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 th
December 14 2007
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
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course
Page | 3
its propagation through the air transportation network, impacting passenger’s quality of travel and ultimately local, regional and national economy. Given the projections of future demand for air transportation around the world, this problem of congestion and more generally the ability to meet demand is going to remain a key problem over the next decades. There are several ways by which capacity can be added to existing airports; increasing airport physical capacity through the construction of new runways and/or terminals, improving operational efficiency. However, there are constraints on the FIGURE 1. Revenue Passenger Kilometers ability to use these mechanisms, such as land use constraints, from 1972 to 2005 by world region airport physical limitations, and environmental constraints. 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. In parallel, to this long term trend of development of multi-airport systems, airports have been and are privatized around the world. Fundamentally, privatization has both advantages and disadvantages. It brings the ability to raise investment capital for the development of airport infrastructure, generate new revenue streams for local, state and international governments and bring improvements in operating efficiency. However, it comes with several downsides such as potential conflicting objectives between public good and profit generation, potential corruption, lack of accountability, cuts in essential services, and what is generally seen as the greatest downside; abuse of situation of natural monopoly. 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- 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.
1.2 Objective of the project Given that these trends -development of multi-airport systems and privatization of airports- are and will remain key trends in the air transportation systems and have the ability to affect airport development in the future, 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.
2. 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, a literature review of the history and the processes of privatization of airports was conducted. In addition, literature on multi-airport systems was reviewed. In order to assess the effects and implications of the privatization on the development of airports in multiairport systems, a comprehensive case study analysis of existing cases of multi-airport systems exhibiting different degrees of privatization was conducted. This analysis comprised; 1) the identification of the owner and the operator for each airport within a set of cases of multi-airport systems, 2) the selection of cases of multiairport systems that involve airports with different degree of privatization, 3) detailed analysis of these cases
3
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course
Page | 4
that included a review the history and the process of privatization, and the identification of key issues in the privatization process. Finally, the findings of the case study analysis were synthesized and implications for future development of multi-airport systems were assessed. The structure of this paper follows closely this approach. The following section presents background information on both the privatization of airports and multi-airport systems. 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. Section 6 of the paper presents a summary of the findings and explores the potential implications for the future development of multi-airport systems.
3. Background 3.1 Airport privatization Principles of privatization Fundamentally, the process of privatization refers to the transfer of ownership from the public sector (e.g. local, regional or national government) to the private sector (e.g. private investment and/or management groups), while the reverse phenomenon is referred to as nationalization. Despite this simple definition, privatization and more specifically airport privatization can cover a wide range of forms (i.e. from partially privatized to fully privatized entities). In addition, there is a key distinction that needs to be emphasized between the privatization of the entity owning the airport (i.e. owner) and the privatization of the entity managing the operations of the airport (i.e. operator). As a result, the ownership and management of airports can take several forms. The following list represents an exhaustive list of the forms of ownership and management of airports: A. Government-owned; operated by Department or Agency of national government, B. Government-owned; operated by a municipal or regional Department or Agency, C. Government-owned; operated and managed by a private corporation, D. Operated by an independent Airport Authority, which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional and/or national government, E. Operated by an independent Airport Authority, which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional and/or national government but with minority private shareholders (some shares may be publicly traded), F. Privately-owned (fully or in majority, possibly with some or all shares publicly traded); operated as independent airport authority. General advantages and disadvantages of privatization Generally, the privatization of an entity (i.e. owner or operator of an airport or another operating asset), has both advantages and disadvantages. Privatization can (while it is not the only mechanism) increase the ability to raise capital for airport infrastructure development project. In addition, it can be a mechanism for generating revenue streams for local, state or international governments. Privatization is also generally associated with operating efficiency improvements. While there are positive implications from the privatization of airports, there are also significant downsides that need to be considered. These downsides include; conflicting objectives between public good and profit generation that can lead to natural monopolies, corruption, lack of transparency and accountability, and potentially cuts in essential services. History of privatization in the context of airport ownership and management
4
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course
Page | 5
From an historical perspective, the airport privatization trend started in the United Kingdom in 1987 when Great Britain sold seven airports; London’s three primary airports (London Heathrow Airport, London Gatwick Airport, Stansted Airport) and Prestwick International Airport, Glasgow International Airport, Edinburgh Airport and Aberdeen Airport in Scotland, in a public share offering, for $2.5 billion to a new owner BAA PLC. The former owner, British Airports Authority was a state owned authority that was formed in 1996 though the Airport Authority Act. Since its initial privatization phase, BAA PLC has evolved by investing in airports around the world; Ferihegy airport, 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, Inc.), and a management contract with the City of Indianapolis to run Indianapolis International airport. In July 2006, BAA was acquired by Grupo Ferrovial, a Spanich infrastructure investment group, and is now listed as BAA Limited. 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, several other countries have explored the privatization path; •
Belgium created a corporation to own the Brussels airport terminal,
•
The Austrian government sold a 28 percent interest in the Vienna airport to finance an expansion,
•
New Zealand privatized its three international airports,
•
the United Kingdom sold Belfast International Airport in Northern Ireland;
•
Australia began to privatize 22 airports owned by its Federal Airport Corporation (FAC) in 1994,
As of 2007, at least 39 countries had one or more of their airports privatized, as depicted on FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2. Countries with privatized airports worldwide
In addition to this trend of expanding number of countries privatizing their airports, another trend has been observed over the last decade; the internationalization of private investment and airport management groups. FIGURE 3. Networks of multi-national private airport management groupsFIGURE 3 shows the international networks of the six airport investment and/or management groups. This trend has implications in terms of the management of airports since in most cases, it is not only capital that is exchanged throughout this network but also knowledge (i.e. airport design, operation and management expertise and knowledge). An example is Vancouver Airport Services (YVRAS) that is responsible, to various extents, for the management of 18 airports in Canada, Dominican Republic, Greece Jamaica and Chile, but also offers airport consulting services.
5
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Project Paper - MIT ESD.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. 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. In the United States, airports have traditionally been operated by local, regional and national government entities or independent airport authorities owned by local, regional and national government. 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). The major impediment to full privatization –as it is seen in other countries- of U.S. airports remains the dependence of major airports on federal grants from the FAA Airport Improvement Program. A federal regulation allows the privatization of airports only if the new owner reimburses these federal grants to the government, which makes it an unattractive investment. In addition, 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. Despite these impediments to full privatization of airports in the Unites States, a FAA pilot program was established by Congress in September 1997 and was limited to five airport participants. In 2006, Stewart International Airport, located in Newburgh, NY, was the only airport granted an exemption under the program, but the airport was taken under the umbrella of the New York New Jersey Port Authority (NYNJPA), in 2007, in order to alleviate congestion in the New York area. On September 14, 2006, the City of Chicago submitted a preliminary application for Chicago Midway International Airport.
3.2 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). As of 2007, there were 62 cases of multi-airport systems worldwide. For the purpose of this analysis, a multi-airport system was defined as a system of two or more primary and secondary airports serving a metropolitan region. FIGURE 4 shows the geographical location of these multi-airport systems across six world regions (29 in Europe, 14 in North America, 11 in Asia Pacific, 5 in Latin America and Caribbean, and 3 in the Middle East). In addition, to multi-airport systems, a non exhaustive set of 12 single airport systems in transition
6
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Project Paper - MIT ESD.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.
Legend Multi-Airport System Single Airport System in Transition North America Europe Latin America & Caribbean Middle East Africa Asia/Pacific
FIGURE 4. Multi-airport systems and single airport systems in transition worldwide
4. Analysis of the Forms of Airport Ownership and Management in Multi-Airport Systems 4.1 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, 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. This analysis accounted for 178 airports in 37 different countries. For each of the airport, the owner and the operator of the airport were identified. 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 3.1. The full list of airports, owners and operators (as of Dec. 2007) is presented in Appendix. FIGURE 5 summarizes the distribution of forms of ownership and management of airports across the 74 cases. It was found that the most frequent form of ownership and management of airports was; “D. Operated by an independent Airport Authority, which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional and/or national government” which represents 34 % of the 178
Worldwide 8%
A
16 %
B
7%
C
34 %
D
19 %
E
16 %
F
0
20
40
60
80
Number of airports
airports. The two categories of semi-privatized and fully privatized forms of airport ownership and management; (E. Operated by an independent Airport Authority, which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional
7
FIGURE 5. Distribution of forms of ownership and management of airports worldwide
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Project Paper - MIT ESD.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- and F. Privately-owned -fully or in majority, possibly with some or all shares publicly traded-; operated as independent airport authority) represented respectively 19% and 16% of the 178 airports. The public forms of ownership and management (A. Government-owned; operated by Department or Agency of national government and B. Government-owned; operated by a municipal or regional Department or Agency) , that are generally considered to be more traditional forms of ownership and management of airports, represented a combined 24% of all airports. Finally, the mixed form; government-owned; operated and managed by a private corporation (C) represented only 7% of the cases. While FIGURE 5 presented the aggregated results at the worldwide level, 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. As shown on FIGURE 6, the two most frequent forms in the United States are the traditional “government-owned; operated by a municipal or regional Department or Agency” (B) and the more modern; “operated by an independent Airport Authority, which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional and/or national government” (D). Europe A B
North America
C
A
D
B
E
C
F
D 0
E
5
10 15 Number of airports
20
25
Middle East
F 0
5
10 15 Number of airports
20
25
Latin America
Asia/Pacific
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
E
E
F
F
A B 0
C
5
10 15 Number of airports
D
20
25
0
5
10 15 Number of airports
20
Africa
E
A
F
B C 0
5
10 15 Number of airports
20
25
D E F 0
5
10 15 Number of airports
20
25
FIGURE 6. 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). There are still a few airports that are owned and operated under the more traditional (public) forms, mostly in Northern Europe (Sweden, Norway). In Asia, the dominant forms of ownership and management are D-E-F with a few public airports (A) mostly in Japan. Multi-airport systems in Latin America, 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- that are owned and operated under the “government-owned; operated by Department or Agency of national government” (A) form.
8
25
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course
Page | 9
4.2 Combinations of Forms of Ownership and Management of Airports within Multi-Airport Systems
Primary Airport
In the context of multi-airport systems, 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). As represented in 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. secondary airports). 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). Conversely, both type of C airports can be operated by private entities (lower right corner), but also by a mix of private and public entities. In D Private Private this case, the nature of the airport (primary vs. 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. the secondary airport (the new entrant) were expected to differ. FIGURE 7. Combinations of forms of ownership and management of airports within multi-airport
Using this framework for analysis the combinations of * systems forms of ownership and management of airports, 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. A wide array of combinations of forms of ownership and management of airports was found.
Secondary Airport
A
B
C
D
E
F
Tokyo
Stolckholm
Dubai
Hyderabad
A
Gothenburg
Taipei
B
Chicago
Stuttgart
Dallas
Warsaw Madrid Montreal
Primary Airport
Single Airport Systems in Transition
Osaka Houston Miami Los Angeles
Orlando
Vancouver Melbourne
C
Brussels Moscow
Buenos Aires Tampa
Hamburg Dusseldorf
Washington San Francisco New York Boston
D
Toronto Berlin
Norfolk
Belo Horizonte Tel Aviv Edmonton Jakarta Rio de Janeiro Nairobi Seoul Amsterdam Manila Barcelona Sao Paulo Frankfurt
Cochin
E
Copenhagen Paris Milano
Vienna
New Delhi
Tehran
Hong Kong
Manchester Oslo
Mexico Bologna Kuala lumpur Venice
Johannesburg
Bangkok Shanghai
Mumbai Auckland
Leipzig
Istanbul Belfast Pisa Rome Glasgow
F
London
FIGURE 8. Combinations of forms of ownership and management of airports across 74 cases of multi-airport systems and single airport systems in transition
9
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course
Page | 10
5. Case study analysis of the privatization process and impacts on MAS development 5.1 Overview of cases In order to better understand the implications of the privatization of airports on multi-airport systems, 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). Secondary Airport
A
B
C
D
E
F
Tokyo
Stolckholm
Dubai
Hyderabad
A
Gothenburg
Taipei
B
Chicago
Stuttgart
Dallas
Warsaw Madrid Montreal
Cochin
Primary Airport
Single Airport Systems in Transition
Osaka Houston Miami
Vancouver Melbourne
C
Brussels
New Delhi
Moscow
Buenos Aires Tampa Washington San Francisco New York Boston
D
Norfolk
E
Hamburg Dusseldorf Toronto Berlin
Belo Horizonte Tel Aviv Edmonton Jakarta Rio de Janeiro Nairobi Seoul Amsterdam Manila Barcelona Sao Paulo
Leipzig
Tehran
Hong Kong
Manchester Oslo
Vienna
Mexico Bologna Kuala lumpur Venice Frankfurt Bangkok Shanghai
Copenhagen Paris Milano
Mumbai Auckland
Los Angeles
Orlando
Johannesburg
Istanbul Belfast Pisa Rome Glasgow
F
London
FIGURE 9. Cases of combinations of forms of ownership and management of airports
5.2 Frankfurt’s multi-airport system The Frankfurt airport system is an illustration of a case of: •
Primary airport, Frankfurt International (FRA), operated by an independent Airport Authority, which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional and/or national government but with minority private shareholders -some shares may be publicly traded-, (E) Fraport,
•
and a secondary airport, Frankfurt Hahn (HHN), also operated by Fraport (same operator as the primary airport).
FIGURE 10. Map of Frankfurt’s airport system
Historically, 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. However, 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. However, the project was delayed several times due to environmental constraints in particular due to a mediation process that was engaged in 1999. The airport is now scheduled to receive this fourth runway in 2010. In parallel to the history of capacity expansion at Frankfurt International, a secondary airport,
10
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course
Page | 11
Frankfurt Hahn, was developed and emerged. This airport was constructed in 1947 as a NATO military base, and was opened to civil traffic in 1993. Frankfurt Hahn successfully attracted low cost carriers, such as Ryanair that started to offer scheduled service in 1999 and now Wizzair. In addition, Fraport is expanding and planning other capacity expansion projects (terminal in 2005, runway extension in 2007). 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.
5.3 Johannesburg’s multi-airport system The airport system in Johannesburg, South Africa, is an illustration of a case of: •
•
A primary airport, Johannesburg International, operated by Airports Company South Africa, (independent Airport Authority, which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional and/or national government but with minority private shareholders -some shares may be publicly traded-, (E),
Lanseira
Johannesburg International
and a secondary airport, Lanseira airport (operated by a private investor group; Privately-owned (fully or in majority, operated as independent airport authority (F). FIGURE 11. Map of Johannesburg’s airport system
Johannesburg International airport was historically the only major airport in the region until, a group of private investors acquired and developed Lanseira airport as a secondary airport. Following the investment in airport infrastructure, the airport was able to attract a low cost carrier (kulula.com). While the airport managed to attract scheduled carriers, the traffic volumes are still low and significant risk with respect to the success of this airport remains. 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.
5.4 Berlin’s multi-airport system The airport system in Berlin, Germany, is an illustration of a case of: •
•
Primary airports, Berlin Tegel, Berlin Tempelhof, Berlin Schonefeld, all operated by Berlin Airports which is an independent Airport Authority, which is fully owned by local and regional governments (E),
?
Finow
Berlin Tegel
and a potential secondary airport, Finow, which is a military base located north of Berlin and in potential transition to be privately owned by Infratil (Privately-owned; operated as independent airport authority (F).
Berlin Tempelhof Berlin Schonefeld
FIGURE 12. Map of Berlin’s airport system
11
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Project Paper - MIT ESD.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). Both Berlin Tegel and Berlin Tempelhof are expected to close in 2008 and 2011, respectively. Despite this centralized and controlled approach to consolidate airports, a new secondary airport may emerge. In 2003, Infratil (New Zealand private infrastructure investment group) entered into a 10 year option to purchase Finow airport. There is a plan to plan to develop the airport into a secondary airport serving low-cost carriers (long-term investment program of approx. €25 million). 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.e. independent and decentralized potential privatization of an under-utilized airport that could emerge into a secondary airport). Finow airport is an interesting case of the use of real options, where Infratil placed an option to purchase the airport by 2013. (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.
5.5 Vienna’s multi-airport system The multi-airport system, in the Vienna region (Austria and Slovakia), is an illustration of a case of: •
A primary airport, Vienna international airport, operated by Flughafen Wien AG; which is an independent Airport Authority, which is owned by the local government with minority private shareholders (with shares publicly traded) (E),
•
and a secondary airport, Bratislava airport, operated by Airport Bratislava, A.S., which is an independent Airport Authority, fully owned by local government (D). FIGURE 13. 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. Conversely, Bratislava airport is not utilized at capacity (i.e. runway capacity), is considered as a secondary airport in the region. The Bratislava airport was run by the state until 2004 and is now run by a public limited company (Airport Bratislava, a.s. (BTS)). In 2006, a Vienna airport led consortium (Two One; Flughafen Wien AG and PENTA Investments Limited) attempted to take over the ownership and management of Bratislava airport. However, the sale was cancelled on the basis of concerns about restriction of competition in the market and a situation resulting in a dominant position. This case of Vienna/Bratislava multiairport system highlights some of the downsides of privatization on the control and ownership of airports within a region. Even though there may be a willingness, by a single owner/operator, to develop successfully multiple airports in a region (as it is the case with the Frankfurt airport system), potential deviations from this goal may exist or be perceived by the various parties involved in the privatization process. In addition, the privatization process can become more complicated when it involves multiple countries.
12
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course
Page | 13
5.6 Tehran’s multi-airport system The airport system, in Tehran, Iran, is an illustration of a case of: •
A Primary, Tehran Mehrabad International, owned and operated by Iran Airports Company which is an independent Airport Authority, which is fully owned by the local government,
•
and a primary/secondary airport, Tehran Imam Khomeini (owned and operated by Turkish and Austrian TAV group (F), privately-owned and operated as an independent airport authority, (F). This contract was awarded under the Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) contract. FIGURE 14. 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. Since then, TAV officials were forced to clear out personnel and equipment and return control of the airport and the Turkish part of consortium was excluded. The case of the Tehran multi-airport system illustrate some of the problems (i.e. 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.
5.7 New Delhi’s Single Airport System (in transition) The airport system in New Delhi, India, is an illustration of a case of: •
A primary airport, Indira Gandhi International, owned and operated by Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) which is a Privately-owned (in majority and operated as independent airport authority (F),
•
and a potential new primary airport in the region.
FIGURE 15. Map of New Delhi’s airport system
Historically, Indira Gandhi International has been the primary airport in the region. A Public Private Partnership Initiative (DIAL comprised of GMR Group, Airports Authority of India, Fraport AG, Eraman Malaysia and India Development Fund) was granted the mandate to modernize and restructure Indira Gandhi International Airport. Given the strong growth of traffic and forecasts of continuation of the trend in the region, there is a plan to build a green field airport under the Built Own and Operate (BOO) model. However, the 1997 Indian Airport Infrastructure Policy, limits the construction of a new airport within 150 km of an existing airport. This policy (i.e. restriction) was put in place in order to attract and keep foreign investors. This case of the New Delhi airport system is an illustration of another effect of the privatization airports on the development of multiairport systems. In this case, the privatization of the primary airport and the willingness to limit competition and
13
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Project Paper - MIT ESD.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.
5.8 Auckland’s Single Airport System (in transition) The airport system in Auckland, New Zealand, is an illustration of a case of: •
A primary airport; Auckland international airport which is owned and operated by Auckland International Airport Limited (a privately-owned and operated as independent airport authority (F),
•
a potentially new secondary airport in the region, Auckland Whenuapai airport, which is currently owned and operated by the New Zealand Defense Forces but could evolve into a fully privately-owned (fully or in majority, possibly with some or all shares publicly traded) and operated as independent airport authority (F), by Infratil.
Auckland / Whenuapai
?
Auckland International
FIGURE 16. Map of Auckland’s airport system
Historically, Auckland international airport has been the sole and primary airport in the Auckland region. Since the airport is fully privatized (Auckland International Airport Limited) and that mild regulation in New Zealand, there are concerns that the airport is abusing monopolistic situation, as stated by IATA CEO Giovanni Bisignani, as "happy monopoly with profit margins above 40%”. The New Zealand airport system may experience the emergence of a secondary airport; Auckland Whenuapai. While it is still operated as a military bases by New Zealand Defense Forces, 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. 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, 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.
5.9 Leipzig’s Multi-Airport System The airport system in Leipzig, Germany, is an illustration of a case of: •
A primary airport, Leipzig Halle, operated by Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH; an independent Airport Authority, which is fully owned by municipal local government (D),
•
and a secondary airport, Leipzig Altenbourg, owned and operated by Flugplatz Altenburg-Nobitz GmbH, an independent Airport Authority, which is fully owned by municipal and/or regional and/or national government but with minority private shareholders (E), FIGURE 17. 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.e. Ryanair) and was able to emerge as a secondary airport in a region.
14
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
5.10
Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course
Page | 15
Stockholm’s Multi-Airport System
The airport system, in Stockholm, is an illustration of a case of: •
A set of primary airports, Stolckholm Arlanda, Stockholm-Västerås and Stockholm-Brommam, operated by Swedish Civil Aviation Administration, Luftfartsverket; which is a government-owned; operated by Department or Agency of national government (A).
•
and a secondary airport, Stockholm Skavsta, owned and operated by Airport Concessions and Development Limited (ACDL) – Abertis; fully privately-owned; operated as independent airport authority.(F) FIGURE 18. 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. It was owned and managed by TBI incorporated in the United Kingdom in 1972 (which was acquired by Airport Concessions and Development Limited (ACDL), owned by Spanish companies Abertis Infraestructuras S.A. in 2004, that later was acquired by Abertis. Stockholm Skavsta airport was able to attract low-cost carrier airlines; in 1997 Ryanair started to offer service at Skavsta, and in 2003 Wizzair also entered service.
6. 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. In order to identify the effects of airport privatization on the evolution and the development of multi-airport systems, a subset of 9 cases were analyzed. 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. In Europe, a dominant pattern was observed; privatization of under-utilized airports -especially converted military bases- 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. More generally, 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, 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.
15
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course
Page | 16
References [1] Annual Review of Civil Aviation 2005, published in ICAO Journal. [2] Bonnefoy, P., Hansman R. J. “Emergence of Secondary Airports and Dynamics of Multi Airport Systems . Master Thesis, Cambridge, MA : Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2005. [3] Bonnefoy, P., “Scalability of Air Transportation Systems and Development of Multi-Airport Systems, a worldwide perspective”. PhD Thesis, Cambridge, MA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (unpublished, as of Dec. 07). [4] De Neufville, R., Odoni A. Airport Systems; Planning, Design and Management. Mc Graw Hill, 2003. [5] De Neufville, R., "Management of Multi-Airport Systems: A Development Strategy." Proceedings of Airports 95 Conference. Sydney, Australia, 9-11 Oct. 1995. pp. 1-13. [6] De Neufville, R., “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”. Report Prepared for Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. [7] De Neufville, R., “Airport Privatization Issues for the United States”, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999. [8] GAO Report to the Subcommittee on Aviation, United States General Accounting Office, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, “Airport Privatization; Issues Related to the Sale or Lease of U.S. Commercial Airports”, November 1996. [9] Waitakere City Council, Enterprise Waitakere, Infratil Limited and Te Kaweray a Maki, “Submission to New Zealand Defense Forces on Future Use of Whenuapai Airport Land”, Report. [10] Doug Andrew and Silviu Dochia, “The growing and evolving business of private participation in airports New trends, new actors emerging”, Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) Project Database, a joint initiative of PPIAF and the World Bank’s Infrastructure Economics and Finance Department, Sept. 2006.
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; airport websites, operator websites and annual reports, press releases, reports.
16
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course
Page | 17
7. Appendix: Forms of Ownership and Management of Airports TABLE 1. Multi-airport systems and single airport system in transition included in the case study analysis Region
Airport code
Airport type
Owner
Operator
Form or Ownership & Management
Amsterdam
AMS EIN RTM
Amsterdam Eindhoven Rotterdam
Primary Secondary Secondary
Schiphol Group Schiphol Group Schiphol Group
Schiphol Group Schiphol Group Schiphol Group
Auckland
AKL NZWP*
Auckland Auckland / Whenuapai
Primary Potential Secondary
Auckland International Airport Limited Auckland International Airport Limited F New Zealand Defence Forces New Zealand Defence Forces (Potentially: Infratil)A
Bangkok
BKK DMK
Suvarnabhumi Don Mueang
Primary Primary
Airports of Thailand Airports of Thailand
Barcelona
BCN GRO REU
Barcelona International Girona-Costa Brava Reus
Primary Secondary Secondary
Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aeropuertos Aérea (AENA) Españoles y Navegación Aérea (AENA) D Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aeropuertos Aérea (AENA) Españoles y Navegación Aérea (AENA) D Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aeropuertos Aérea (AENA) Españoles y Navegación Aérea (AENA) D
Belfast
BFS BHD
Belfast International Belfast City
Primary Primary
Abertis Airports / ACDL / TBI (Belfast Abertis International Airports Airport / ACDL /Ltd.) TBI (Belfast International F Airport Ltd.) Ferrovial Ferrovial F
Belo Horizonte
CNF PLU
Belo Horizonte / Tancredo NevesPrimary Pampulha Domestic Primary
Infraero Infraero
Berlin
EDAV* SXF THF TXL
Finow Berlin-Schönefeld Tempelhof Berlin Tegel
Potential Secondary Primary Secondary Primary
Local business interests (acquire option Local in (Option 2013 by by Infratil) Infratil in 2013) Berlin Airports Berlin airports Berlin airports
Bologna
BLQ FRL
Bologna Forli
Primary Secondary
Boston
BOS MHT PVD
Boston Manchester Providence
Primary Secondary Secondary
Mass Port Authority City of Manchester State of Rhode Island
Massport City of Manchester Rhode Island Airport Corp.
D B D
Brussels
BRU CRL
Brussels Charleroi Brussels South
Primary Secondary
Wallonia Government
The Brussels Airport Company Wallonia Government
C B
Budapest
BUD SOB
Budapest Sármellék / Balaton
Primary Secondary
Hungarian state Budapest Airport Rt./HOCHTIEF AirPort GmbH Loc. Gov. of Sármellék and ZalavárCape Clear Aviation Ltd.
Buenos Aires
AEP EZE
Aeroparque Metropolitano JorgePrimary Newbery Buenos Aires / Ministro Pistarini Primary
Chicago
MDW ORD
Chicago Midway Chicago O'Hare
Secondary Primary
City of Chicago City of Chicago
Cochin
COK
Cochin International
Primary
Cochin International Airport Ltd. Cochin International Airport Ltd.
Copenhagen
CPH MMX
Copenhagen Malmo
Primary Secondary
Dallas
DAL DFW
Dallas Dallas Fort Worth
Secondary Primary
Dubai
DXB SHJ
Dubai Sharjah
Primary Secondary
Dusseldorf
CGN DTM DUS NRN
Koln/Bonn Dortmunt Dusseldorf Weeze (Niederrhein)
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
State & Local Public Owners
Flughafen Köln/Bonn GmbH Flughafen Dortmund GmbH Landeshauptstadt (state capital) (50% Flughafen ) and Airport Düsseldorf Partners GmbH GmbH (50%) Flughafen Niederrhein GmbH
D D E C
Edmonton
YEG YXD
Edmonton International Edmonton City Centre
Primary Original
Edmonton Regional Airports Authority Edmonton Airports Edmonton Airports
D D
Frankfurt
FRA HHN MHG
Frankfurt International Hahn Mannheim-city
Primary Secondary Potential Secondary
Glasgow
EDI GLA PIK
Edinburgh Glasgow International Glasgow Prestwick
Primary Primary Secondary
BAA Limited BAA Limited Infratil
Gothenburg
GOT GSE
Gothenburg-Landvetter Gothenburg City
Primary Secondary
Swedish Civil Aviation Administration Swedish (Luftfartsverket) Civil Aviation Administration (Luftfartsverket) A Luftfartsverket, Volvo, Göteborgs kommun Cityflygplatsen, Göteborg AB E
Guangzhou
CAN
Guangzhou Baiyun (New)
Primary
Guangdong Provincial Government Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport Co Ltd E
Hamburg
HAM LBC
Hamburg Lubeck
Primary Secondary
City of Hamburg & Hochtief AirPortFHG GmbH Flughafen Hamburg GmbH Infratil
Airports of Thailand Airports of Thailand
Infraero Infraero
D D D
E E
D D C D D D
Aeroporto Guglielmo Marconi di Bologna S.p.A. E Società Esercizio Aeroporto di Forlì S.p.A. E
Aeropuertos Argentina Aeropuertos Argentina
0 0 C C
The Chicago Airport System Department of Aviation B The Chicago Airport System Department of Aviation B E
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
17
B B A A
Fraport AG Fraport AG Rhein-Neckar Flugplatz GmbH
E E D
BAA Limited BAA Limited Infratil
F F F
D C
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Region
Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course
Airport code
Airport type
Owner
Operator
Page | 18
Form or Ownership & Management
Hong Kong
HKG SZX VIII*
Hong Kong / Chek Lap Kok Shenzhen Bao'an Hong Kong / Kai Tak
Primary Primary Closed Primary
Airport Authority Hong Kong Shenzhen Airport Co., Ltd. Civil Aviation Department
D E 0
Houston
HOU IAH
Houston Hobby Houston International
Secondary Primary
City of Houston City of Houston
City of Houston City of Houston
B B
Hyderabad
HYD HYD2*
Begumpet Rajiv Gandhi International
Primary
Airport Authority of India Airport Authority of India
A GMR, MAHB, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Airports F Authority of India
Istanbul
IST SAW
Ataturk Sabiha Gokcen
Primary Secondary
TAV Airports Group HEAS
F F
Jakarta
CGK HLP
Soekarno-Hatta Halim Perdanakusuma
Primary Potential Secondary
Angkasa Pura II Angkasa Pura II
D D
Johannesburg
HLA JNB
Lanseria Johannesburg
Secondary Primary
Private Airports Company South Africa
F E
Kuala Lumpur
KUL SZB
Kuala Lumpur International Subang
Primary Secondary
Malaysia Airports Holdings BerhadMalaysia (MAHB) Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB) Malaysia Airports Holdings BerhadMalaysia (MAHB) Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB)
Leipzig
AOC LEJ
Leipzig Altenbourg Leipzig Halle
Secondary Primary
County of Delitzsch
London
LCY LGW LHR LTN STN
London City London Gatwick London Heathrow London Luton Stansted
Secondary Primary Primary Secondary Secondary
AIG, GE Capital & Credit Suisse AIG, GE Capital & Credit Suisse BAA Limited BAA Limited BAA Limited BAA Limited ACDL - London Luton Airport Operations ACDL -Ltd London Luton Airport Operations Ltd BAA Limited BAA Limited
Los Angeles
BUR LAX LGB ONT SNA
Burbank Los Angeles Long Beach Ontario Orange county
Secondary Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary
Burbank - Glendale - Pasadena Airport Burbank Authority - Glendale - 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
Madrid
MAD MADQ* TOJ
Madrid Barajas Don Quijote Madrid-Torrejon
Primary
Aena D CR Aeropuertos CR Aeropuertos F Spanish Ministry of Defence and the Spanish Ministry Ministry of Public of Defence Works and the Ministry of Public A Works
Manchester
BLK LBA LPL MAN
Blackpool Leeds Bradford Liverpool Manchester
Secondary Secondary Secondary Primary
MAR Properties Ltd MAR Properties Ltd Leeds Bradford International Airport Leeds Limited Bradford International Airport Limited Liverpool Airport plc (Peel Holdings) Liverpool Airport plc (Peel Holdings) Manchester Airport Group Manchester Airport Group
Manila
CRK MNL SFS
Diosdado Macapagal Ninoy Aquino International Subic Bay
Primary Secondary
Clark International Airport Corporation (CIAC) Manila International Airport Authority Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA)
D D D
Melbourne
AVV MEL
Avalon Melbourne
Secondary Primary
Linfox Australia Pacific Airports
C C
Mexico
CVJ MEX PBC TLC
Cuernavaca Potential Secondary Mexico City Primary Hermanos Serdán Potential Secondary Licenciado Adolfo López Mateos Secondary
Aeropuertos y Servicios Auxiliares (ASA) Grupo Aeroportuario de la Ciudad de México Other Grupo Aeroportuario de la Ciudad de México
E E 0 E
Miami
FLL MIA
Fort Lauderdale Miami
Primary Primary
Broward County Broward County Dade County Aviation DepartmentMiami-Dade County Aviation Department
Milano
BGY LIN MXP
Bergamo - Orio al Serio Milano Linate Milano Malpensa
Secondary Primary Primary
SACBO (Società Aeroporto Civile Bergamo Orio alBSerio) City of Milano (84,56%), Province SEA of Milan - Aeroporti (14,56%), di Milano Privately owned (0,88%)
E SEA - Aeroporti di Milano E
Montreal
YMX YUL
Montreal Mirabel Montreal Trudeau
Potential Secondary Primary
Transport Canada Transport Canada
Aéroports de Montréal Aéroports de Montréal
D D
Moscow
DME SVO UUMO* VKO
Moscow / Domodedovo Moscow / Sheremetyevo Moscow / Ostafievo Moscow / Vnukovo
Primary Primary Potential Secondary Secondary
Russian State
East Line Group International Airport Sheremetyevo GAZPROMAVIA Aviation Company Ltd Vnukovo Airport
C D F D
Mumbai
BOM BOM2*
Chhatrapati Shivaji InternationalPrimary
Nairobi
NBO WIL
Jomo Kenyatta International Wilson
Gazpromavia
Flugplatz Altenburg-Nobitz GmbH Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH
Mumbai International Airport Ltd (MIAL) Mumbai International Airport Ltd (MIAL)
Primary Secondary
Kenya Airports Authority Kenya Airports Authority
18
E E E D F F F F F
F D F D
B B
F
D D
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Region
Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course
Airport code
Airport type
Owner
Operator
Page | 19
Form or Ownership & Management
New Delhi
DEL DEL2*
Indira Gandhi International
Primary
Delhi International Airport LimitedDelhi (DIAL)International Airport Limited (DIAL)
F
New York
EWR ISP JFK LGA
Newark Islip JF Kennedy La Guardia
Primary Secondary Primary Primary
Port Authority of New York and New Port Jersey Authority (PANYNJ) of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) D Town of Islip Town of Islip B Port Authority of New York and New Port Jersey Authority (PANYNJ) of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) D Port Authority of New York and New Port Jersey Authority (PANYNJ) of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) D
Norfolk
ORF PHF
Norfolk International Primary Newport News/Williamsburg International Secondary
Orlando
MCO MLB SFB
Orlando Melbourne Orlando Sanford
Primary Potential Secondary Secondary
Orlando Aviation Authority City of Melbourne Sanford Airport Authority
Osaka
ITM KIX UKB
Osaka Itami Osaka Kansai Kobe
Primary Primary Secondary
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Ministry Transport of Land, & Osaka Infrastructure International andAirport Transport Terminal &A Osaka Co. International Ltd. Airport Terminal Co. Ltd. Kansai International Airport Co., Ltd. E Other B
Oslo
OSL RYG TRF
Oslo Oslo / Moss-Rygge Oslo / Sandefjord-Torp
Primary Potential Secondary Secondary
Rygge sivile lufthavn Sandefjord Lufthavn AS
Paris
BVA CDG ORY
Beauvais Paris Charles de Gaulle Paris Orly
Secondary Primary Primary
Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie (CCI) de l'Oise B It straddles three départements anAéroports de Paris E Orly Airport extends over 15.3 km²Aéroports de Paris E
Florence
FLR PSA
Florence Peretola Galileo Galilei International
Secondary Primary
Rio de Janeiro
GIG SDU
Rio de Janeiro / Galeao Primary Rio de Janeiro / Santos Dumont Primary
Rome
CIA FCO
Ciampino Airport Rome Fiumicino
Saint Louis
BLV STL
San Francisco
Norfolk Airport Authority The Peninsula Airport Commission
D B
Greater Orlando Aviation Authority City of Melbourne TBI / Abertis
B B C
Oslo Lufthavn Rygge sivile lufthavn Sandefjord Lufthavn AS
D F E
Aeroporto di Firenze SOCIETA’ AEROPORTO TOSCANO (S.A.T.)
F F
Infraero and Brazilian Air Force Infraero
Infraero and Brazilian Air Force Infraero and Brazilian Air Force
D D
Secondary Primary
ADR Aeroporti di Roma S.p.A. ADR Aeroporti di Roma S.p.A.
ADR Aeroporti di Roma S.p.A. ADR Aeroporti di Roma S.p.A.
F F
Saint Louis Mid America Saint Louis
Potential Secondary Primary
Saint Clair County & U.S. Air ForceU.S. Air Force City of St. Louis City of St. Louis
A B
OAK SFO SJC
Oakland San Francisco San Jose
Primary Primary Secondary
The Port of Oakland County of San Francisco City of San Jose
The Port of Oakland San Francisco Airports Commission The City of San Jose Airport Commission
D B B
Sao Paulo
CGH GRU VCP
Sao Paulo / Congonhas Sao Paulo/Guarulhos Sao Paulo / Viracopos
Primary Primary Secondary
Infraero Infraero Infraero
Infraero Infraero Infraero
D D D
Seoul
GMP ICN
Gimpo Incheon
Primary Primary
Korea Airports Corporation D Incheon International Airport Corporation Incheon (IIAC) International Airport Corporation (IIAC) D
Shanghai
PVG SHA
Shanghai Pudong Shanghai Hongqiao
Primary Primary
Stolckholm
ARN BMA NYO VST
Stolckholm Stockholm-Bromma Stockholm Skavsta Stockholm-Västerås
Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary
Swedish Civil Aviation Administration Swedish (Luftfartsverket) Civil Aviation Administration (Luftfartsverket) A Swedish Civil Aviation Administration Swedish (Luftfartsverket) Civil Aviation Administration (Luftfartsverket) A Airport Concessions and Development Airport Limited Concessions (ACDL) -and Abertis Development Limited (ACDL) F - Abertis Swedish Civil Aviation Administration Swedish (Luftfartsverket) Civil Aviation Administration (Luftfartsverket) A
Stuttgart
FKB STU
Baden Airpark Stuttgart
Secondary Primary
Baden-Airpark GmbH Baden-Airpark GmbH Baden-Württemberg Land (50 %), Flughafen Stuttgart City Stuttgart (50 %)GmbH
C B
Taipei
TPE TSA
Taipei Taoyuan Taipei Songshan
Primary Primary
Civil Aeronautics Administration Civil Aeronautics Administration Civil Aeronautics Administration Civil Aeronautics Administration
A A
Tampa
PIE SRQ TPA
St Petersburg Sarasota Tampa
Secondary Secondary Primary
County of Pinellas County of Pinellas Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority Hillsborough County Aviation Authority Hillsborough County Aviation Authority
B D D
Tehran
IKA THR
Imam Khomeini Mehrabad International
Secondary Primary
TAV (Tepe-Akfen-Vie) Iran Airports Company
F D
Tel Aviv
SDV TLV
Sde Dov Ben Gurion
Secondary Primary
Israel Airports Authority Israel Airports Authority
D D
Tokyo
HND NRT
Tokyo Haneda Tokyo Narita
Primary Primary
Tokyo Aviation Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure A and Transport (airfield); Japan Airport Termina Narita International Airport Corporation (NAA) E
Shanghai Airport Authority Shanghai Airport Authority
19
E E
Philippe A. Bonnefoy
Region
Project Paper - MIT ESD.224J Planning and Design of Airport Systems Course
Airport code
Airport type
Owner
Operator
Page | 20
Form or Ownership & Management
Toronto
YHM YTZ YYZ
Toronto Hamilton Toronto City Center Toronto Pearson
Secondary Potential Secondary Primary
City of Hamilton Toronto Port Authority Transport Canada
Tradeport International Corp. Toronto Port Authority Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA)
C D D
Vancouver
YVR YXX
Vancouver Abbotsford
Primary Secondary
Transport Canada City of Abbotsford
Vancouver Airport Services (YVRAS) City of Abbotsford
C B
Venice
TSF VCE
Venice Treviso Venice Terresa
Secondary Primary
Aer Tre S.P.A. SAVE S.p.A.
E E
Vienna
BTS VIE
Bratislava Vienna
Secondary Primary
Airport Bratislava, a.s. (BTS) Flughafen Wien AG
D E
Warsaw
EPMO* WAW
Modlin Potential Secondary Warsaw Frederic Chopin AirportPrimary
Other Polish Airports State Enterprise (PPL) Polish Airports State Enterprise (PPL)
0 D
Washington
BWI DCA IAD
Baltimore Washington National Washington Dulles
State of Maryland Maryland Aviation Administration Metropolitan Washington AirportsMetropolitan Authority Washington Airports Authority Metropolitan Washington AirportsMetropolitan Authority Washington Airports Authority
B D D
Primary Primary Primary
20
