multi-airport systems: concepts, historical evolution and strategies for future development
DESCRIPTION
Multi-Airport Systems: Concepts, Historical Evolution and Strategies for Future Development. Dr. Philippe A. Bonnefoy Postdoctoral Associate Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics [email protected] http://web.mit.edu/bonnefoy/www/pb.html Lecture - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Postdoctoral AssociateDepartment of Aeronautics & Astronautics
[email protected] http://web.mit.edu/bonnefoy/www/pb.html
LectureMIT 16.781J / 1.231J / ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems
Oct 29th 2009
Multi-Airport Systems:Multi-Airport Systems:Concepts, Historical Evolution and Concepts, Historical Evolution and
Strategies for Future DevelopmentStrategies for Future Development
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Re
ven
ue
Pa
ss
en
ge
r K
ilo
me
ters
(b
illi
on
)
Africa
Asia-Pacific
Europe
Latin America & Caribbean
North America
Middle East
Motivation
Increasing demand for air transportation
Key infrastructure constraints in the air transportation system
• e.g. airport capacity constraints
Airport congestion problem• results in the generation and propagation of
delays throughout the system
Implications:• degradation of the passengers’ quality of
travel experience,• economic impacts.
Air transportation system is a vital underlying infrastructure of a country’s economy
The development of multi-airport systems has proven to be a key mechanism by which demand is met at the regional level
2
Historical Evolution of Passenger Traffic (Revenue Passenger Kilometers - RPKs) from 1971 to 2007
* Data source: ICAO and IATA
North America
Europe
Asia-PacificMiddle East
Latin America
Africa
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
3
Lecture Outline
Definitions & Concepts
Overview of Multi-Airport Systems Worldwide• Multi-airport systems in numbers,• Geographical distribution,• Types (configurations, pax. vs. cargo)
Historical Patterns of Development & Drivers• Patterns of evolution• What drives traffic allocation• Role of low cost carriers (role of entries, evolution of models over time, parallel networks)
Development Strategies for Multi-Airport Systems• Uncertainty, volatility -> Planning challenges• Long term development • Real option approach
“Metroplex” Airspace Considerations• Multi-Airport Systems Capacity Estimation• Role of NextGen Technologies in Limiting Air Traffic Interactions
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
4
Outline
Definitions & Concepts
Overview of Multi-Airport Systems Worldwide• Multi-airport systems in numbers,• Geographical distribution,• Types (configurations, pax. vs. cargo)
Historical Patterns of Development & Drivers• Patterns of evolution• What drives traffic allocation• Role of low cost carriers (role of entries, evolution of models over time, parallel networks)
Development Strategies for Multi-Airport Systems• Uncertainty, volatility -> Planning challenges• Long term development • Real option approach
“Metroplex” Airspace Considerations• Multi-Airport Systems Capacity Estimation• Role of NextGen Technologies in Limiting Air Traffic Interactions
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Definitions
Multi-Airport System:
• (Geographical basis): A set of two or more significant airports that serve passenger traffic in a metropolitan region (without regard to ownership or political control of the individual airports)
Most common definition
• (Ownership basis): A set of airports managed by one individual operator or authority
Reference (ACI 2002) Not commonly used
Metroplex: • Large metropolitan area containing several cities and their suburbs (and airports)
(e.g. Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex) Definition refers to set of cities/suburbs but is also used by extension to set of airports Often used in the context of future airspace management concepts (by NASA, FAA,
etc.)
5
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
Pass
enge
rsM
illio
ns
Boston/Logan Boston/Providence Boston/Manchester
Definitions
Airports within Multi-Airport Systems: (Bonnefoy 2008)
• Primary airport: An airport that serves more than 20% of the total passenger traffic in the multi-airport system
• Secondary airport: An airport that serves between 1% and 20% of the total passenger traffic in the multi-airport system
• Secondary (cargo) airport: An airport located in a metropolitan area and serves air cargo operators(e.g. Chicago/Rockford, Dallas/Alliance, Paris/Vatry, Brussels/Liege)
6
Evolution of passenger traffic within the Boston multi-airport system
* Significant airport: an airport that serves more than 500,000 passengers per year
Boston Logan
Providence
Manchester
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
More Complex Multi-Airport System
New York Multi-Airport System
7* Significant airport: an airport that serves more than 500,000 passengers per year
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
8
Outline
Definitions & Concepts
Overview of Multi-Airport Systems Worldwide• Multi-airport systems in numbers,• Geographical distribution,• Types (configurations, pax. vs. cargo)
Historical Patterns of Development & Drivers• Patterns of evolution• What drives traffic allocation• Role of low cost carriers (role of entries, evolution of models over time, parallel networks)
Development Strategies for Multi-Airport Systems• Uncertainty, volatility -> Planning challenges• Long term development • Real option approach
“Metroplex” Airspace Considerations• Multi-Airport Systems Capacity Estimation• Role of NextGen Technologies in Limiting Air Traffic Interactions
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Primary & Secondary Airports in the United States
9*
Total of 20 primary and 17 secondary airports within 14 multi-airport systems identified in the United States (as of 2008)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
10
Multi-Airport Systems Worldwide(as of 2008)
Set of 59 multi-airport systems • in 26 countries, corresponding to 82 primary airports and 54 secondary airports.• airports within these 59 systems served 47% of the total passenger traffic worldwide in
2006
Legend
Europe
North America
Latin America &Caribbean
Middle East
Multi-Airport System
Asia/Pacific
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
11
Multi-Airport Systems Worldwide(as of 2008)
Asia-PacificCountry Metropolitan Region
Australia MelbourneChina Hong KongChina ShanghaiChina TaipeiJapan OsakaJapan TokyoSouth Korea SeoulThailand Bangkok
EuropeCountry Metropolitan Region
Austria ViennaBelgium Brussels*Danmark CopenhagenFrance Paris*Germany BerlinGermany DusseldorfGermany FrankfurtGermany HamburgGermany StuttgartItaly BolognaItaly MilanItaly PisaItaly RomeItaly VeniceNetherlands AmsterdamNorway OsloRussia MoscowSpain BarcelonaSweden GothenburgSweden StockholmTurkey IstanbulUnited Kingdom BelfastUnited Kingdom GlasgowUnited Kingdom LondonUnited Kingdom Manchester
Latin AmericaCountry Metropolitan Region
Argentina Buenos AiresBrazil Belo HorizonteBrazil Rio de JaneiroBrazil Sao PauloMexico Mexico
Middle EastCountry Metropolitan Region
Iran TehranIsrael Tel AvivUAE Dubai
Set of 59 multi-airport systems • in 26 countries, corresponding to 82 primary airports and 54 secondary airports.• airports within these 59 systems served 47% of the total passenger traffic worldwide in
2006
North AmericaCountry Metropolitan Region
Canada TorontoCanada VancouverUnited States BostonUnited States Chicago*United States ClevelandUnited States Dallas*United States DetroitUnited States HoustonUnited States Los Angeles United States Miami United States New YorkUnited States NorfolkUnited States Orlando United States PhiladelphiaUnited States San DiegoUnited States San Francisco United States Tampa United States Washington
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
12
Configurations of Multi-Airport Systems (i.e. combinations of primary and secondary airports)
Several configurations of multi-airport systems were identified
• Most frequent types composed of;
1 primary 1 secondary airport
• and cases of 2 primary airports
• More complex as the number of primary and secondary airports increases
• Most complex multi-airport systems; Los Angeles, London and New York
Nu
mb
er o
f se
con
dar
y ai
rpo
rts
Number of primary airports
1 2 30
0
4
3
2
1
Single Airport Systems
Hong Kong, Shanghai, Taipei, Tokyo, Seoul,
Bangkok, Pisa, Belfast, Buenos Aires, Belo
Horizonte, Rio de Janeiro, Miami, Norfolk
Washington
Osaka, Paris, Berlin, Milan, Moscow, Glasgow, Sao Paulo, San Francisco
New York
Amsterdam, Barcelona, Stockholm, Boston, Tampa
Dusseldorf
Manchester London
Los Angeles
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bologna, Brussels, Chicago, Copenhagen, Dallas, Dubai,
Frankfurt, Gothenburg, Hamburg, Houston, Istanbul, Melbourne, Mexico, Orlando,
Oslo, Rome, Stuttgart, Tehran, Tel Aviv, Toronto, Vancouver, Venice, Vienna
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
13
Secondary (Cargo) Airport
Similar development with air cargo business models
Airports used predominantly for cargo activity (without significant passenger traffic) within or in the vicinity of multi-airport systems
Mixed passenger/cargo traffic with dominant cargo traffic• Fedex: Memphis, Manila/Subic Bay, San Francisco/Oakland• UPS: Louisville, Los Angeles/Ontario
IATA Code ICAO CodeMetropolitan
RegionCountry Airport Name
Total Freight in 2005 (metric tons)
Distance from the center of metropolitan region (miles)
Cargo (only) airports within Multi-Airport SystemsLGG EBLG Brussels Belgium Brussels/Liege 325,712 52AFW KAFW Dallas United States Dallas/Alliance 220,134 33
Cargo (only) airports in the vicinity of Multi-Airport Systems (beyond 60 miles)RFD KRFD Chicago United States Chicago/Rockford 1,639,323 78XCR LFOK Paris France Paris/Vatry 37,670 83
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
14
Outline
Definitions & Concepts
Overview of Multi-Airport Systems Worldwide• Multi-airport systems in numbers,• Geographical distribution,• Types (configurations, pax. vs. cargo)
Historical Patterns of Development & Drivers• Patterns of evolution• What drives traffic allocation• Role of low cost carriers (role of entries, evolution of models over time, parallel networks)
Development Strategies for Multi-Airport Systems• Uncertainty, volatility -> Planning challenges• Long term development • Real option approach
“Metroplex” Airspace Considerations• Multi-Airport Systems Capacity Estimation• Role of NextGen Technologies in Limiting Air Traffic Interactions
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Two fundamental evolutionary mechanisms:• Construction of new airport (with full or partial transfer of traffic),• Emergence of secondary airport through the use of existing airport
(without restriction of initial role; civil or military).
Multi-Airport Systems Have Evolved According to Two Fundamental Mechanisms
15
Legend
Original primary airport
Secondary airport
Emerged primary airport
Former primary airport
Constru
ctio
n of n
ew a
irport
and
trans
fer o
f tra
ffic
Re-emergence of the original
primary airport
Strength
enin
g role
of t
he
seco
ndary
airp
ort
into
a p
rimar
y ai
rport
Single-airport system
Emergence of
secondary
airports through
the use of an
existing airport
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Patterns of Evolution of Multi-Airport Systemsacross World Regions
16
Legend
Emergence of secondary airport through the use of an existing airport
Construction of new airport
Note: Size of the bubble proportional to the number of airports involved
North America
Latin America
Europe
Asia-Pacific
Middle-East
Frequency of occurrence of mechanisms that govern the evolution of multi-airport systems across world-regions
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Location of Airports within Multi-Airport Systems:
Number of Airports (by type) as a Function of Distance from the Center of the City
17
0
10
20
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Num
ber o
f air
port
s
Distance from city center (in miles)
Closed Airport
Original Airport
Construction New Airport
Emergence Existing Airport
As multi-airport system develops new airports are emerge further away from the center of the city
• In general, original airports tend be be located close to city center (within 20 miles)• Airports developed as second, third, etc. airports are generally located between 10 and
30 miles• Secondary airports that emerged from exiting exhibit greater distances from center of the
city (rely on existing underutilized airport infrastructure)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Drivers of Traffic Allocation within Multi-Airport Systems
18
Concentration of traffic at primary airport
Allocation of flights is driven by S-shaped market share/frequency share (driven by consumer/passenger frequency preference)
In general, airlines have an incentive to allocate resources (i.e. flights) at the airport they already serve and compete directly with other airlines
Frequency Share
Mar
ket
Sh
are
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
4.7%
6.3%
2.4%
2.8%
2.2%
1.1%0.4%
15.0%8.1%
3.8%
0.1%0.0%
0.6%
5.7%0.2%
0.2%
1.9%0.8%0.7%
0.3%0.2%
1.2%
0.4%
0.3%
0.5%0.1%0.1%0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%0.0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Boston/LoganBoston/ManchesterBoston/Providence
Chicago/O'HareChicago/Midway
Dallas/Fort WorthDallas/Love Field
Houston/IntercontinentalHouston/Hobby
Los Angeles/IntlLos Angeles/Santa Ana
Los Angeles/OntarioLos Angeles/Burbank
Los Angeles/Long Beach
Miami/IntlMiami/Fort Lauderdale
New York/LaGuardiaNew York/Newark
New York/KennedyNew York/Islip
Norfolk/IntlNorfolk/News Williamsburg
Orlando/IntlOrlando/Sanford
San Francisco/IntlSan Francisco/OaklandSan Francisco/San Jose
Tampa/IntlTampa/Sarasota
Tampa/St Petersburg
Washington/DullesWashington/Reagan
Washington/Baltimore
Percentage of delayed operations in 2000
Primary airports
Secondary airports
“Exception” to the Dynamic of Concentration of Traffic at Major Airports
19
Capacity and Access Constraints• Airport physical constraints (e.g. runways
too short) e.g. Belfast, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro
• Capacity constraints due to limited expansion capabilities
e.g. New York/LaGuardia, San
Francisco/International, Paris/Orly,
Bangkok/Don Mueang, etc.• Massive infrastructure investment
requirements -> High marginal capacity cost
e.g. $6 to 20 billion for the Chicago O’Hare
Modernization Program, $6.5 billion for
London Heathrow Terminal 5
Development of Low-Cost Carriers• Historically, low-cost carriers have
generally focused their development at secondary airports i.e. “Southwest model”
* Data source: US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) OPSNET data. Note: By the nature of the definitions of delays and reporting process, OPSNET data underestimates the true extent of delays. The use of this data in this figure is for airport to airport delay comparison purposes.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“Southwest Effect”: offering of service at low fares that attract passengers who were previously using the primary airport and/or stimulate demand in the region and generate new traffic within the region (Bennett et al. 1993).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1975 1985 1995 2005
Pass
enge
rsM
illio
ns
Boston/Logan Boston/Providence
Boston/Manchester
0
2
4
6
8
1990 1995 2000 2005
Pass
enge
rsM
illion
s
Entry of Southwest(1996)
Entry of Southwest(1998)
Boston/Providence
Boston/Manchester
Entry of Low-Cost Carriers Stimulates Demand and Growth at Secondary Airports
20
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Stimulation of Demand by Low-Cost Carriers (i.e. Low-Fare Airlines)
21
Two cases of initial conditions at secondary airports (before LCC entry): • No traffic at the secondary airport (low-cost carrier was the first carrier to serve the
secondary airport)• Secondary airport served by carriers with very limited service and high fares, the entry of
low-cost carriers resulted in a decrease of average fares. -> Stimulated the emergence process.
Evolution of average yield for Boston/Logan (BOS), Boston/Manchester (MHT), and Boston/Providence (PVD)
• Boston/Manchester (MHT): average aggregate yield dropped by 27% -> enplanements increased by 154% (between 1997 and 1999)
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.22
0.24
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Ave
rag
e Y
ield
at
the
airp
ort
leve
l ($
per
flo
wn
mile
s) a
dju
sted
to
200
3
Boston Logan BOS
Manchester MHT
Providence PVD
Entry of Southwest
PVD MHT
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.22
0.24
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Ave
rag
e Y
ield
at
the
airp
ort
leve
l ($
per
flo
wn
mile
s) a
dju
sted
to
200
3
Boston Logan BOS
Manchester MHT
Providence PVD
Entry of Southwest
PVD MHT
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.22
0.24
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000
Annual traffic (enplanements)
Ave
rag
e Y
ield
at
the
airp
ort
leve
l ($
per
flo
wn
mile
s) a
dju
sted
to
200
3 Manchester MHT
Providence PVD
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Case of Frankfurt/Hahn (entry of Ryanair)
Case of Dubai/Sharjah (entry of Air Arabia)
Dynamics of Low-Cost Carrier Emergence at Secondary Airports Not Specific to the U.S.
22
0
1
2
3
4
5
1990 1995 2000 2005
Pass
enge
rsM
illio
ns
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1975 1985 1995 2005
Pass
enge
rsM
illio
ns
Frankfurt/Main Frankfurt/Hahn
Entry of Ryanair(1999)
Frankfurt/Hahn
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Pass
enge
rsM
illio
ns
Dubai/Intl Dubai/Sharjah
Entry of Air Arabia(2003)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
23
Entry of Low-Cost Carriers at Secondary Airports (Worldwide)
PIK - Ryanair (1994)GSE - Ryanair (2001)HHN - Ryanair (2002)LBA - Jet2.com (2003)LPL - Ryanair (1987-base in 2005)LBC - Ryanair (2005) - Wizzair (2006)MMX - Ryanair (1998-2007)TRF - Ryanair (1997)REU - Ryanair (2004)NYO - Ryanair (1997)TSF - Ryanair (1998)NRN - Ryanair (2003)
BWI - Southwest (1993)
DMK - One-Two-Go (2007)
FLL - Southwest (1996)
EWR - People Express (1980)OAK - Southwest (1989)
YXX - Westjet (1997)
AVV - Jetstar (2004)
BUR - Southwest (1990)
MDW - Midway (1979)Southwest (1985)
DAL - Southwest (1971)
HOU - Southwest (1972)
ISP - Southwest (1999)
TLC - Interjet (2005) - Volaris (2005)
MHT - Southwest (1998)PVD - Southwest (1996)
SHJ - Air Arabia (2003)
YHM - Westjet (2000) – Globespan (2007)
FKB - Ryanair (2003)BVA - Ryanair (1997)BGY - Ryanair (2004)BLK - Jet2.com (base in 2005) BTS - SkyEurope (2002)CRL - Ryanair (1988)CIA - Ryanair (2004) EDI – RyanairEIN - RyanairFRL - Ryanair (2002)GRO - Ryanair (2004)
Clear dynamic in North America and Europe,
also observed to minor extent in the Middle-East, Latin American and Asia-Pacific.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Development of Parallel Networks by Low Cost Carriers
24
Emergence of a new primary and secondary airports in a metropolitan region results in the creation of new connections to the rest of the airport network
• e.g. emergence of Boston/Providence resulted in development of new OD pairs: Boston/Providence (PVD) to Chicago/O’Hare (ORD) a secondary to primary airport market Boston/Providence (PVD) to Chicago/Midway (MDW) a secondary-to-secondary airport market Routes parallel the primary-to-primary airport route; Boston/Logan (BOS) to Chicago/O’Hare
(ORD).
Airlines compete at the network level rather than at airport level
* Date source: ETMS data for the time period from October 1st 2004 to September 30th 2005.
“Semi-parallel network” “Parallel network”“Base network”
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Variations across Low-Cost Carrier Business Model & Evolution
25
Range of strategies and business models used by low-cost carriers
• Major low-cost carriers have focused on secondary airports
• Number of air carriers that have focused their development on primary airports -> Difficult to be a low-cost at a primary airport (higher cost than at secondary airports)
Evolution of business models• e.g. Southwest Airlines
recent entry into New York/LaGuardia, Boston/Logan, etc.-> Becoming a major network airlines after reaching a critical mass network
* Data source: The Official Airline Guide (OAG), data from Oct 1st 2004 to Sept 30th 2005, traffic measured in number departures and arrivals.
Airline namePercent Operations at
Primary AirportsPercent Operations at
Secondary AirportsRyanair 5% 95%SkyEurope 30% 70%ATA Airlines 38% 62%Southwest Airlines 47% 53%Transavia Airlines 59% 41%easyJet Airline 61% 39%Jet2.com 68% 32%Frontier Airlines 75% 25%America West Airlines 75% 25%Air Berlin 83% 17%jetBlue Airways 87% 13%WestJet 89% 11%Flybe British 89% 11%Norwegian Air Shuttle 90% 10%germanwings 92% 8%AirTran Airways 92% 8%dba 93% 7%Independence Air 95% 5%Spirit Airlines 95% 5%bmibaby 96% 4%Virgin Express 98% 2%Meridiana 99% 1%Gol Transportes Aereos 100% 0%Virgin Blue 100% 0%Maersk Air 100% 0%Lion Airlines 100% 0%Bangkok Airways 100% 0%AVIACSA 100% 0%Transasia 100% 0%Flynordic 100% 0%
Distribution of traffic (flight departures and arrivals) between primary and secondary airports for the top 30
low-cost carriers
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
26
Outline
Definitions & Concepts
Overview of Multi-Airport Systems Worldwide• Multi-airport systems in numbers,• Geographical distribution,• Types (configurations, pax. vs. cargo)
Historical Patterns of Development & Drivers• Patterns of evolution• What drives traffic allocation• Role of low cost carriers (role of entries, evolution of models over time, parallel networks)
Development Strategies for Multi-Airport Systems• Uncertainty, volatility -> Planning challenges• Long term development • Real option approach
“Metroplex” Airspace Considerations• Multi-Airport Systems Capacity Estimation• Role of NextGen Technologies in Limiting Air Traffic Interactions
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Strategic Planning “Mistakes”
of Airports within Multi-Airport Systems
27
Airport Name Planning “Mistake” Outcome
Washington/Dulles Airport was developed “too early” in the 1960s
- Low traffic for approx. 20 years- Now a viable primary airport in the Washington multi-airport system
Montreal/Mirabel - Development of an oversized airport-Far from the city center while the original airport (i.e. Montreal/Trudeau) still had potential for capacity growth- Attempted to “force” the transfer of traffic to new airport
-Airlines (e.g. Air Canada) preferred Toronto-Airport did not emerge as major airport-Montreal/Trudeau was improved making Mirabel less attractive-Now close for passenger operations
London/Stansted Redeveloped in 1966 from a military base and later in 1984. Ryanair started offering service at London/Stansted in 1991 and contributed to the significant growth of traffic observed at London/Stansted since the beginning of the 1990s
Now a major secondary airport: Low-cost carriers now account for over 80% of the total passenger traffic.
Osaka/Kansai Osaka/Itami did not close Limiting attractiveness of Osaka/Kansai
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Strategic Planning Challenges:
Volatility of Traffic Volatility of traffic at secondary airports -> Planning Uncertainty
Secondary airports tend to exhibit higher volatility of traffic -> Higher investment risks (than existing primary airports that tend to exhibit more stable traffic and revenues)
Inherent difficulty of forecasting traffic
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ind
ia
Ch
ina
Jap
an
Italy
Net
her
land
s
Bra
zil
Sp
ain
Hun
gar
y
So
uth
Afr
ica
Irel
and
Ger
man
y
Po
rtug
al
Bel
giu
m
Sin
gap
ore
Po
lan
d
Luxe
mbo
urg
Fra
nce
Eu
rop
e
Cze
ch R
ep
Mal
ta
U.K
.
Gre
ece
Can
ada
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Fin
land
Aus
tral
ia
Cyp
rus
Aus
tria
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Po
pu
lati
on
/ #
Air
po
rts
(wit
h ru
nw
ays
lon
ger
than
500
0ft)
Mill
ions
Long Term Demand and Future Airport Infrastructure Adequacy
Future demand for air transportation will be led by countries such as India and China
Future adequacy of airport infrastructure:
• China and India: high population/airport infrastructure ratios will require significant future development of airport infrastructure
• United States and Europe have large number of existing airports that can accommodate future growth
29*Data source: ICAO Journal 2006, & CIA Handbook database 2005
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Long Term Development of Multi-Airport Systems
30
420 metropolitan regions worldwide with population greater than 1 million with:
• Multi-airport systems,• Single airport systems in
transition,• Single airport systems or no
airport.
As Gross Regional Product (GRP) increases more metropolitan regions around the world will transition to multi-airport systems.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Multi-Airport Systems in Development
31
Legend
Emergence of secondary airport through the use of existing an airport
Construction of new airport
Pattern of evolution of multi-airport systems
Examples of single airport systems in transition• (i.e. systems that are exhibiting either plans or construction of new airports or have
emerging secondary airports in the metropolitan region).
Las Vegas/IvanpahMadrid/Don Quijote
Leipzig/Altenburg
Beijing/2nd airport
New Delhi/Jewar
Mumbai/Navi
Cochin/Intl
Bangalore/Intl
Johannesburg/LanseriaAuckland/Whenuapai
Montreal/Plattsburg
Jakarta/ Soekarno-Hatta & Jakarta/ Halim Perdanakusuma
Warsaw/Modlin
Berlin/Finow
Hyderabad/Intl
Kuala Lumpur/Intl & Subang
Manila/SubicBay & Macapal
Lisbon/Alcochete
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Closure of Airports: Lost Option for Future Emergence?
Original primary airports that were closed after the transfer of traffic to a new airport
Original primary airports that remained opened (after loss of traffic) and then became or could become secondary airports
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Need to develop flexible approaches to ensure feasibility of evolution paths and future development of multi-airport.
Strategies for Enabling the Future Development of Multi-Airport Systems
33
Emergence of secondary airports
through the use of an existing airport
Constru
ctio
n of n
ew a
irport
and
trans
fer o
f tra
ffic
Existing single-airport
system ormulti-airport
system
Availability of existing non-utilized airports in the metropolitan region
Protect existing civil and military airports from closure
Availability of usable land area in the metropolitan region
(1) Land banking strategies
(2) Partially develop the land or select sites that are less likely to exhibit downstream development blockage
Evolution patterns (i.e. tree)Flexible strategiesto allow future developmentNecessary conditions
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Long Term Development of Metropolitan Area Airport Capacity; A Real Option Strategy
34
Real option strategies for the development of metropolitan area airport capacity
• Strategies with the potential to create the preconditions for a “win-win” situation for airport owners and local and regional governments in the long run;
(1) protecting existing under-utilized airport in the metropolitan region, (2) protecting existing airports through alternative uses such as military, national security activities, (3) reserving sites that can be developed as new greenfield airports in the future.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
35
Outline
Definitions & Concepts
Overview of Multi-Airport Systems Worldwide• Multi-airport systems in numbers,• Geographical distribution,• Types (configurations, pax. vs. cargo)
Historical Patterns of Development & Drivers• Patterns of evolution• What drives traffic allocation• Role of low cost carriers (role of entries, evolution of models over time, parallel networks)
Development Strategies for Multi-Airport Systems• Uncertainty, volatility -> Planning challenges• Long term development • Real option approach
“Metroplex” Airspace Considerations• Multi-Airport Systems Capacity Estimation• Role of NextGen Technologies in Limiting Air Traffic Interactions
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
36
Illustration of Conflicting Departure and Approach Paths within the NY Metroplex (EWR Arr. 22L – TEB Dep. 24)
Analysis of the NY Metroplex Capacity Improvement Potential
Teterboro
LaGuardia
*Flight track data courtesy of Leo Prusak and NYNJ Port Authority*Flight track data courtesy of Leo Prusak and NYNJ Port Authority
Teterboro
Newark
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
37
Illustration of Conflicting Departure and Approach Paths within the NY Metroplex (EWR Arr. 22L - LGA Arr. 13 - TEB Arr. 19)
Analysis of the NY Metroplex Capacity Improvement Potential
Teterboro
LaGuardia
*Flight track data courtesy of Leo Prusak and NYNJ Port Authority*Flight track data courtesy of Leo Prusak and NYNJ Port Authority
NewarkLAGUARDIA AREA - Standard Operating Procedure Manual“LGA ILS RWY l3 approach:When EWR is using RWY 22L/R approaches … and traffic conditions permit, LGA will provide a gap in their approach sequence for TEB arrivals or RWY 1/6 departures. When this procedure is not practical, the OSIC’s will coordinate to balance delays equitably”.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
38
Analysis of the Metroplex Capacity:
Data Sources & Methodology Data
• Source: FAA Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) based on ETMS and ARINC information
• Cross sectional and time series analyses using: Hourly data of airport operations (i.e. arrival and departure rates, configurations) for a time period
covering 5 years from 2004 to 2008. Scope of Analysis: 4 New York Airports
• LaGuardia (LGA), Newark (EWR), JF Kennedy (JFK), Teterboro (TEB)
Methodology: • Data was filtered to retain stable airport configurations
i.e. hours of operations of an airport or set of airports during which the
configuration did not change - for which the previous and following
hour of operations had identical configurations, Note: Metroplex was operated under stable (combined) configurations
43% of the time accounting for 37% of the total number of operations
for 2007/2008.
• Developed and used a dominance search algorithm to compute Pareto front equations,
• Identified operating point of 50% dep. – 50% arr. at the intersection of the Pareto front.
Illustration: LGA configuration 22 | 31
Pareto front50% arr. 50% dep.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
LGA
JFK
CP for observed coupled metroplex operations
39
Estimation of the Metroplex Capacity Improvement Potential (i.e. Difference between the Capacity from Coupled Metroplex Operations and the Sum of Capacity from Decoupled* Airport Operations)Illustration with configuration: LGA 22 | 31 -- EWR 22L | 22R -- JFK 22L | 22R, 31L -- TEB 19 | 24
Metroplex Capacity Profile (CP)
* Note: The Pareto capacity of individual airport is used as a proxy for decoupled airport operation capacity (based on the assumption that given all sets of observed configurations of neighbor airports, at least one set of configuration exhibits little to no coupling)
JFK
TEB
EWR
LGA
CPs for Individual Airports
CP for estimated decoupled airport operations
Met
rople
x Cap
acity
Impro
vem
ent P
otentia
l
(e.g
. 22%
)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
40
Metroplex Capacity Improvement Potential (in % improvement) for the top 35 most Frequent Configurations in the NY Metroplex System in 2007-2008
Cumulative Frequency of Observation (in terms of hours of stable operating configurations)
Analysis of the NY Metroplex Capacity Improvement Potential
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Conclusions
Significant number of multi-airport systems exist worldwide• Vary by location, configurations, etc.
Several fundamental mechanisms by which multi-airport systems can evolve• (1) the construction of new airports and transfer of traffic,• (2) the emergence of secondary airports through the use of existing non-utilized airports.
Factors that influence evolution and development exhibit differences and similarities identified across world regions
• World region and country specific conditions matter
Need to develop flexible approaches to enable the future development of multi-airport systems by;
• (1) applying land banking strategies in regions where the set of existing non-utilized airports is weak and where projections of future demand are high,
• (2) protecting existing airport infrastructure (both civil and military airports) in regions that face constraints for the development of new airports.
Need to also consider larger system-level issues in the planning process• Airspace level: Interaction between airports, airport configuration of new airports, etc.• Ground transportation level: Integration of airport and ground transportation networks
41
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
42
References (1)
Bonnefoy, P., (2008). Scalability of the Air Transportation System and Development of Multi-Airport Systems: A Worldwide Perspective, Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., http://esd.mit.edu/people/dissertations/philippe_bonnefoy.pdf
Bonnefoy P., de Neufville R. & Hansman R. J., Evolution and Development of Multi-Airport Systems; A Papers Worldwide Perspective, Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, (Accepted for publication - Jun. 2008),
http://web.mit.edu/bonnefoy/www/Doc/Bonnefoy_J_Tranp_Eng_MAS_2009_2.pdf Bonnefoy, P., (2007). Role of The Privatization of Airports in The Evolution and the Development of Multi-Airport
Systems, Planning & Design of Airport Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 14th 2007. http://ardent.mit.edu/airports/ASP_exercises/ASP%20matl%20for%20posting%202007/Bonnefoy_Airport_Privatization_Paper.pdf
Bonnefoy, P., Hansman R. J., (2005). Emergence of Secondary Airports and Dynamics of Multi-Airport Systems, Master Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
Cohas, F. (1993). Market-Share Model for a Multi-Airport System. Cambridge, MA: Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and Technology and Policy Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
de Neufville, R. , (1995). Management of Multi-Airport Systems: A Development Strategy, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 2, No 2, 99-110.
de Neufville, R. (2006). Accommodating Low Cost Airlines at Main Airports. Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. http://ardent.mit.edu/airports/de_Neufville_airport_papers.html.
de Neufville, R. (2007). Low-cost airports for low-cost airlines: flexible design to manage risks. Special Issue of Journal of Transportation Planning and Technology, http://ardent.mit.edu/airports/de_Neufville_airport_papers.html.
de Neufville, R. (1995). Management of Multi-Airport Systems: A Development Strategy. Proceedings of Airports 95 Conference, (pp. 1-13). Sydney, Australia, http://ardent.mit.edu/airports/de_Neufville_airport_papers.html
de Neufville, R. (2004). Multi-Airport Systems in the Era of No-Frills Airlines. Transportation Research Board conference, (pp. 1-19). Washington, DC, http://ardent.mit.edu/airports/de_Neufville_airport_papers.html
de Neufville, R. (1995). Policy Guidelines for the Option of a Development of a Multi-Airport System, the basis of a Dynamic Strategic Plan to provide the capability for flexible response to future challenges. Paper to the Board and General Manager of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, http://ardent.mit.edu/airports/de_Neufville_airport_papers.html
de Neufville, R. (2005). The Future of Secondary Airports:Nodes of a parallel air transport network? English version of article prepared for the journal Cahiers Scientifiques du Transport Cahiers Scientifiques du Transport , Issue 47,
pp. 11-38, http://ardent.mit.edu/airports/de_Neufville_airport_papers.html
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
43
References (2)
de Neufville, R., & Odoni, A. (2003). Airport Systems; Planning, Design and Management. New York, NY: Mc Graw Hill European Parliament. (2007). The Consequences of the Growing European Low-Cost Airline Sector. Brussels, Belgium:
European Parliament. FAA. (2007). Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System: An Analysis of Airports and Metropolitan Area Demand
and Operational Capacity in the Future. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
FAA. (2004). National Plan for Integrated Airport System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transporation (DOT) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Garriga, J. (2003). Airport Dynamics Towards Airport Systems. Airport Regions Conference (ARC), http://www.airportregions.org/doc/Airport%20Dynamics.pdf
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
44
Questions Questions & &
CommentsComments