and arrivals and departure management systems. A new airport to serve Mexico City is planned although there have been problems in selecting the most suitable site. or even by adding extra aircraft to the fleet. this is seen as a major hurdle to achieving the full benefits of a deregulated market. Higher growth is generally expected because of globalization trends that have led to increased reliance on global components and products that need to be transported around the world. typically using relatively small aircraft types. New airports are also planned for China. could optimize traffic flow in and out 269 . The overstretched airport infrastructure in Europe and North America has been afforded some temporary breathing space by the fall in demand due to the events such as 11 September 2001 but capacity problems still remain. The proportion of freight carried on all-freight flights is likely to increase. Plans for a new airport in Lisbon or an offshore airport in Amsterdam have been put on hold. It can take years for airports to gain approval and then to build new infrastructure. Munich. increasingly by sharing capacity with alliance members. admittedly. for example. and pharmaceuticals are the most international and are heavily reliant on air travel for the transportation of their high-value/low-weight products. has meant that the average aircraft size has not increased substantially since the early 1980s. In the remaining areas of the world. Shanghai. lack of sufficient airport capacity is not usually a major problem. Airlines are much more capable than airports of adapting to market growth by redistributing capacity across the networks. for example. Increasing reliance on just in-time inventory systems favours air freight. Even if there is a gradual slow-down in the rate of growth in certain passengers markets. This has put further pressures on the already congested runways at many airports.

A. Charges comment. 1–25. 38–42. Boeing. In conclusion. December. Travel and Tourism Analyst. Secondary and regional airports could also take some of the growth away from major airports as could high-speed rail. BAA (2002). February. Airbus (2002). References and further reading ACI-Europe (2002). Growing pressures for greater sustainability and environmental capacity constraints. Cruz. Issue 1. 7(1). (2002). The Aviation and Transportation Security Act: The law and its Implementation. ACI Europe. Economic Impact. BAA Easter getaway and security awareness campaign. The environmentalists want greater protection of the environment and society. (2002). This book has considered all these important interrelated issues and has aimed to provide some insight into how airport operators might address the challenges of the future. Baker. Global market forecast. Low-cost airlines and freight operators have other requirements. Airline Business (2002a). however. will make it more and more difficult to provide additional airport capacity. June. Airline Business (2002b). Simplifying passenger travel: Heathrow’s expedited arrivals trial. Field. Press release. AAAE/ACI-NA Legislative Affairs Issue Brief. Beyond the crisis: The impact on airlines and airports. which are increasingly being driven by private sector concerns. Airbus. Market outlook. Farmer. Bacon. In the short term a more effective slot allocation process might alleviate some of the capacity bottlenecks. airport operators have a challenging time ahead. Airline Business. Governments want to guarantee. January–December. 270 . University of Westminster/Cranfield University Airport Economics and Finance Symposium. US security: Uncertain world. Regional authorities want to ensure that airports generate maximum economic benefits. In the long term. Current market outlook. March. (2002). R. P. Out of the ashes. Then. Boeing (2002). of course. 25–8. the problem of capacity shortages at major airports is not going to disappear. The scheduled airlines seek greater capacity and have evolving needs as they continue to restructure themselves into global alliances. (2002). Passenger expectations in terms of service quality is rising. D. C. Airport security – A review of passenger processes. Doganis. perhaps through regulation. March.Managing Airports of the airport. 20 March. State of the industry report. 7. Financing civil aviation security costs in Europe. They are confronted with conflicting demands from their different stakeholders. ACI-North America (2002). ACI-NA. International Airport Review. The more extreme environmentalists will argue that there is no way that the potential demand for air transport in the future should be met. there are the financial demands from the airport owners or shareholders. that airports are not abusing their considerable market power. Airline Business. as experienced at Amsterdam. Airline Business. J. and that the solution is to constrain growth. Airline Business. 46–8. (2002). It is a difficult problem balancing out the needs for quality of life and sustainability against desires for greater mobility. (2002). H. Behnke. (2002). 1. Airport World.

R. (2003). 3. IRMS News. European Transport Conference. Insurance: at odds. Iris recognition passenger service fully operational at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. C. May. Pinkham. Issue 34. A. 72–4. Communique Airport Business. (2002). Graham. The effectiveness of America’s emergency airport security legislation. Issue 3. Neubauer. GAO. Using airport grant funds for security has affected some development projects. February. R. The crisis in air transport and the future structure of European airlines and airports. Insuring against the unthinkable again: Eurotime or Globaltime. April. (2002). Airline fees only scrape surface of the TSA’s needs. (2002). May.The impact of 11 September 2001 and future prospects Frank-Keyes. ICAO set new security standards. 271 . and Dennis. US security catches up. (2002). International Airport Review. October. September. Jane’s Airport Review (2002b). 45–8. Power. No. Airline Business. October. E-communique. S. J. 18. General Accounting Office (2002). 12–13. (2002). Lanza. D. Wall Street Journal. 6 February. Jane’s Airport Review (2002a). Cambridge. IATA (2002).

68. 69. 47. 17. 35. 236 Airport throughout unit (ATU). 104. 21. 108. 163–5 A Aer Rianta. 11. 158. 46. 99–101 noise charges. 26. 38–41 Argentinean airports. 106. 199. 246–8 global company. 258 aeronautical charging policy. 7. 61. 54. 159. 92. 15. 165–7 see also Dublin airport Aeronautical charges: discount charges. 154. 100. 118–20 service quality. 81. 268. 19. 258 Australian airports. 141 privatization process. 34. 102–3 landing charges. 100–1. 6.Index 11 September. 69. 123. 48. 260 Airport product. 27. 99. 47–8. 180–2 Airport Improvement Program (AIP). 120. 164. 151. 225–6 ground handling charges. 194. 64 Airport transport forum (ATF). 187 Airport competition. 236 Airport use agreements. 9. 162. 257. 260. 69. 60. 101. 109. 3. 14. 101. 189. 89–91 . 21. 31–4 regulation. 108–10 international retailer. 50. 183. 263 environmental capacity. 189–92 emission charges. 39. 106 airline industry. 65. 3. 99. 76. 185–7 Airport surface access strategy (ASAC). 261. 33. 100–1. 43. 269 Impact on: aeronautical charges. 86. 162. 108–10. 143. 264. 41. 256. 108. 102. 48. 44 see also TBI Amsterdam airport/Schiphol. 43. 17. 27. 174. 153. 24. 151. 266 Airport branding. 24. 34. 2001. 186. 262. 188. 223 passenger charges. 74. 161. 266 Airport alliances. 24. 265. 251–3 airport financial performance. 55. 141. 101–2 peak charges. 22. 258. 56. 33. 107–8 Air transport forecasts. 154. 22. 20. 221–2 Airline alliances. 129–30 Airports Group International (AGI). 33. 4. 145. 25. 118. 81. 215 Auckland airport. 25. 152. 118 Athens airport. 255–9 airport traffic. 18. 18. 102–3 fuel taxes. 26. 119. 34. 37. 43. 172. 48. 267. 150. 266. 130. 21. 160. 23. 236. 267–9 Aircraft chapter classifications. 36. 269 Atlanta airport. 55. 120. 226–7 fuel charges. 263. 110. 37. 208. 98. 18. 253–5 commercial income. 4. 17. 26–8.

187. 131. 118. 48. 57. 239. 141. 20. 167. 210. 86. 28. 17. 33. 17. 81. 42 Brisbane airport. 262 see also Aer Rianta Dusseldorf airport. 223. 8. 36. 120. 5. 27. 78. 58. 161. 167. 159. 259. 174. 222 Bangkok airport. 27. 156. 40. 8. 258. 91. 39 D Data envelopment analysis (DEA). 147. 122. 5. 215 Eurohub. 68. 159. 258 Earnings before interest. 162. 67. 191. 57. 254. 179. 207. 31. 89. 9. 58. 44. 146–9 reasons for growth. 229. 29. 181. 31. 255. 55. 10. 39. 262 quality of service monitor (QSM). 238 Economic development and airports. 46. 159. 192. 108. 142–6 Copenhagen airport. 30. 258. 262 environmental practice. 180. 82. 24. 179. 122. 164. 214. 23. 168. 163. 142. 25. 85. 184 273 . 171. 93. 17. 106. 155. 42 Commercial revenues: branding. 65. 99. 187 Belfast airports. 232. 257. 90. 243–5 B BAA. 69. 31. 269 Basel-Mulhouse airport. 81. 22. 87. 18. 168–73 service level agreements. 67. 263 Catchment area. 239. 161. 89. 153–4 geographical trends. 122. 88. 164. 42. 181. 258. 65. 5. 112. 33. 255. 18. 254. 18. 163. 56. 41. 122. 90. 22. 143. 224. 161. 170. 31. 110. 269 Cintra. 21. 18. 240. 235. 255. 158 loss of EU sales. 102. 37. 30. 164. 262 Build-operate-transfer. 69. 162. 70. 151. 106. 221. 164. 102. 253. 109. 17. 59. 263 Chinese. 25. 66. 81. 263 Brussels airports. 206. 69. 86. 9. 67. 22. 148. 166. 264 non-aeronautical strategies. 172. 29. 69. 66. 154. 58. 81. 70. 23. 9. 26. 68. 22. 119 Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA). 158. 49. 18. 111. 71 Eco Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). 22. 89. 198. 163. 208. 133. 145. 17. 39. 30. 148. 66. 164. 258 Duty and tax free sales: history. 37. 122. 78. 99. 29. 174. 17. 79–80. 253. 172–3 Dublin airport. 99. 19. 133. 263 Chicago airport. 253. 107. 104. 18. 20. 68. 37. 22. 163. 253. 255. 161. 195. 211. 159. 68. 37. 87. 23. 102. 187. 21. 10. 6. 69. 101. 257. 26. 58. 166. 241 Environmental impact statement (EIS). 258. 29. 264 C Canadian airports. 238. 260. 194. 220. 116. 181. 152. 60. 101. 65 Environmental capacity. 44. 181 Berlin airports. 224–8. 34. 225. 71 Delays. 4. 215. 197. 206–8 Dubai airport. 33. 263–4 Birmingham airport. 33. 159. 118. 19. 257. 215. 245–8 Environmental impact assessment (EIA). 212. 101. 149–50 concession contracts. 29. 30. 105. 42. 161. 85–8 Direct economic impacts. 261. 83 see also London airports Balanced approach to noise. 156. 239 Equitime. 151. 259. 4. 107. 214. 20. 5. 238 Enterprise Value (EV). depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). 30. 42. 210. 162. 29. 48. 18. 100. 157. 160. 46. 234. 8. 158–63 E East Midlands airport. 143. 17. 254. tax. 17. 169 regulation. 160. 149. 42. 42. 117–19 retail approach. 99. 22. 198. 25. 233. 55. 55. 153. 26. 269 Biometric testing. 25. 212–15 Emissions. 18. 3. 22. 58. 198 British Airways. 31. 42. 24. 6. 216 Bristol airport. 29. 119.Index Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. 140–2 type of customer. 27. 165. 142. 181. 207. 92. 230. 87. 21. 106. 65. 108. 133. 209. 61. 32. 179 Earning before interest and tax (EBIT). 198. 191. 32.

17. 152. 41. 34. 151. 69. 164. 163. 257. 68. 69. 157. 17. 68. 255. 231. 215. 262 agreement with airlines. 58. 146. 215. 196. 10. 125. 111–12 Internet and e-business. 44. 214. 66. 232. 75. 143. 78. 128. 211. 157. 126 European Travel Research Foundation. 23. 123. 262. 5. 48. 99. 258 London Heathrow airport. 116. 59. 181. 130 Manchester. 6. 238. 8. 159. 195. 5. 101. 196. 17. 26. 232. 180. 269 M Madrid airport. 168. 208. 157. 198. 26. 4. 81. 163. 200. 90. 13. 255. 209. 99. 31. 181. 101. 151. 231. 110. 257. 101 Indianapolis airport. 235. 76. 132. 29. 194 ISO 14001. 92–3. 150. 31. 216. 22. 122. 29. 14. 118. 31. 122. 27. 208. 79. 258 G Geneva airport. 188–92 Marketing to passengers. 240–3 regulation. 145. 123. 57. 68. 182. 81. 45–7 impact on airlines. 193–5 Marketing to travel agents. 101. 60. 197. 179. 238 ISO 9000/9001/9002/9003. 144. 83. 5. 226. 18. 184. 185. 181. 87. 21. 187. 208. 156. 55. 69. 167 Hong Kong airport. 186. 185. 105. 213 London airports. 239. 31. 58. 28. 60. 164. 254. 87. 107. 9. 18. 208–12 Insurance. 148. 164. 159. 59. 31. 36. 8. 28. 86. 49. 132. 47. 80. 17. 262 enviromental issues. 3. 148.Index EU ground handling directive. 107. 6. 69. 184. 152. 48. 33. 42. 19. 89. 24. 257. 34 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 157. 49 impact on passengers. 269 London Luton airport. 196 Marketing to airlines. 118. 79. 255. 6. 55. 80. 181. 79. 159. 231. 37 I IATA schedule co-ordination conference. 189. 264 H Harrisburg airport. 85. 256. 144. 55. 142. 78. 190. 20. 45 Globaltime. 198. 264–5 International regulation of charges. 117. 207. 230. 234. 30. 29. 261. 156. 8. 4. 104. 4. 28. 163. 18. 100. 102. 162. 5. 102. 31. 211. 6. 165. 30. 253. 193. 160 Eurotime. 187. 27. 130. 127–8 EU regulation of slot allocation. 68. 28. 232. 102. 55. 122. 67. 150. 17. 164. 168. 87. 184. 131–2 Hochtief. 233. 141. 83. 187. 70. 4. 258. 255. 10. 78. 251 Johannesburg airport. 24. 238 274 . 84. 18. 256. 37. 170. 188. 30. 25. 122. 41. 164. 86. 185. 174. 181. 27. 207. 25. 67. 48. 212. 163. 181. 180. 246 Los Angeles airport. 257. 81. 22. 229. 180. 200 catchment area. 105. 165. 106. 174. 88. 87. 260. 70. 129. 118. 197 London City airport. 258 Global airport companies: globalization rationale. 126. 105. 11. 150. 111. 163. 155. 26. 100. 26. 116. 191. 233. 17. 127. 190. 124. 236. 259. 102. 68. 143. 67. 122. 71. 129. 196. 101. 110. 264 J Japanese airports. 159 F Federal Airports Corporation (FAC). 92. 58. 229. 117. 162. 238. 48 skills needed. 92. 159. 182. 239. 5. 131. 29. 6. 261. 43. 26. 4. 87. 17. 210. 70. 58. 8. 69. 181. 261 Indirect/induced economic impacts. 22. 191. 181. 159. 198. 258. 21. 215. 162. 262 Majority in interest clause (MII). 133. 29. 67. 158. 59. 99. 75. 42. 207. 99. 37. 122. 180. 6. 104. 158. 236. 187. 255. 81. 117–19 Market research. 117. 5. 5. 80. 264 Frankfurt airport/Fraport. 33. 86. 223. 105. 67. 37 High Density US airport rule. 256. 148. 99. 32. 236. 223. 193 Mauritius airport. 197. 58. 207. 88. 124. 27. 41. 206. 4. 115. 83. 159. 134 L Liverpool airport. 22. 87. 232. 145. 121–3 Indian airports. 69. 46. 196–7 London Gatwick airport. 68. 101. 263. 33. 211. 253.

102. 170 National Express. 114–15 service quality. 181. a85. 82–4 Singapore airport. 187. 106. 269 Munich airport. 145. 122. 210. 114 revenue yield and tariff baskets. 159. 101. 105. 253. 87. 36. 259. 68. 61–2 Melbourne airport. 159. 17. 222 T TBI. 24. 10. 104. 207. 93. 105. 19. 180. 181. 68. 23. 30. 182. 18. 43. 21. 231. 67. 257. 69. 26 project finance. 159. 24. 68. 131. 36. 26. 260 Philippine International Air Terminals Co (PIATCO). 211. 81. 5. 269 EIA 239–40 P Pantares. 42. 59. 109. 41. 25. 150. 86. 262 Perth airport. 69. 158. 262. 211. 55. 8. 101. 55. 181. 119. 182. 39. 69. 113–14 rate of return. 128. 21. 17. 87. 171 Preferred noise route (PNR). 32. 42. 17. 231. 252. 180. 5. 90. 9. 42 New York airports. 131. 269 Milan airports. 258. 264 Service level agreements (SLAs). 129. 69. 4. 4. 20. 156. 230. 22. 269 Privatization models: concession. 99. 92. 181. 23. 25. 257 New York JFK airport. 88. 180. 99. 69. 210. 70. 61. 141. 100. 266 N Naples airport. 86. 229. 33. 71. 255. 42. 20–1 R Regulation of airports: price caps. 257. 18. 6. 119. 256. 49. 261 Transportation Security Administration (TSA). 232. 264 non-aeronautical strategies. 105. 214. 105. 46. 122. 87. 26. 49 Paris/Aeroports de Paris (AdP). 17. 41. 164. 80. 69. 23–6 share flotations. 198. 69. 181. 208. 148. 18. 42. 4. 41. 78. 55. 260. 187. 59. 58. 148. 179. 42. Ryanair. 41. 122. 101. 44. 44. 23. 70. 115–16 reserve. 262 Sydney airport. 31. 224. 181 New York La Guardia airport. 21. 37. 158. 130. 22. 132. 105. 181. 93. 4. 266 global company. 78. 143. 261. 179. 197–9 Spanish airports/Aeropuertos Espanoles y Navegacion Aerea (AENA). 5. Airport Company South Africa. 48. 59. 192. 79. 127. 26. 34. 55. 43. 231. 115 single and dual tills. 55. 93. 232. 119. 8. 22. 103. 154. 5. 258. 182. 258. 193. 5. 30. 162. 47. 37. 150. 161. 39. 106. 29. 211. 22. 44.Index Measuring economic performance: inter-airport comparisons. 104. 103. 3. 170. 33. 65. 6. 198. 131. 208. 77. 45. 261 275 . 37. 231. 80. 112. 10. 159. 258. 35. 27. 71 Toyko airport. 32. 43. 155. 92. 87–91 Rome/Aeroporti di Roma (AdR). 254. 58. 238. 122. 39. 22. 17. 36 Noise impacts. 191. 255. 36. 199–201 S Security. 22. 4. 26 Pittsburgh. 149. 170 Mexican airports. 146. 83. 29. 26. 200 marketing strategies. 89. 60. 126. 22. 24. 220–4 Norwich airport. 21. 230. 200. 259. 264 O Oslo airport. 87. 46. 261. 87. 4. 207 Stockholm airport. 37. marketing strategies. 100. 252. 31. 22. 46. 9. 24. 36. 214. 17. 37. 118 Southampton. 21. 180 Niagra Falls airport. 113 regulatory benchmarking. 104. 259. 133. 24. 21–3 management contract. 81. 25. 81. 129. 60. 19–20 trade sales. 8. 87. 230. 42. 231. 42–4 see also AGI Total factor productivity (TFP). 262. 86. 231. 58. 65–8 reasons for increased interest. 232. 89. 69. 229 Passenger facility charge (PFC). 152. 174 South African airports. 262. 23. 43. 182. 42. 58. 106. 70. 215. 90. 261. 29.

102. 69. 38.Index U US airports. 118 total quality management. 169. 70. 255. 223. 152. 258. 19. 257. 122. 59. 143. 41 global concept. 46. 87. 70. 211 Vienna. 81. 254. 68. 69. 211. 126. 210. 67. 159. 150. 10. 163. 188. 189. 162. 129. 131–2 evolution of an airport business. 26. 261. 258 Wiggins. 8. 18. 37. 258 charges. 37. 127. 92. 9. 20. 99. 148. 93–5 W Washington airports. 81. 3. 34–7 slot allocation. 161. 122. 158. 68. 215. 262 Z Zurich airport. 65. 26. 17. 125. 24. 24. 37. 180. 216. 67. 5. 33. 49–51 World Duty Free. 159. 13–16 regulation. 56. 130–1 privatization. 171. 102. 43. 25. 67. 170. 215. 211. 71. 58. 232 276 . 212. 69. 152. 55. 254. 41. 70. 69. 22. 17. 172 V Vancouver airport (YVRAS). 148. 101. 216. 131. 26. 210.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->