Philippe A.

Bonnefoy

Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course

Page | 1

ROLE OF THE PRIVATIZATION OF AIRPORTS IN THE EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF MULTI-AIRPORT SYSTEMS
Philippe A. Bonnefoy

ESD.224J Planning & Design of Airport Systems Term project paper

Massachusetts Institute of Technology December 14 2007
th

1

Philippe A. Bonnefoy

Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course

Page | 2

ROLE OF THE PRIVATIZATION OF AIRPORTS IN THE EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF MULTI-AIRPORT SYSTEMS

Philippe A. Bonnefoy

Abstract
The development of multi-airport system has been and will remain a key mechanism by which the air transportation network evolve to meet growing volumes of traffic worldwide. In parallel to this long trend of development of multi-airport systems, the privatization of airports has been affecting the development of airports around the world over the last 20 years and especially the development of multi-airport systems. This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the forms of ownership and management of airports across a set of 74 cases of multi-airport systems worldwide. In order to identify the effects of airport privatization on the evolution and the development of multi-airport systems, a subset of these cases was analyzed and is presented. The analysis of the forms of ownership and management of airports showed that a wide array of combinations of these forms of ownership and management of airports across the 74 cases of multi-airport systems and single airport systems in transition. The effects of privatization differ according to the configurations of multiairport system (i.e. whether it is the primary airport or secondary airport that is privatized) and the geographic location of these multi-airport systems. It was found that, in some cases, the privatization of airports had positive effects on the development of multi-airport systems; provision of capital for the development of underutilized airports that result in the successful emergence into secondary airports and can offset the monopolistic situation of single airport systems and allow the private sector to share the risk of airport development, not necessarily justified and feasible by the local public sector. While several cases of successful emergence of new secondary airports were observed and analyzed, the privatization and investment in non-utilized airports comes with significant risk. It was also found that the process of privatization of airports –especially the privatization of major airports- can have limiting effects on the development of multi-airport systems, such as the development perimeter rules (e.g. case of India) that limit the construction of new airports in the region in order to protect foreign investments.

1. Introduction 1.1 Motivation & Problem
Demand for air transportation and passenger traffic has grown significantly over the last decades in all parts of the world. As shown on Error! Reference source not found., North America and Europe are leading with 1.3 and 1.0 trillion revenue passenger kilometers (RPKs) respectively. Asia Pacific exhibited a significant growth over the last 15 years. Latin America and Africa have been growing at a slower rate, while Middle East has shown strong growth in the 1990s and 2000s, mostly driven by the emergence of new long haul network airlines, such as Emirates. This historical increase of demand for air transportation has put pressure on the air transportation infrastructure system -mostly airport infrastructure system- at which the ability to add capacity is increasingly limited. This growing demand and limited capacity at some key airports result in the generation of delays and

2

and environmental constraints.MIT ESD. 1) the identification of the owner and the operator for each airport within a set of cases of multi-airport systems. and what is generally seen as the greatest downside. airports have been and are privatized around the world. a comprehensive case study analysis of existing cases of multi-airport systems exhibiting different degrees of privatization was conducted. to this long term trend of development of multi-airport systems. In parallel. Fundamentally. privatization has both advantages and disadvantages. abuse of situation of natural monopoly. In order to assess the effects and implications of the privatization on the development of airports in multiairport systems. This analysis comprised. cuts in essential services. from 1972 to 2005 by world region airport physical limitations. Approach & Outline of the paper Prior to assessing the implications of different forms and combinations of ownership and management of airports in the development of multi-airport systems.2 Objective of the project Given that these trends -development of multi-airport systems and privatization of airports. improving operational efficiency. potential corruption. However.the privatization of airports in the case of multi-airport systems can be a stimulating event in the development of future secondary airports that emerge as alternative air transportation nodes in the region and increase competition between players at the regional market level. impacting passenger’s quality of travel and ultimately local. increasing airport physical capacity through the construction of new runways and/or terminals. 1. There are several ways by which capacity can be added to existing airports. While one of main criticism of privatization of airports is the abuse of monopolistic position by private investment and management groups that can derive monopoly rents -because of the lack of competition in single airport systems. regional and national economy. 3) detailed analysis of these cases 3 . It brings the ability to raise investment capital for the development of airport infrastructure. state and international governments and bring improvements in operating efficiency. such as land use constraints.are and will remain key trends in the air transportation systems and have the ability to affect airport development in the future. generate new revenue streams for local. Revenue Passenger Kilometers ability to use these mechanisms. there are constraints on the FIGURE 1. there is the need to better understand the implications of different forms and combinations of ownership and management of airports on the development of multi-airport systems. it comes with several downsides such as potential conflicting objectives between public good and profit generation. lack of accountability.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 3 its propagation through the air transportation network.Philippe A. Given the projections of future demand for air transportation around the world. In addition. literature on multi-airport systems was reviewed. The development of multi-airport systems has been a key mechanism by which capacity was added at the regional level in the past and the ability to meet future demand will rely on this mechanism. Bonnefoy Project Paper . 2) the selection of cases of multiairport systems that involve airports with different degree of privatization. this problem of congestion and more generally the ability to meet demand is going to remain a key problem over the next decades. 2. a literature review of the history and the processes of privatization of airports was conducted. However.

The structure of this paper follows closely this approach. operator). B. Bonnefoy Project Paper . from partially privatized to fully privatized entities). Privatization can (while it is not the only mechanism) increase the ability to raise capital for airport infrastructure development project. possibly with some or all shares publicly traded). History of privatization in the context of airport ownership and management 4 . while the reverse phenomenon is referred to as nationalization. The core part of the analysis is presented in section 4 and 5 that present the analysis of the forms of ownership and management of airports across the 74 cases of multi-airport systems and single airport systems in transition followed by the detailed analysis of specific cases of multi-airport systems. The following list represents an exhaustive list of the forms of ownership and management of airports: A.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 4 that included a review the history and the process of privatization. corruption. While there are positive implications from the privatization of airports. Background 3. there is a key distinction that needs to be emphasized between the privatization of the entity owning the airport (i. it can be a mechanism for generating revenue streams for local. C. Privately-owned (fully or in majority. The following section presents background information on both the privatization of airports and multi-airport systems. which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional and/or national government but with minority private shareholders (some shares may be publicly traded). conflicting objectives between public good and profit generation that can lead to natural monopolies. operated as independent airport authority. and the identification of key issues in the privatization process.1 Airport privatization Principles of privatization Fundamentally. D. Privatization is also generally associated with operating efficiency improvements. Operated by an independent Airport Authority. privatization and more specifically airport privatization can cover a wide range of forms (i. Government-owned.e.g. the privatization of an entity (i. 3. local. the ownership and management of airports can take several forms. operated by a municipal or regional Department or Agency. General advantages and disadvantages of privatization Generally. E.MIT ESD. owner) and the privatization of the entity managing the operations of the airport (i.g.e.Philippe A. and potentially cuts in essential services. private investment and/or management groups). Government-owned.e. operated and managed by a private corporation. Government-owned.e. In addition. there are also significant downsides that need to be considered. Operated by an independent Airport Authority. F. In addition. Section 6 of the paper presents a summary of the findings and explores the potential implications for the future development of multi-airport systems. regional or national government) to the private sector (e. lack of transparency and accountability. the process of privatization refers to the transfer of ownership from the public sector (e. Finally. has both advantages and disadvantages. which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional and/or national government. Despite this simple definition. operated by Department or Agency of national government. As a result. state or international governments. the findings of the case study analysis were synthesized and implications for future development of multi-airport systems were assessed. These downsides include. owner or operator of an airport or another operating asset).

Inc. a Spanich infrastructure investment group. and is now listed as BAA Limited. several other countries have explored the privatization path. Since its initial privatization phase. Dominican Republic. Networks of multi-national private airport management groupsFIGURE 3 shows the international networks of the six airport investment and/or management groups.5 billion to a new owner BAA PLC. Bonnefoy Project Paper . Ferihegy airport. another trend has been observed over the last decade. the United Kingdom sold Belfast International Airport in Northern Ireland. the airport privatization trend started in the United Kingdom in 1987 when Great Britain sold seven airports. As of 2007. In parallel to the history and the evolution of BAA PLC as a private entity in Great Britain and then in expanding to other airport and countries. but also offers airport consulting services.e. BAA PLC has evolved by investing in airports around the world. An example is Vancouver Airport Services (YVRAS) that is responsible. airport design.Philippe A. Greece Jamaica and Chile.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 5 From an historical perspective. Stansted Airport) and Prestwick International Airport. to various extents. New Zealand privatized its three international airports. This trend has implications in terms of the management of airports since in most cases. In July 2006. the internationalization of private investment and airport management groups.MIT ESD. 5 . London’s three primary airports (London Heathrow Airport. Glasgow International Airport. in a public share offering. London Gatwick Airport. Edinburgh Airport and Aberdeen Airport in Scotland. the largest airport in Hungary (on December 2005). but also taking responsibility of retail contracts at Boston Logan International Airport and Baltimore-Washington international airport (through subsidiary BAA USA. The Austrian government sold a 28 percent interest in the Vienna airport to finance an expansion. British Airports Authority was a state owned authority that was formed in 1996 though the Airport Authority Act. it is not only capital that is exchanged throughout this network but also knowledge (i. The former owner. FIGURE 2. FIGURE 3. for the management of 18 airports in Canada. as depicted on FIGURE 2. at least 39 countries had one or more of their airports privatized. for $2. • • • • • Belgium created a corporation to own the Brussels airport terminal. Countries with privatized airports worldwide In addition to this trend of expanding number of countries privatizing their airports. and a management contract with the City of Indianapolis to run Indianapolis International airport. Australia began to privatize 22 airports owned by its Federal Airport Corporation (FAC) in 1994. operation and management expertise and knowledge). BAA was acquired by Grupo Ferrovial.).

regional and national government entities or independent airport authorities owned by local. On September 14. In the United States. NY.of U. As of 2007. Despite these impediments to full privatization of airports in the Unites States. a non exhaustive set of 12 single airport systems in transition 6 .S. 14 in North America. which makes it an unattractive investment. and 3 in the Middle East). in the United States airport can borrow money through tax free bonds which constitute an advantageous source of financing and make other forms of investment less attractive. FIGURE 4 shows the geographical location of these multi-airport systems across six world regions (29 in Europe. there were 62 cases of multi-airport systems worldwide. to multi-airport systems. 11 in Asia Pacific. was the only airport granted an exemption under the program. In 2006. airports remains the dependence of major airports on federal grants from the FAA Airport Improvement Program.Philippe A. the City of Chicago submitted a preliminary application for Chicago Midway International Airport. In addition. 3. 5 in Latin America and Caribbean. Networks of multi-national private airport management groups In the United States It is important to distinguish the difference between the status of airport privatization in the United States and in other parts of the world. airports have traditionally been operated by local.MIT ESD. but the airport was taken under the umbrella of the New York New Jersey Port Authority (NYNJPA). A federal regulation allows the privatization of airports only if the new owner reimburses these federal grants to the government. In addition. For the purpose of this analysis. located in Newburgh. The involvement of the airlines specifically in the management of the airport is much stronger than in other parts of the world which makes airports in the United States more privatized that appear (de Neufville 1999). regional and national government. in 2007. in order to alleviate congestion in the New York area. Stewart International Airport. a FAA pilot program was established by Congress in September 1997 and was limited to five airport participants.2 Multi-airport systems The analysis of the effects of the forms of ownership and management of airports on multi-airport systems was based on the set of multi-airport systems (and single airport systems in transitions) developed by Bonnefoy & Hansman (2007). a multi-airport system was defined as a system of two or more primary and secondary airports serving a metropolitan region. Bonnefoy Project Paper . The major impediment to full privatization –as it is seen in other countries.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 6 Legend Vancouver Airport Services (YVRAS) Ferrovial Infratil Macquarie Airport Group* Hochtief Abertis Airports / ACDL / TBI FIGURE 3. 2006.

“D. The two categories of semi-privatized and fully privatized forms of airport ownership and management. which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional and/or national government” which represents 34 % of the 178 airports. Operated by an independent Airport Authority. Multi-airport systems and single airport systems in transition worldwide 4. FIGURE 5 summarizes the distribution of forms of ownership and management of airports across the 74 cases. For each of the airport. the owner and the operator of the airport were identified.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 7 was also considered in the analysis since some of these systems provide interesting insight in the airport privatization process and its impacts on future multi-airport systems. owners and operators (as of Dec. (E.MIT ESD. It was found that the most frequent form of ownership and management of airports was. a systematic analysis of the forms of ownership and management of airports was conducted for the 74 cases of multi-airport systems and single airport systems in transition. The type of owner and operator was analyzed and match with the list of forms of airport ownership and management (A through F) that is presented in section 3. Legend Multi-Airport System Single Airport System in Transition North America Europe Latin America & Caribbean Middle East Africa Asia/Pacific FIGURE 4. The full list of airports. This analysis accounted for 178 airports in 37 different countries.1 Forms of Ownership and Management of Airports by world regions In order to better understand the implications of the privatization of airports on the development of multi-airport systems. Bonnefoy Project Paper . Distribution of forms of ownership and management of airports worldwide 7 . which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional Worldwide A 8% B 16 % C 7% D 34 % E 19 % F 16 % 0 20 40 60 80 Number of airports FIGURE 5.Philippe A.1. Analysis of the Forms of Airport Ownership and Management in Multi-Airport Systems 4. 2007) is presented in Appendix. Operated by an independent Airport Authority.

Government-owned. operated as independent airport authority) represented respectively 19% and 16% of the 178 airports. 8 . government-owned. the mixed form. Bonnefoy Project Paper . There are still a few airports that are owned and operated under the more traditional (public) forms. mostly in Northern Europe (Sweden. Multi-airport systems in Latin America. Finally. Norway). operated and managed by a private corporation (C) represented only 7% of the cases. operated by a municipal or regional Department or Agency) .MIT ESD. operated by Department or Agency of national government and B. “operated by an independent Airport Authority. As shown on FIGURE 6. operated by Department or Agency of national government” (A) form. Distribution of forms of ownership and management of airports across six world regions In Europe. the profile of ownership and management of airports is slightly different with a significant number of airports that are owned and operated under the more modern form of ownership and management D through F (including a significant number of airports in the semi-privatized E and privatized F categories). Europe A B C D E F 0 5 10 15 Number of airports 20 25 North America A B C D E F Middle East A 0 5 10 15 Number of airports 20 25 B C D A B C D E F Asia/Pacific Latin America A B C D E F 0 5 10 15 Number of airports 20 25 E F 0 5 10 15 Number of airports 20 25 0 5 10 15 Number of airports 20 25 Africa A B C D E F 0 5 10 15 Number of airports 20 25 FIGURE 6. In Asia.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 8 and/or national government but with minority private shareholders -some shares may be publicly traded. that are generally considered to be more traditional forms of ownership and management of airports. Middle East and Africa tend to be operated under the categories D through F (with the exception of two airports in the Middle East –Dubai. Privately-owned -fully or in majority. operated by a municipal or regional Department or Agency” (B) and the more modern. While FIGURE 5 presented the aggregated results at the worldwide level. possibly with some or all shares publicly traded-. represented a combined 24% of all airports. which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional and/or national government” (D). Government-owned. the dominant forms of ownership and management are D-E-F with a few public airports (A) mostly in Japan. The public forms of ownership and management (A. the two most frequent forms in the United States are the traditional “government-owned.that are owned and operated under the “government-owned. FIGURE 6 shows the breakdown of the distribution of the forms of ownership and management of airports for each of the six regions. This analysis permitted the identification of difference in the occurrence of the forms of ownership and management of airports across world regions.and F.Philippe A.

the analysis of the forms of ownership and management of airports needs to take into account the configuration of multi-airport system (role and number of airports in the system). Primary Airport and management of airports within multi-airport Secondary Airport A Hyderabad Dubai B C D E Tokyo Gothenburg Osaka F Stolckholm A Taipei Houston Miami Single Airport Systems in Transition B Primary Airport Chicago Dallas Stuttgart Orlando Los Angeles Vancouver C D E F Copenhagen Melbourne Brussels Buenos Aires Tampa Washington San Francisco New York Boston Norfolk Belo Horizonte Tel Aviv Edmonton Jakarta Rio de Janeiro Nairobi Seoul Amsterdam Manila Barcelona Sao Paulo Frankfurt Moscow Warsaw Madrid Montreal Hamburg Dusseldorf Toronto Berlin Leipzig Hong Kong Mexico Bologna Kuala lumpur Venice Bangkok Shanghai Tehran Manchester Oslo Johannesburg Cochin Paris Milano Vienna Mumbai Auckland New Delhi Istanbul Belfast Pisa Rome Glasgow London FIGURE 8. FIGURE 7. secondary) / / Public Private E was considered as an important factor since the dynamics and impacts of the privatization of the primary (the F incumbent) vs. All airports within a multi/ Public / Public Private B airport system can be owned and operated by public entities (upper-left quadrant of FIGURE 7). the combinations of Secondary Airport the forms of ownership and management of airports can A B C D E F vary according to the nature of the airports involved A Public (primary vs. the nature of the airport (primary vs.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 9 4. the secondary airport (the new entrant) were expected to differ. A wide array of combinations of forms of ownership and management of airports was found. As represented in FIGURE 7. the set of 74 cases of airport systems (both the 62 cases of multi-airport systems and 12 single airport systems in transition) were analyzed and are plotted on FIGURE 9. both type of C airports can be operated by private entities (lower right corner).MIT ESD. Conversely.Philippe A. but also by a mix of private and public entities. Combinations of forms of ownership and management of airports across 74 cases of multi-airport systems and single airport systems in transition 9 . Bonnefoy Project Paper . secondary airports). In D Private Private this case.2 Combinations of Forms of Ownership and Management of Airports within Multi-Airport Systems In the context of multi-airport systems. Combinations of forms of ownership Using this framework for analysis the combinations of * systems forms of ownership and management of airports.

(E) Fraport. in the 1990s the need to add capacity at the airport was apparent and a plan to expand Frankfurt Airport through the addition of a fourth runway was set. In parallel to the history of capacity expansion at Frankfurt International. the project was delayed several times due to environmental constraints in particular due to a mediation process that was engaged in 1999. Cases of combinations of forms of ownership and management of airports 5. Frankfurt International (FRA) has been the sole airport in the region. and has exhibited significant growth of traffic mostly due to its role as a hub for Lufthansa. a secondary airport. a detailed analysis of cases of multi-airport systems was performed. The following figure (FIGURE 9) shows the lists of airport systems for with a more detailed analysis of the privatization process and history was performed (covering the wide array of combinations). which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional and/or national government but with minority private shareholders -some shares may be publicly traded-.2 Frankfurt’s multi-airport system The Frankfurt airport system is an illustration of a case of: • Primary airport. However.1 Overview of cases In order to better understand the implications of the privatization of airports on multi-airport systems. Case study analysis of the privatization process and impacts on MAS development 5. Map of Frankfurt’s airport system Historically. also operated by Fraport (same operator as the primary airport). Frankfurt International (FRA). operated by an independent Airport Authority. and a secondary airport.Philippe A. • FIGURE 10.MIT ESD. The airport is now scheduled to receive this fourth runway in 2010. Secondary Airport A Hyderabad Dubai B C D E Tokyo Gothenburg Osaka F Stolckholm A Taipei Houston Miami Single Airport Systems in Transition B Primary Airport Chicago Dallas Stuttgart Orlando Los Angeles Vancouver C D E F Copenhagen Melbourne Brussels Buenos Aires Tampa Washington San Francisco New York Boston Norfolk Belo Horizonte Tel Aviv Edmonton JakartaJaneiro Rio de Nairobi Seoul Amsterdam Manila Barcelona Sao Paulo Moscow Warsaw Madrid Montreal Hamburg Dusseldorf Toronto Berlin Leipzig Hong Kong Mexico Bologna Kuala lumpur Venice Frankfurt Bangkok Shanghai Tehran Manchester Oslo Johannesburg Cochin Paris Milano Vienna Mumbai Auckland New Delhi Istanbul Belfast Pisa Rome Glasgow London FIGURE 9. 10 . However. Frankfurt Hahn (HHN).224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 10 5. Bonnefoy Project Paper .

FIGURE 12.Philippe A. 5. which is fully owned by local and regional governments (E). operated by Airports Company South Africa.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 11 Frankfurt Hahn. a group of private investors acquired and developed Lanseira airport as a secondary airport. 5. The case of Frankfurt airport system is an illustration of a successful development of multi-airport systems for which a centralized development process (one developer/operator) resulted in a controlled product differentiation. high cost hub airport and low-cost secondary airport to serve both legacy network carriers and low cost carriers. and a potential secondary airport. was developed and emerged.com). Bonnefoy Project Paper . all operated by Berlin Airports which is an independent Airport Authority. Following the investment in airport infrastructure. Germany. While the airport managed to attract scheduled carriers. (E). South Africa. In addition. This airport was constructed in 1947 as a NATO military base. the airport was able to attract a low cost carrier (kulula. Finow. FIGURE 11.3 Johannesburg’s multi-airport system The airport system in Johannesburg. and was opened to civil traffic in 1993. Berlin Tegel. which is a military base located north of Berlin and in potential transition to be privately owned by Infratil (Privately-owned. and a secondary airport. Lanseira airport (operated by a private investor group. Map of Johannesburg’s airport system Lanseira Johannesburg International • Johannesburg International airport was historically the only major airport in the region until. is an illustration of a case of: • Primary airports. The case of the multi-airport system in Johannesburg is an illustration of a successful beginning of emergence of a secondary airport and development of a multi-airport system with airports operated by two different owner/operators. (independent Airport Authority. Berlin Tempelhof. Johannesburg International. such as Ryanair that started to offer scheduled service in 1999 and now Wizzair. Fraport is expanding and planning other capacity expansion projects (terminal in 2005. runway extension in 2007). Privately-owned (fully or in majority. operated as independent airport authority (F). Berlin Schonefeld. which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional and/or national government but with minority private shareholders -some shares may be publicly traded-. Map of Berlin’s airport system Berlin Tegel Berlin Tempelhof Berlin Schonefeld ? Finow • 11 . Frankfurt Hahn successfully attracted low cost carriers.MIT ESD.4 Berlin’s multi-airport system The airport system in Berlin. the traffic volumes are still low and significant risk with respect to the success of this airport remains. operated as independent airport authority (F). is an illustration of a case of: • A primary airport.

the sale was cancelled on the basis of concerns about restriction of competition in the market and a situation resulting in a dominant position. a new secondary airport may emerge. respectively.Philippe A. Even though there may be a willingness.s. 12 .224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 12 The multi-airport system in Berlin is in the process of consolidation of the three primary airports into one primary airport Berlin Schonefeld (BBI). €25 million). The Bratislava airport was run by the state until 2004 and is now run by a public limited company (Airport Bratislava. (BTS)). A. There is a plan to plan to develop the airport into a secondary airport serving low-cost carriers (long-term investment program of approx. However. Flughafen Wien AG and PENTA Investments Limited) attempted to take over the ownership and management of Bratislava airport. FIGURE 13. operated by Flughafen Wien AG. (the value of this airport being dependent on the evolution of other airports in the region and more specifically the close of Both Berlin Tegel and Berlin Tempelhof. a. where Infratil placed an option to purchase the airport by 2013.e.e. Conversely. Infratil (New Zealand private infrastructure investment group) entered into a 10 year option to purchase Finow airport. the privatization process can become more complicated when it involves multiple countries. Bratislava airport. which is an independent Airport Authority. independent and decentralized potential privatization of an under-utilized airport that could emerge into a secondary airport). a Vienna airport led consortium (Two One. This case of Vienna/Bratislava multiairport system highlights some of the downsides of privatization on the control and ownership of airports within a region. fully owned by local government (D). 5. which is owned by the local government with minority private shareholders (with shares publicly traded) (E). Bonnefoy Project Paper . potential deviations from this goal may exist or be perceived by the various parties involved in the privatization process. and a secondary airport.MIT ESD. runway capacity). Vienna international airport.5 Vienna’s multi-airport system The multi-airport system. Bratislava airport is not utilized at capacity (i. operated by Airport Bratislava. in the Vienna region (Austria and Slovakia). Finow airport is an interesting case of the use of real options. is an illustration of a case of: • A primary airport.S. by a single owner/operator. Despite this centralized and controlled approach to consolidate airports. which is an independent Airport Authority. is considered as a secondary airport in the region. In 2006. In addition. In 2003. Both Berlin Tegel and Berlin Tempelhof are expected to close in 2008 and 2011. Map of Vienna’s airport system • Vienna international airport has been historically the primary airport in the region and this airport is reaching its capacity limit.. to develop successfully multiple airports in a region (as it is the case with the Frankfurt airport system). The case of the Berlin airport system combines some aspects of both the Frankfurt system (centralized and controlled development process) and the Johannesburg dynamics (i.

Tehran Imam Khomeini (owned and operated by Turkish and Austrian TAV group (F). owned and operated by Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) which is a Privately-owned (in majority and operated as independent airport authority (F). limits the construction of a new airport within 150 km of an existing airport. India. Fraport AG. Tehran Mehrabad International. 5. Airports Authority of India.e.6 Tehran’s multi-airport system The airport system. and a primary/secondary airport. • FIGURE 15.e. in Tehran. is an illustration of a case of: • A primary airport. Indira Gandhi International has been the primary airport in the region. Map of New Delhi’s airport system Historically. Given the strong growth of traffic and forecasts of continuation of the trend in the region. However. (F).Philippe A. Eraman Malaysia and India Development Fund) was granted the mandate to modernize and restructure Indira Gandhi International Airport. Map of Theran’s airport system • Imam Khomeini International Airport was opened in May 2004 and immediately closed because two Iranian airlines refused to switch to an airport run by foreigners (Turkish and Austrian TAV group) arguing security problems. FIGURE 14. This contract was awarded under the Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) contract. the privatization of the primary airport and the willingness to limit competition and 13 . Bonnefoy Project Paper . restriction) was put in place in order to attract and keep foreign investors. the 1997 Indian Airport Infrastructure Policy.MIT ESD. TAV officials were forced to clear out personnel and equipment and return control of the airport and the Turkish part of consortium was excluded. Since then. which is fully owned by the local government. and a potential new primary airport in the region. Indira Gandhi International. is an illustration of a case of: • A Primary. securing return on investment and control over the entity for the duration of the contract) with the privatization of airports with stakeholders from different countries. The case of the Tehran multi-airport system illustrate some of the problems (i. A Public Private Partnership Initiative (DIAL comprised of GMR Group. there is a plan to build a green field airport under the Built Own and Operate (BOO) model. This policy (i. In this case. privately-owned and operated as an independent airport authority.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 13 5. Iran.7 New Delhi’s Single Airport System (in transition) The airport system in New Delhi. owned and operated by Iran Airports Company which is an independent Airport Authority. This case of the New Delhi airport system is an illustration of another effect of the privatization airports on the development of multiairport systems.

FIGURE 17. owned and operated by Flugplatz Altenburg-Nobitz GmbH. Auckland Whenuapai airport. Map of Auckland’s airport system Historically. The New Zealand airport system may experience the emergence of a secondary airport. Auckland international airport has been the sole and primary airport in the Auckland region. by Infratil. 5.e. New Zealand. Auckland Whenuapai. there is a proposal by Infratil (Private infrastructure investment and management company) to convert the airport into a civilian airport and open it to scheduled passenger traffic. Leipzig Altenbourg. which is fully owned by municipal local government (D).8 Auckland’s Single Airport System (in transition) The airport system in Auckland. this case of the Auckland airport system may illustrate a case of privatization (of a secondary airport) as a way to combat adverse effects of privatization -of a primary airportin a lightly regulated system.MIT ESD. While it is still operated as a military bases by New Zealand Defense Forces. While there are still military airport status conversion and political issues to resolve in order for this airport to successfully emerge as a secondary airport.Philippe A. Bonnefoy Project Paper . operated by Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 14 protect investments (through national airport policies) is impacting the ability to develop new airports in this single airport system. Ryanair) and was able to emerge as a secondary airport in a region. as "happy monopoly with profit margins above 40%”. 14 . Since the airport is fully privatized (Auckland International Airport Limited) and that mild regulation in New Zealand. possibly with some or all shares publicly traded) and operated as independent airport authority (F). Auckland International FIGURE 16. Germany. and a secondary airport. 5. an independent Airport Authority. Leipzig Halle. is an illustration of a case of: • A primary airport. there are concerns that the airport is abusing monopolistic situation. which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional and/or national government but with minority private shareholders (E). an independent Airport Authority. Map of Leipzig’s airport system • The case of the Leipzig airport system is another case of semi-privatization of an under-utilized airport that managed to attract low-cost carriers (i. is an illustration of a case of: • A primary airport.9 Leipzig’s Multi-Airport System The airport system in Leipzig. which is currently owned and operated by the New Zealand Defense Forces but could evolve into a fully privately-owned (fully or in majority. Auckland / Whenuapai ? • a potentially new secondary airport in the region. Auckland international airport which is owned and operated by Auckland International Airport Limited (a privately-owned and operated as independent airport authority (F). as stated by IATA CEO Giovanni Bisignani.

case of India) that limit the construction of new airports in the region in order to protect foreign investments. fully privately-owned. 15 . In Europe. provision of capital for the development of underutilized airports that result in the successful emergence into secondary airports.MIT ESD. More generally. Stockholm Skavsta. It was owned and managed by TBI incorporated in the United Kingdom in 1972 (which was acquired by Airport Concessions and Development Limited (ACDL). 6. and in 2003 Wizzair also entered service. whether it is the primary airport or secondary airport that is privatized) and the geographic location of these multi-airport systems.Philippe A.e.10 Stockholm’s Multi-Airport System The airport system. the privatization and investment in non-utilized airports comes with significant risk. which is a government-owned. operated as independent airport authority. in Stockholm. that later was acquired by Abertis. is an illustration of a case of: • A set of primary airports. a subset of 9 cases were analyzed.and the successful attraction of low-cost carriers that allow the airport to emerge as successful secondary airport that compete or complement the service offered at the primary airport. The effects of privatization differ according to the configurations of multiairport system (i. privatization of under-utilized airports -especially converted military bases. The analysis of the forms of ownership and management of airports showed that a wide array of combinations of these forms of ownership and management of airports across the 74 cases of multi-airport systems and single airport systems in transition. operated by Department or Agency of national government (A). In order to identify the effects of airport privatization on the evolution and the development of multi-airport systems. such as the development perimeter rules (e.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 15 5.can have limiting effects on the development of multi-airport systems. Stockholm Skavsta airport was able to attract low-cost carrier airlines. the privatization of airports in the context of multi-airport systems has the potential to offset the monopolistic situation of single airport systems and allow the private sector to share the risk of airport development.(F) FIGURE 18. Bonnefoy Project Paper . in 1997 Ryanair started to offer service at Skavsta.g. It was found that. Stockholm-Västerås and Stockholm-Brommam. in some cases. in 2004. Luftfartsverket. Summary of Findings and Conclusions This paper presented a comprehensive analysis of the forms of ownership and management of airports across a set of 74 cases of multi-airport systems worldwide. owned by Spanish companies Abertis Infraestructuras S. operated by Swedish Civil Aviation Administration. Stolckholm Arlanda. While several cases of successful emergence of new secondary airports were observed and analyzed. It was also found that the process of privatization of airports –especially the privatization of major airports. not necessarily justified and feasible by the local public sector. and a secondary airport. owned and operated by Airport Concessions and Development Limited (ACDL) – Abertis. Map of Stockholm’s airport system • Stockholm Skavsta (NYO) airport was established as a military air base in the 1940s and developed into a civilian airport in 1984.A. the privatization of airports had positive effects on the development of multi-airport systems. a dominant pattern was observed.

Issues Related to the Sale or Lease of U. [9] Waitakere City Council. "Management of Multi-Airport Systems: A Development Strategy. airport websites. Master Thesis. “Scalability of Air Transportation Systems and Development of Multi-Airport Systems. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mc Graw Hill. Enterprise Waitakere. reports. published in ICAO Journal. 1995.S. [6] De Neufville. Commercial Airports”. 1999. [5] De Neufville. Sept. pp. [2] Bonnefoy. press releases. Cambridge. 2005. 07)... the basis of a Dynamic Strategic Plan to provide the capability for flexible response to future challenges”. MA. new actors emerging”." Proceedings of Airports 95 Conference. “Airport Privatization. P. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 16 References [1] Annual Review of Civil Aviation 2005. 1-13. “Airport Privatization Issues for the United States”.. Note: The analysis of the forms of ownership and management of airports (178 airports) relied on data originating from a wide array of data sources. Australia. House of Representatives. PhD Thesis. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Cambridge. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2006.Philippe A. MA : Massachusetts Institute of Technology. J. Report Prepared for Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Planning.. [8] GAO Report to the Subcommittee on Aviation. [3] Bonnefoy. Design and Management. 16 . Odoni A. “Policy Guidelines for the Option of a Development of a Multi-Airport System. Airport Systems. United States General Accounting Office. R. R. “Emergence of Secondary Airports and Dynamics of Multi Airport Systems . Bonnefoy Project Paper . Sydney. Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) Project Database. operator websites and annual reports.MIT ESD. [10] Doug Andrew and Silviu Dochia. as of Dec. November 1996. (unpublished. 1995. R. Hansman R. 2003. “Submission to New Zealand Defense Forces on Future Use of Whenuapai Airport Land”. “The growing and evolving business of private participation in airports New trends. Infratil Limited and Te Kaweray a Maki. a worldwide perspective”. a joint initiative of PPIAF and the World Bank’s Infrastructure Economics and Finance Department. P.. [7] De Neufville.. [4] De Neufville. Report. 9-11 Oct. R.

A. Copenhagen Airports A/S E Swedish Civil Aviation Administration (Luftfartsverket) A City of Dallas City of Dallas City of Dallas / City of Fort Worth City of Dallas / City of Fort Worth Department of Civil Aviation Department of Civil Aviation Flughafen Köln/Bonn GmbH Flughafen Dortmund GmbH Landeshauptstadt (state capital) (50% ) and Airport Partners GmbH (50%) Flughafen Düsseldorf GmbH Flughafen Niederrhein GmbH Edmonton Regional Airports Authority Edmonton Airports Edmonton Airports Fraport AG Fraport AG Rhein-Neckar Flugplatz GmbH BAA Limited BAA Limited Infratil B B A A D D E C D D E E D F F F Dallas Dubai Dusseldorf Edmonton Frankfurt Glasgow Gothenburg Swedish Civil Aviation Administration (Luftfartsverket) Administration (Luftfartsverket) Swedish Civil Aviation A Luftfartsverket. Göteborg AB E Guangdong Provincial Government Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport Co Ltd E City of Hamburg & Hochtief AirPort GmbH FHG Flughafen Hamburg GmbH Infratil D C Guangzhou Hamburg 17 . Multi-airport systems and single airport system in transition included in the case study analysis Region Amsterdam Airport code AMS EIN RTM AKL NZWP* BKK DMK BCN GRO REU BFS BHD CNF PLU EDAV* SXF THF TXL BLQ FRL BOS MHT PVD BRU CRL BUD SOB AEP EZE MDW ORD COK CPH MMX DAL DFW DXB SHJ CGN DTM DUS NRN YEG YXD FRA HHN MHG EDI GLA PIK GOT GSE CAN HAM LBC Amsterdam Eindhoven Rotterdam Auckland Auckland / Whenuapai Suvarnabhumi Don Mueang Barcelona International Girona-Costa Brava Reus Belfast International Belfast City Airport type Primary Secondary Secondary Primary Potential Secondary Primary Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Primary Primary Owner Schiphol Group Schiphol Group Schiphol Group Operator Schiphol Group Schiphol Group Schiphol Group Form or Ownership & Management D D D Auckland Auckland International Airport Limited Auckland International Airport Limited F New Zealand Defence Forces New Zealand Defence Forces (Potentially: Infratil) A Airports of Thailand Airports of Thailand Airports of Thailand Airports of Thailand E E Bangkok Barcelona Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea (AENA) Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea (AENA) D Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea (AENA) Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea (AENA) D Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea (AENA) Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea (AENA) D Abertis Airports / ACDL / TBI (Belfast International Airport / TBI (Belfast International Airport Ltd. Volvo.p./HOCHTIEF AirPort GmbH Loc.Philippe A. Cochin International Airport Ltd. Gov. Appendix: Forms of Ownership and Management of Airports TABLE 1. E Società Esercizio Aeroporto di Forlì S. Göteborgs kommun Cityflygplatsen.) Abertis Airports / ACDL Ltd. Aeropuertos Argentina Aeropuertos Argentina City of Chicago City of Chicago Buenos Aires Aeroparque Metropolitano Jorge Newbery Primary Buenos Aires / Ministro Pistarini Primary Chicago Midway Chicago O'Hare Cochin International Copenhagen Malmo Dallas Dallas Fort Worth Dubai Sharjah Koln/Bonn Dortmunt Dusseldorf Weeze (Niederrhein) Edmonton International Edmonton City Centre Frankfurt International Hahn Mannheim-city Edinburgh Glasgow International Glasgow Prestwick Gothenburg-Landvetter Gothenburg City Guangzhou Baiyun (New) Hamburg Lubeck Secondary Primary Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Primary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Original Primary Secondary Potential Secondary Primary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Primary Secondary BAA Limited BAA Limited Infratil State & Local Public Owners Chicago The Chicago Airport System Department of Aviation B The Chicago Airport System Department of Aviation B E Cochin Copenhagen Cochin International Airport Ltd. of Sármellék and ZalavárCape Clear Aviation Ltd.MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 17 7. E Mass Port Authority City of Manchester State of Rhode Island Massport City of Manchester Rhode Island Airport Corp. The Brussels Airport Company Wallonia Government D B D C B 0 0 C C Boston Brussels Wallonia Government Budapest Hungarian state Budapest Airport Rt.) F Ferrovial Ferrovial F Infraero Infraero Infraero Infraero D D C D D D Belfast Belo Horizonte Belo Horizonte / Tancredo Neves Primary Pampulha Domestic Primary Finow Berlin-Schönefeld Tempelhof Berlin Tegel Bologna Forli Boston Manchester Providence Brussels Charleroi Brussels South Budapest Sármellék / Balaton Potential Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Berlin Local business interests (acquire option in 2013 by Infratil) in 2013) Local (Option by Infratil Berlin Airports Berlin airports Berlin airports Bologna Aeroporto Guglielmo Marconi di Bologna S.A. Bonnefoy Project Paper .p.

Glendale .Aeroporti di Milano E Transport Canada Transport Canada Russian State Gazpromavia Aéroports de Montréal Aéroports de Montréal East Line Group International Airport Sheremetyevo GAZPROMAVIA Aviation Company Ltd Vnukovo Airport D D C D F D F Montreal Moscow Mumbai Chhatrapati Shivaji InternationalPrimary Mumbai International Airport Ltd (MIAL) International Airport Ltd (MIAL) Mumbai Nairobi Jomo Kenyatta International Wilson Primary Secondary Kenya Airports Authority Kenya Airports Authority D D 18 .London Luton Airport Operations-Ltd ACDL London Luton Airport Operations Ltd BAA Limited BAA Limited Los Angeles Burbank .MIT ESD. Ltd. Province SEA .Orio al Serio Milano Linate Milano Malpensa Montreal Mirabel Montreal Trudeau Moscow / Domodedovo Moscow / Sheremetyevo Moscow / Ostafievo Moscow / Vnukovo Primary Primary Secondary Primary Primary Potential Secondary Primary Primary Primary Potential Secondary Secondary Miami Milano SACBO (Società Aeroporto Civile Bergamo Orio alBSerio) City of Milano (84.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 18 Region Hong Kong Airport code HKG SZX VIII* HOU IAH HYD HYD2* IST SAW CGK HLP HLA JNB KUL SZB AOC LEJ LCY LGW LHR LTN STN BUR LAX LGB ONT SNA MAD MADQ* TOJ BLK LBA LPL MAN CRK MNL SFS AVV MEL CVJ MEX PBC TLC FLL MIA BGY LIN MXP YMX YUL DME SVO UUMO* VKO BOM BOM2* NBO WIL Hong Kong / Chek Lap Kok Shenzhen Bao'an Hong Kong / Kai Tak Houston Hobby Houston International Begumpet Rajiv Gandhi International Ataturk Sabiha Gokcen Soekarno-Hatta Halim Perdanakusuma Lanseria Johannesburg Kuala Lumpur International Subang Leipzig Altenbourg Leipzig Halle London City London Gatwick London Heathrow London Luton Stansted Burbank Los Angeles Long Beach Ontario Orange county Madrid Barajas Don Quijote Madrid-Torrejon Blackpool Leeds Bradford Liverpool Manchester Diosdado Macapagal Ninoy Aquino International Subic Bay Avalon Melbourne Airport type Primary Primary Closed Primary Secondary Primary Primary Owner Operator Airport Authority Hong Kong Shenzhen Airport Co. Bonnefoy Project Paper . Privately E SEA .56%).Philippe A. Government of Andhra Pradesh. Airports Authority of India F TAV Airports Group HEAS Angkasa Pura II Angkasa Pura II Private Airports Company South Africa F F D D F E E E E D F F F F F Istanbul Primary Secondary Primary Potential Secondary Secondary Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Primary Jakarta Johannesburg Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Airports Holdings BerhadMalaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB) (MAHB) Malaysia Airports Holdings BerhadMalaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB) (MAHB) Flugplatz Altenburg-Nobitz GmbH Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH Leipzig County of Delitzsch London AIG.Glendale .Pasadena Airport Authority Burbank .Pasadena Airport Authority D City of Los Angeles Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) B City of Long Beach City of Long Beach B City of Los Angeles Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) B Orange County Orange County B Aena D CR Aeropuertos CR Aeropuertos F Spanish Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of PublicDefence and the Ministry of Public Works Spanish Ministry of Works A MAR Properties Ltd MAR Properties Ltd Leeds Bradford International Airport Limited Leeds Bradford International Airport Limited Liverpool Airport plc (Peel Holdings) Liverpool Airport plc (Peel Holdings) Manchester Airport Group Manchester Airport Group Clark International Airport Corporation (CIAC) Manila International Airport Authority Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) Linfox Australia Pacific Airports Aeropuertos y Servicios Auxiliares (ASA) Grupo Aeroportuario de la Ciudad de México Other Grupo Aeroportuario de la Ciudad de México Broward County Broward County Dade County Aviation DepartmentMiami-Dade County Aviation Department F D F D D D D C C E E 0 E B B Madrid Manchester Secondary Secondary Secondary Primary Manila Primary Secondary Secondary Primary Melbourne Mexico Cuernavaca Potential Secondary Mexico City Primary Hermanos Serdán Potential Secondary Licenciado Adolfo López Mateos Secondary Fort Lauderdale Miami Bergamo . GE Capital & Credit Suisse BAA Limited BAA Limited BAA Limited BAA Limited ACDL . MAHB.88%) of Milan (14. GE Capital & Credit Suisse AIG.Aeroporti di Milano owned (0..56%). Civil Aviation Department Form or Ownership & Management D E 0 B B Houston City of Houston City of Houston Airport Authority of India Airport Authority of India City of Houston City of Houston Hyderabad A GMR.

Philippe A.p. Infrastructure and TransportLand. Ministry of & Osaka International Airport Terminal Osaka Ltd.S. FlughafenCity (50 %)GmbH Stuttgart Stuttgart Civil Aeronautics Administration Civil Aeronautics Administration Civil Aeronautics Administration Civil Aeronautics Administration County of Pinellas County of Pinellas Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority Hillsborough County Aviation Authority Hillsborough County Aviation Authority TAV (Tepe-Akfen-Vie) Iran Airports Company Israel Airports Authority Israel Airports Authority C B A A B D D F D D D Stuttgart Taipei Tampa Tehran Tel Aviv Tokyo Tokyo Aviation Bureau. Infrastructure and Transport (airfield).p.S. F F D D F F A B D B B D D D Florence Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro / Galeao Primary Rio de Janeiro / Santos Dumont Primary Ciampino Airport Rome Fiumicino Saint Louis Mid America Saint Louis Oakland San Francisco San Jose Sao Paulo / Congonhas Sao Paulo/Guarulhos Sao Paulo / Viracopos Gimpo Incheon Shanghai Pudong Shanghai Hongqiao Stolckholm Stockholm-Bromma Stockholm Skavsta Stockholm-Västerås Baden Airpark Stuttgart Taipei Taoyuan Taipei Songshan St Petersburg Sarasota Tampa Imam Khomeini Mehrabad International Sde Dov Ben Gurion Tokyo Haneda Tokyo Narita Secondary Primary Potential Secondary Primary Primary Primary Secondary Primary Primary Secondary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Primary Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Primary Primary Rome Saint Louis Saint Clair County & U.A. Ministry of Land.A. Louis The Port of Oakland County of San Francisco City of San Jose Infraero Infraero Infraero The Port of Oakland San Francisco Airports Commission The City of San Jose Airport Commission Infraero Infraero Infraero San Francisco Sao Paulo Seoul Korea Airports Corporation D Incheon International Airport Corporation (IIAC) Incheon International Airport Corporation (IIAC) D Shanghai Airport Authority Shanghai Airport Authority E E Shanghai Stolckholm Swedish Civil Aviation Administration (Luftfartsverket) Administration (Luftfartsverket) Swedish Civil Aviation A Swedish Civil Aviation Administration (Luftfartsverket) Administration (Luftfartsverket) Swedish Civil Aviation A Airport Concessions and Development Limited (ACDL) -and Development Limited (ACDL) . Japan Airport Termina A Narita International Airport Corporation (NAA) E 19 .) Infraero and Brazilian Air Force Infraero and Brazilian Air Force ADR Aeroporti di Roma S. Louis City of St. Ltd.T.Abertis Airport Concessions Abertis F Swedish Civil Aviation Administration (Luftfartsverket) Administration (Luftfartsverket) Swedish Civil Aviation A Baden-Airpark GmbH Baden-Airpark GmbH Baden-Württemberg Land (50 %). Air ForceU. Ltd. E Other B Oslo Lufthavn Rygge sivile lufthavn Sandefjord Lufthavn AS D F E Oslo Rygge sivile lufthavn Sandefjord Lufthavn AS Paris Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie (CCI) de l'Oise B It straddles three départements an Aéroports de Paris E Orly Airport extends over 15. ADR Aeroporti di Roma S. Infrastructure and Transport & A Co. Orlando Osaka Ministry of Land.A. Bonnefoy Project Paper . Kansai International Airport Co.A.p.A.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 19 Region New Delhi Airport code DEL DEL2* EWR ISP JFK LGA ORF PHF MCO MLB SFB ITM KIX UKB OSL RYG TRF BVA CDG ORY FLR PSA GIG SDU CIA FCO BLV STL OAK SFO SJC CGH GRU VCP GMP ICN PVG SHA ARN BMA NYO VST FKB STU TPE TSA PIE SRQ TPA IKA THR SDV TLV HND NRT Indira Gandhi International Airport type Primary Owner Operator Form or Ownership & Management F Delhi International Airport LimitedDelhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) (DIAL) New York Newark Islip JF Kennedy La Guardia Primary Secondary Primary Primary Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) Port Authority of New D Town of Islip Town of Islip B Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) Port Authority of New D Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) Port Authority of New D Norfolk Airport Authority The Peninsula Airport Commission Orlando Aviation Authority City of Melbourne Sanford Airport Authority Greater Orlando Aviation Authority City of Melbourne TBI / Abertis D B B B C Norfolk Norfolk International Primary Newport News/Williamsburg International Secondary Orlando Melbourne Orlando Sanford Osaka Itami Osaka Kansai Kobe Oslo Oslo / Moss-Rygge Oslo / Sandefjord-Torp Beauvais Paris Charles de Gaulle Paris Orly Florence Peretola Galileo Galilei International Primary Potential Secondary Secondary Primary Primary Secondary Primary Potential Secondary Secondary Secondary Primary Primary Secondary Primary Infraero and Brazilian Air Force Infraero ADR Aeroporti di Roma S.MIT ESD..p. International Airport Terminal Co. Air Force City of St.3 km²Aéroports de Paris E Aeroporto di Firenze SOCIETA’ AEROPORTO TOSCANO (S. ADR Aeroporti di Roma S.

(BTS) Flughafen Wien AG Vancouver Venice Vienna Warsaw Modlin Potential Secondary Warsaw Frederic Chopin AirportPrimary Baltimore Washington National Washington Dulles Primary Primary Primary Other Polish Airports State Enterprise (PPL) Polish Airports State Enterprise (PPL) State of Maryland Maryland Aviation Administration Metropolitan Washington AirportsMetropolitan Washington Airports Authority Authority Metropolitan Washington AirportsMetropolitan Washington Airports Authority Authority Washington 20 .A. SAVE S.MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course Page | 20 Region Toronto Airport code YHM YTZ YYZ YVR YXX TSF VCE BTS VIE EPMO* WAW BWI DCA IAD Toronto Hamilton Toronto City Center Toronto Pearson Vancouver Abbotsford Venice Treviso Venice Terresa Bratislava Vienna Airport type Secondary Potential Secondary Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Owner City of Hamilton Toronto Port Authority Transport Canada Transport Canada City of Abbotsford Operator Form or Ownership & Management C D D C B E E D E 0 D B D D Tradeport International Corp.A. a. Airport Bratislava. Toronto Port Authority Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) Vancouver Airport Services (YVRAS) City of Abbotsford Aer Tre S.Philippe A.p.P. Bonnefoy Project Paper .s.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.