key findings of 2011 atrs global airport performance ... findings of 2011 atrs benchmarking... ·...

Key Findings of 2011 ATRS Global Airport

Performance Benchmarking project

Prof. Tae Oum,

Prof. Chunyan Yu,

Dr. Yapyin Choo

The Air Transport Research Society (ATRS)

www.atrsworld.org

The ATRS Global Airport Benchmarking Task Force

Asia Pacific: P. Forsyth, Yeong-Heok Lee, Yuichiro Yoshida, Japhet Law, Shinya Hanaoka

Europe: Nicole Adler, Jaap de Wit, Hans-Martin Niemeier, Eric Pels

North America: Tae Oum, Bijan Vasigh, Jia Yan, Chunyan Yu

Middle East: Paul Hooper

© Air Transport Research Society (ATRS)1

http://www.atrsworld.org/

Outline

Objective of the ATRS Benchmarking Study

Airports Included and ATRS Database

Some Characteristics of Sample Airports

Methodology

Key Results on Efficiency and Costs

User Charge Comparisons

© Air Transport Research Society (ATRS) 2

Objective of the Benchmarking Study

To provide a comprehensive, unbiased

comparison of airport performance focusing on

Productivity and Operating/Mgt Efficiency

Unit Cost Competitiveness

Comparison of Airport Charge Levels

Our study does not treat service quality differentials

across airports for data reasons


Airports Included in the study


Canada-US 63 airports

Europe 45 airports (2 New)

14 airport groups

Asia 32 airports (5 New)

5 airport groups

Oceania 9 airports

Latin America 7 airports (All New)

----------------------------------------------------------

Total 156 airports

19 airport groups

The ATRS Database The ATRS Database contains time-series information (from year 2001)

including financial data, traffic and capacity data of the major airports and airport authorities (groups) in the following geographic regions:

– Asia Pacific

– Europe

– North America and

– Latin America (non-financial data only)

The data includes

– Characteristics of Airport (capacity, type of ownership etc)

– Traffic (ATM, passengers, freight, etc.)

– Aeronautical Revenue

– Non-Aeronautical Revenue including concession, car parking

– Operating Statistics and Operating Expenses

– Balance Sheet

1.5 year lag in data (due to airport annual reporting lag)


Data Sources: FY 2001-2009

Airport’s Financial Statements, Annual Reports and direct data requests;

US FAA, DOT statistics;Association of European Airlines (AEA) Statistics ICAO Digest of Statistics:

annual and monthly traffic data annual financial data - not for all airports

ACI; IATA annual traffic statistics; capacity information; airport charges general information surveys (Asia Pacific and Europe)

occasional and not complete

IMF and World Bank – various price indices including GDP deflators for service sectors and PPP

US Census Bureau, Statistics Canada – regionally based Cost of Living Index


Outline



Some Characteristics of Sample

Airports

Methodology





Passenger Traffic - Top 10 Airports (’000 passengers) :2009, 2007, 2005

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

2009 2007 2005

Asia Pacific Europe North America

Aircraft Movements, 2009 (’000 ATM)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

PEK

DX

B

CG

K

DEL

BO

M

ICN

SHA

TPE

MA

A

NG

O

PER

PEN

CN

X

HD

Y

CD

G

MA

D

FCO

ZRH

CP

H

OSL

AR

N

GV

A

STN

TXL

EDI

BH

X

CIA

KEF

BTS

ATL

DEN LA

S

PH

L

EWR

LGA

IAD

SEA

HN

L

FLL

YUL

STL

MD

W

MK

E

YWG

PIT

SMF

AB

Q

SNA

YHZ

RIC

2009 Mean




Air Cargo - Top 10 Airports (’000 metric tons)

2009, 2007, 2005

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

HK

G

PV

G

ICN

DX

B

NR

T

SIN

PE

K

TP

E

BK

K

CA

N

CD

G

FR

A

LH

R

AM

S

IST

CG

N

BR

U

TL

V

ZR

H

MX

P

ME

M

SD

F

MIA

LA

X

JFK

OR

D

IND

EW

R

DF

W

OA

K

Me

tric

To

nn

es

('0

00

)

2009 2007 2005


% Non-Aero Revenue, 2009

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

SIN

ICN

MEL

/AP

AC

SEL

CN

S

BK

K

XM

N

KU

L

AP

II

FRA

OR

Y

IST

ATH

FCO

TLL

GV

A

HA

M EDI

SOF

MX

P

CG

N

MA

D

HEL

JAX

MC

I

SMF

PH

X

FLL

IND

SJC

ALB LA

S

DC

A

SEA

SFO

CLE

IAH

MIA

STL

2009 Mean


North AmericaEuropeAsia Pacific

Outline




MethodologyKey Results on Efficiency and Costs



Methodology:

Efficiency Measurement

• Variable Factor Productivity (VFP) Index

– Total Factor Productivity (TFP) - Impossible because of capital input cost accounting problem

• VFP is essentially the ratio of total (aggregate)

output index divided by total (aggregate) variable

input index, namely labor and soft cost input (total

non-labor variable inputs).

• In fact, we compute VFP using the multilateral

index procedure proposed by Caves, Christensen and

Diewert (1982).


Airport Productivity Index

Outputs Inputs

14

• Aircraft movement

• Passengers

• Non-aeronautical

revenues

• (Cargo tonnes handled)

• Labour

• Other non-labor, non-capital (soft cost) inputs – i.e., catch all expenses deflated by price index

Potential Reasons for the Measured

Productivity (gross VFP) Differentials

Factors Beyond Managerial Control:

– Airport size (Scale of aggregate output)

– Average aircraft size using the airport

– Share of international traffic

– Share of air cargo traffic

– Extent of capacity shortage - congestion delay

– Connecting/transfer ratio

We compute ‘residual (Net) variable factor productivity (RVFP) measures after removing effects of these Factors


Outline




Methodology




Gross VFP Vs Residual (Net) VFP(after removing factors

beyond managerial control ) :

Oceania (SYD=1.0)


After removing factors beyond managerial control such as capacity constraint, average aircraft size, % international traffic, etc, CHC’s relative performance in term of Net VFP improved significantly.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

SYD CHC MEL AKL BNE PER ADL WLG Mean

Gross VFP Net VFP

Residual (Net) Variable Factor Productivity:

Asia (HKG=1.0)


0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

HKG SIN CAN HAK ICN SEL BKK KUL XMN PEN KIX SZX NGO NRT PEK PVG Mean AOT APII MAHB SAA Mean


Europe ( CPH=1.0)


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

CPH

OSL

ATH

BRU

MA

DZR

HBC

NA

MS

DU

BST

NCD

GM

AN

VIE

ARN

LGW

ORY LH

RD

US

FRA

MU

CFC

OM

ean

GVA KE

FLI

STL

VCI

ACR

LED

IBH

XTL

LH

AM LJU

HEL

MLA TX

LW

AW BTS

BUD

CGN

SOF

Mea

n

AD

RPP

LSc

hiph

olA

NA

Swed

avia

AEN

AD

AA

BAA

Frap

ort

Fina

via

AD

PBe

rlin

TAV

Mea

n

Large Airports> 15 million passengers

Small Airports< 15 million passengers

Airport Groups


N. America – Passengers > 15 million (YVR=1.0)


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8A

TL

MSP CLT

TPA

MC

O

YVR

HN

L

FLL

SEA

PH

X

LGA

MD

W

SLC

BO

S

IAH

IAD

SFO

EWR

JFK

DTW SA

N

BW

I

PH

L

DC

A

LAS

MIA

DFW DEN LA

X

OR

D

Me

an


N. America – Passengers < 15 million (YVR=1.0)


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Top Efficiency Performers (2011)(based on Net VFP index=operating/management efficiency)

Asia Pacific: Oceania Airports: Sydney, Christchurch Asian Airports: Hong Kong, Singapore

Europe: Large Airports (> 15 million pax): Copenhagen and Oslo

Small/Medium Airports (< 15 millions Pax): Geneva,Reykjavik-Keflavik

North America (Canada/US): Large Airports (> 15 million pax): Atlanta, Minneapolis/St

Paul

Small/Medium Airports (< 15 millions Pax): Raleigh-Durham,Reno


Past Airport Efficiency Excellence Top

Performers, 2006-2010


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

North

America

Hartsfield-Jackson

Atlanta International

Airport

Hartsfield-Jackson


Airport

Hartsfield-Jackson


Airport

Hartsfield-Jackson


Airport

Large Airport Category

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta

International Airport

Small/Medium Airport Category

Raleigh-Durham International

Airport

Europe Copenhagen Kastrup


Oslo International Airport Copenhagen Kastrup


Copenhagen Kastrup



Oslo International Airport


Genève Aéroport

Asia-

Pacific

Incheon International

Airport

Hong Kong International

Airport


Airport


Airport



Airport


Seoul Gimpo International

Airport


Cost Competitiveness = Net VFP and Input Price Effect

N. America – Passengers < 15 million (YVR=0.0)

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6


Cost Competitiveness = Net VFP and Input Prices Effect

Europe (CPH=0.0) - the higher the better

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

KEF TL

L

EDI

ATH CIA

TLV

BH

X

SOF

BTS

MLA

CP

H

WA

W LIS

LJU

STN

BR

U

MA

N

BU

D

AM

S

OSL

LGW

ZRH

GV

A

VIE

FCO

HA

M

LHR

FRA

DU

S

AR

N

HEL

CG

N

TXL

DU

B

OR

Y

MU

C

CD

G

BC

N

MA

D

Me

an

PP

L

AD

R

AN

A

TAV

BA

A

Frap

ort

Sch

iph

ol

Swe

dav

ia

DA

A

Fin

avia

AEN

A

AD

P

Be

rlin

Me

an


Cost Competitiveness: = Net VFP and Input Price Effect

Asia (HKG=0.0) – the higher the better

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4



Oceania (SYD=0.0) - the higher the better

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

CHC SYD AKL MEL BNE PER ADL WLG Mean



N. America – Passengers > 15 million (YVR=0.0)

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

Top Unit Cost Competitiveness Performers

Asia-Pacific:

Oceania: Christchurch, Sydney

Asia: Haikou, AOT (Airport Authority of Thailand), APII

(Angkasa Pura II, Indonesian Group)

Europe: Polish Airports, Reykjavik-Keflavik, Tallinn

N. America:

Large Airports (> 15 million Pax): Atlanta, Charlotte,

Tampa

Small/Med Airports (< 15 million Pax): Raleigh-

Durham, Reno, Nashville


Outline




Methodology




Landing Charges: Basis for computing

• Assumptions:

– (Use of signatory airlines)

– Passenger aircraft

– Peak and off-peak charges separately treated

– International flights

– Some airports have summer/winter rates – these are

averaged

– Assumed 2 hours aircraft parking

• Exclusion: Tax, Noise charges, lighting surcharge


Landing Charges for

Boeing 767-400, 2010 (in US$)


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

CLT

BN

AR

DU

SLC FLL

AT

LP

BI

RIC

JAX

ME

MM

CO

PH

XS

DF

SA

NT

PA

MS

YS

AT

PH

LO

AK

IND

MC

IH

NL

SN

AR

NO

MIA

LAS

MS

PS

JCA

BQ

ALB

DC

AY

VR

IAH

AU

SS

EA

IAD

SM

FY

OW

SF

OC

VG

BW

IY

EG

YH

ZP

DX

LAX

YY

CY

WG

YU

LD

FW

BO

SO

RD

JFK

EW

RS

TL

LGA

YY

Z

NA

SS

CL

EZ

EB

SB

CG

HG

IGG

RU

RIX

AR

NS

TN

-off

pe

ak

LGW

-off

-pe

ak

CR

LF

RA

ST

N-p

ea

kM

LAF

CO

MU

CM

XP

CIA

PR

GG

VA

LIS

LHR

TX

LV

IEH

AM

ED

IM

AN

-pe

ak

MA

N-o

ffp

ea

kH

EL

KE

FS

OF

BR

UZ

RH

IST

CG

NC

PH

BC

NM

AD

BU

DT

LLC

DG

OR

YLG

W-p

ea

kT

LVA

MS

OS

LA

TH

BE

GW

AW

BH

XB

TS

LJU

DU

BD

US

KU

LB

KK

CN

SD

XB

CE

IC

NX

HD

YH

KT

CG

KM

NL

BO

MD

EL

MA

AT

PE

SE

LC

AN

HA

KP

EK

PV

GS

HA

SZ

XX

MN

SIN

PE

RIC

NA

DL

AK

LM

FM

HK

GP

NH

RE

PW

LGN

GO

NR

TK

IXH

ND

US$

Landing Charges for Boeing 767 Mean

North America

Latin America

Europe Asia Pacific

Asia Pacific: Landing Charge

for Airbus 320, 2010 (in US$)


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

KU

L

BK

K

CN

S

DX

B

CE

I

HD

Y

HK

T

CN

X

CG

K

BO

M

DE

L

MA

A

TP

E

MN

L

SIN

SE

L

CA

N

HA

K

PE

K

PV

G

SH

A

SZ

X

XM

N

ICN

AD

L

AK

L

CH

C

PE

R

HK

G

MF

M

PN

H

RE

P

NG

O

WL

G

NR

T

KIX

HN

D

Landing Charges for AirBus 320

Europe: Landing Charge



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

RIX

AR

N

MLA

FRA

CR

L

STN

-off

pe

ak

FCO

MX

P

CIA

GV

A

LIS

HEL TX

L

VIE

HA

M EDI

ZRH

MA

N-o

ffp

eak KEF

LGW

-off

-pe

ak

STN

-pe

ak

CP

H

BC

N

MA

D

IST

PR

G

CD

G

OR

Y

BR

U

TLL

MA

N-p

eak

MU

C

SOF

TLV

AM

S

CG

N

BEG

BU

D

WA

W

BH

X

ATH OSL

LJU

LHR

BTS

DU

B

DU

S

LGW

-pe

ak


North America: Landing Charge


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

CLT

BN

A

RD

U

SLC

ATL FL

L

PB

I

RIC

JAX

MEM

MC

O

PH

X

SDF

SAN

TPA

MSY

SAT

PH

L

OA

K

IND

MC

I

HN

L

SNA

RN

O

MIA

LAS

MSP SJC

YVR

AB

Q

ALB

DC

A

IAH

YYC

YOW

AU

S

SEA

YEG

SMF

IAD

YHZ

CV

G

SFO

BW

I

YWG

PD

X

LAX

YUL

DFW BO

S

JFK

OR

D

EWR

STL

LGA

YYZ



Summary – Landing/Takeoff Charges

(Airbus 320)

Asia-Pacific Results:

Highest charges: Haneda, Kansai, Narita

Lowest charges: Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Cairns

European Results:

Highest charges: London Gatwick peak, Dusseldorf, Dublin

Lowest charges: Riga(Latvia), Stockholm, Malta

North American Results:

Highest charges: Toronto, LaGuardia, St. Louis

Lowest charges: Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh-Durham,


Combined Landing and Passenger Charges

Given that it is difficult to separate landing and

passenger charges for some airports, the combined

landing and passenger charge may reflect a better

picture.


Asia Pacific: Combined Landing and

Passenger Charge



0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

KU

L LC

CT

MA

A

BO

M

DEL

HK

G

SIN

TPE

KU

L

PER

MN

L

HN

D

SEL

CG

K

CA

N

HA

K

PEK

PV

G

SHA

SZX

XM

N

AD

L

ICN

AK

L

MFM

MEL CEI

CN

X

HD

Y

HK

T

DX

B

CH

C

BK

K

WLG

BN

E

CN

S

PN

H

REP

SYD

NR

T

NG

O

KIX

Me

an

Europe: Combined Landing and

Passenger Charge



0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

CR

L

RIX

MA

N-o

ffp

eak KEF TL

L

GV

A

CIA

AR

N

MX

P

MA

N-p

eak

HA

M

HEL

BC

N

FCO

MA

D

STN

-off

pe

ak

CG

N

STN

-pe

ak

OSL

BEG

AM

S

EDI

CP

H

LGW

-off

-pe

ak

KB

P

LJU

MLA

BU

D

TXL

LIS

BH

X

FRA

SOF

VIE

DU

B

BR

U IST

ZRH

ATH

WA

W

MU

C

BTS

TLV

DU

S

LGW

-pe

ak

CD

G

OR

Y

PR

G

LHR

Me

an

N. America: data allows us to compute

Cost per Enplaned Pax for Airlines (CPE)

• CPE = sum of landing fees, terminal arrival fee,

rents and utilities, terminal apron charges/tiedowns,

and passengers other aeronautical payments to

airports divided by enplaned passengers


North America: Total Charges per Enplaned

Passenger, 2009 (in US$)


0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

CLT

ATL SLC

JAX

MEM

MK

E

MC

I

RD

U

TPA

BN

A

PH

X

SAT

MSP

SAN

FLL

MD

W

MC

O

RIC

CV

G

PB

I

RN

O

DFW LA

S

DTW AU

S

AB

Q

ALB

SMF

HN

L

BW

I

PH

L

SNA

IAH

SJC

MSY

OA

K

CLE

IND

SEA

DC

A

OR

D

PD

X

LAX

DEN

BO

S

IAD

SFO

STL

ON

T

MIA

LGA

SDF

PIT

EWR

JFK

Me

an

YEG

YYC

YWG

YHZ

YOW

YVR

YUL

YYZ

Me

an

US$ United States Canada

Summary – Cost per Enplaned

Passenger (CPE)


Highest charges: Toronto, New York JFK,

Newark

Lowest charges: Charlotte, Atlanta, Salt

Lake City


Summary – Combined Landing and Pax Charges

( N.Am Cost per Enplaned Pax)

Asia-Pacific Results:

Highest charges: Kansai, Nagoya, Narita

Lowest charges: Kuala Lumpur Low Cost Carrier Terminal, Chennai (India), Mumbai (India)

European Results:

Highest charges: London Heathrow, Prague (Czech Rep.), Paris Orly

Lowest charges: Brussels South Charleroi, Riga(Latvia), Manchester (Off-Peak)


Highest charges: Toronto, New York JFK, Newark

Lowest charges: Charlotte, Atlanta, Salt Lake City© Air Transport Research Society (ATRS) 43

ATRS Airport Benchmarking Report

The ATRS Global Airport

Performance Benchmarking Report :

3 volumes, over 500 pages of

valuable data and analysis

Can be purchased by visiting

www.atrsworld.org

Report sale finances our annual

benchmarking research project


Thank You

2012 ATRS World Conference

(Taiwan in late June, 2012)

key findings of 2011 atrs global airport performance ... findings of 2011 atrs benchmarking... ·...

Documents