Airport Systems Planning RdN Multi-Airport Systems in Era of Low-Cost Carriers  Dr. Richard de Neufville Professor of Engineering Systems and of Civil and Environmental Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Airport Systems Planning RdN Theme “Low cost” airlines are developing a “parallel network” of travel “network choice” (rather than “airport choice”) may determine traffic in multi-airport systems Competition between “low cost” and “legacy” airlines leading to struggle between “low cost” and “legacy” hubs  Boston/Logan vs. Boston/Providence, etc., etc.

Airport Systems Planning RdN What is a Multi-Airport System? the significant airports serving transport in a metropolitan region, without regard to ownership or political control  Ex: Boston, Providence, Manchester  Ex: Copenhagen (Denmark), Malmo (Sweden) Discussion  This is reality for travelers  Contrasts with focus on ownership (as used by ACI – Airports Council International, and others)

Airport Systems Planning RdN Discussion of Tables 1 – 4 derived from de Neufville database Table 1: Except for very crowded situations, secondary airports are a small fraction of total at airport with most passengers.  This reflects concentration factor … Table 2: Catalog of Major Secondary Airports Table 3: MAS ranked by Estimated Number of Originating Passengers, eliminating transfers  This focuses on a Major Driver of MAS Table 4: Potential MAS, mostly driven by Low-Cost airlines.  New ones constantly emerging…

Airport Systems Planning RdN Planning Issue Many ‘mistakes’ in planning multi- airport systems  Washington/Dulles – planned as major DC airport, but had only ~ 3 MAP for 20 years  London/Stansted – similar story – only developed with Ryanair hub around 2002  Osaka/Kansai – Osaka/Itami did not close  Montreal/Mirabel – huge airfield, now “closed” to passenger traffic  Et cetera…

Airport Systems Planning RdN Why mistakes happened Failure to appreciate traffic concentration at primary airports … Because planners/forecasters using wrong mental model

Airport Systems Planning RdN What drives traffic allocation in Multi-Airport System? Airline competition has been primary S-shaped market share/frequency share Drives airlines to  Match flights => Allocate flights to major markets  Concentrate Traffic at primary airports Frequency Share Market Share

Airport Systems Planning RdN Right model: “Concentration” not “Catchment Areas” Concentration is standard urban phenomenon  e.g.: financial, jewelry, etc. districts Driven by what suppliers offer Customers choose which location (airport) depending on where they find what they need -- not just most convenient facility

Airport Systems Planning RdN “Concentration” persists -- until high level of local traffic When local originating traffic high… More flights add little at major airports Airlines place flights at second airports There appears to be a ‘threshold”… Currently ~ 16 million originations/year Note: higher as “average” aircraft carries more passengers, larger aircraft or higher load factor

Airport Systems Planning RdN New Reality: No-frill airlines setting up “parallel network” Low-cost carriers “parallel” majors Major fare distinctions Ticket distribution separate  Internet direct to users, ‘no’ travel agents Parallel service between cities  Providence/Baltimore not Boston/Washington ‘No’ interlining of bags, tickets ‘Not’ in Reservation systems

Airport Systems Planning RdN Metropolitan areas with significant multi-airport systems de Neufville data base for 2007

Airport Systems Planning RdN Metropolitan areas with significant multi-airport systems de Neufville data base for 2007

Airport Systems Planning RdN Major exceptions to rule: technical or political Until recently, major exceptions to concentration rule were: Technical -- runways too short  Belfast, Belo Horizonte, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Taipei Political -- or military...  Berlin, Dusseldorf/Bonn, Glasgow, Moscow

Airport Systems Planning RdN New Reality: No-frills choose different airports Southwest, Westjet (Canada), Ryanair and Easyjet (UK) require:  Cheap properties, no Taj Mahals (compare San Francisco/International and Oakland; London/Gatwick and Luton)  Low congestion and delays  Flexible work force They find this at aggressive, ‘hungry’ airports -- not in major facilities

Airport Systems Planning RdN New Reality: US/Canada Network of Low-Cost Carrier Airports

Airport Systems Planning RdN New Reality: Europe Network of Low-Cost Carrier Airports

Airport Systems Planning RdN Multi-Airport Systems in Brazil Source: Infraero; de Neufville database 2007

Airport Systems Planning RdN Importance of Parallel Network of close-in Brazilian airports

Airport Systems Planning RdN Implications for modelling future of second airports A new driver for second airports...  Low-cost carriers often ‘not’ competing at big airports  Frequency competition does not drive growth pattern of secondary airports Competition between networks may be primary… … followed by catchment area model of airport choice

Airport Systems Planning RdN Implications for future of second airports No-frills airlines are becoming ‘major’  Southwest 2nd largest airline in world (pax)  Market Cap ~ 10 billion $ > any other pax airline  Ryanair Market Cap greater than British Airways Majors are shrinking (UAL, USAir, etc.) Implies that Primary airports will lose significant traffic to second airports This is already happening!!!

Airport Systems Planning RdN Southwest entry in Boston market grew second airports Source: Louis Berger, New England Regional Aviation System Plan materials

Airport Systems Planning RdN Market Share of Boston/Logan is in decline Source: Louis Berger New England Regional Aviation System Plan The 2004 Share is about 57% (SH&E, ’05)

Airport Systems Planning RdN Summary A new, parallel air transport network is emerging to compete with majors This low-cost carrier network may become a major feature of industry It implies growth and importance of low-cost second airports throughout North America, Europe -- and perhaps elsewhere

Airport Systems Planning RdN Supplemental Comment Meanwhile, a similar development is taking place in air cargo Fedex and UPS are developing their own networks of cargo airports Fedex: Memphis, Toronto/Hamilton, San Francisco/ Oakland, etc. UPS: Louisville, Los Angeles/Ontario. Chicago/Rockford, etc.