Multi-Airport SystemsProf. Richard de Neufville
Airport Planning and Management
Module 24
January 2016
Istanbul Technical University
Air Transportation Management
M.Sc. Program Airport Planning and Management / RdN
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Three Topics
1. What is a Multi-Airport System (MAS)? Definition
Examples
Explanation Frequency competition effect
and special roles/markets
2. Role of LCCs in Development Second Airports Good initial base
Role may decrease as LCC “take over”
from legacy carriers
3. Thoughts about Istanbul
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
What is a
Multi-Airport System?
The set of significant commercial airports
[> 500,000 passengers, excluding military] …
in a metropolitan region
without regard to ownership or political control
Examples: Istanbul: Ataturk and Sabiha Gokçen airports
Boston, Providence, Manchester [different states]
Copenhagen (Denmark), Malmo (Sweden)
Often ex–military [London/Stansted; Frankfurt/Hahn]
In all cities with > 17million annual
originating passengers
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Discussion of Definition
• Our definition contrasts with focus on who
owns the airports (focus of ACI – Airports
Council International, and others)
However, our definition is reality for travelers
and for airlines
They generally do not care who owns
airports [often do not know]
Only care when passport or other issues
complicate use and choice of airport
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Example: Boston
Source: Bonnefoy
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Example: New York
Source: Bonnefoy
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Multi-Airport Systems in US
Source: Bonnefoy
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Example: Frankfurt (Germany)
Source: Bonnefoy
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Dr. Philippe A. Bonnefoy
and
Prof. Richard de Neufville
November 2011
See also:
P. Bonnefoy, R. de Neufville and R. Hansman,
“Evolution and Development of Multi-Airport
Systems: A Worldwide Perspective”
ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering,
Special Issue, Vol. 136, No. 11, pp. 2010-2019 , 2010
Multi-Airport Systems
Database
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©10
Multi-Airport Systems Worldwide(as of 2011)
Legend
Europe
North America
Latin America &
Caribbean
Middle East
Multi-Airport
System
Asia/Pacific
60 multi-airport systems
in 26 countries
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Multi-Airport Systems
in Asia-Pacific
World
Region
Metropolitan
Region
Airport
code
(IATA)
Airport name Airport Type
Passenger traffic
(2009 unless
specified)
Year
Passenger traffic in
the multi-airport
system (MAS)
Multi-airport
system traffic
share
Osaka ITM Osaka/Itami Primary 18,948,000 06 31,645,000 60%
Osaka KIX Osaka/Kansai Primary 10,000,000 31,645,000 32%
Osaka UKB Osaka/Kobe Secondary 2,697,000 06 31,645,000 9%
Bangkok DMK Bangkok/Don Mueang Primary 2,780,000 39,780,000 7%
Bangkok BKK Bangkok/Suvarnabhumi Primary 37,000,000 39,780,000 93%
Hong Kong HKG Hong Kong/Intl Primary 45,400,000 69,800,000 65%
Hong Kong SZX Hong Kong/Shenzen Primary 24,400,000 69,800,000 35%
Melbourne MEL Melbourne/Tullamarine Primary 23,900,000 24,900,000 96%
Melbourne AVV Melbourne/Avalon Secondary 1,000,000 24,900,000 4%
Seoul ICN Seoul/Incheon Primary 30,000,000 43,766,000 69%
Seoul GMP Seoul/Gimpo Primary 13,766,000 07 43,766,000 31%
Beijing PEK Beijing/Capital Int Primary 65,300,000 66,650,000 98%
Beijing NAY Beijing/Nanyuan Secondary 1,350,000 08 66,650,000 2%
Shanghai PVG Shanghai/Pudong Primary 31,900,000 56,900,000 56%
Shanghai SHA Shanghai/Hongqiao Primary 25,000,000 56,900,000 44%
Taipei TPE Taipei/Taoyuan Primary 21,600,000 24,690,000 87%
Taipei TSA Taipei/Songshan Primary 3,090,000 24,690,000 13%
Tokyo HND Tokyo/Haneda Primary 61,800,000 93,900,000 66%
Tokyo NRT Tokyo/Narita Primary 32,100,000 93,900,000 34%
Asi
a/Pa
cifi
c
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Multi-Airport Systems
in Europe
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Multi-Airport Systems
in Europe (cont.)
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Multi-Airport Systems
in Europe (cont.)
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Multi-Airport Systems
in Latin America & Middle East
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Multi-Airport Systems
in North America
Metropolitan
Region
Airport
code
(IATA)
Airport name Airport Type
Passenger traffic
(2009 unless
specified)
Year
Passenger traffic in
the multi-airport
system (MAS)
Multi-airport
system traffic
share
Los Angeles LAX Los Angeles/Intl Primary 55,500,000 75,900,000 73%
Los Angeles SNA Los Angeles/Santa Ana Secondary 8,240,000 75,900,000 11%
Los Angeles ONT Los Angeles/Ontario Secondary 4,710,000 75,900,000 6%
Los Angeles BUR Los Angeles/Burbank Secondary 4,570,000 75,900,000 6%
Los Angeles LGB Los Angeles/Long Beach Secondary 2,880,000 75,900,000 4%
New York JFK New York/Kennedy Primary 45,000,000 101,090,000 45%
New York EWR New York/Newark Primary 32,900,000 101,090,000 33%
New York LGA New York/LaGuardia Primary 21,300,000 101,090,000 21%
New York ISP New York/Islip Secondary 1,890,000 101,090,000 2%
Boston BOS Boston/Logan Primary 24,400,000 32,060,000 76%
Boston PVD Boston/Providence Secondary 4,390,000 32,060,000 14%
Boston MHT Boston/Manchester Secondary 3,270,000 32,060,000 10%
San Francisco SFO San Francisco/Intl Primary 37,000,000 54,210,000 68%
San Francisco OAK San Francisco/Oakland Primary 8,960,000 54,210,000 17%
San Francisco SJC San Francisco/San Jose Secondary 8,250,000 54,210,000 15%
Tampa TPA Tampa/Intl Primary 16,300,000 18,306,000 89%
Tampa SRQ Tampa/Sarasota Secondary 1,290,000 18,306,000 7%
Tampa PIE Tampa/St Petersburg Secondary 716,000 18,306,000 4%
Washington IAD Washington/Dulles Primary 21,200,000 57,800,000 37%
Washington BWI Washington/Baltimore Primary 20,100,000 57,800,000 35%
Washington DCA Washington/Reagan Primary 16,500,000 57,800,000 29%
Chicago ORD Chicago/O'Hare Primary 63,400,000 79,893,000 79%
Chicago MDW Chicago/Midway Secondary 16,300,000 79,893,000 20%
Chicago RFD Chicago/Rockford Cargo 710,000 tons 08
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Multi-Airport Systems
in North America (cont.)
Metropolitan
Region
Airport
code
(IATA)
Airport name Airport Type
Passenger traffic
(2009 unless
specified)
Year
Passenger traffic in
the multi-airport
system (MAS)
Multi-airport
system traffic
share
Cleveland CLE Cleveland/Hopkins Primary 9,160,000 10,610,000 86%
Cleveland CAK Cleveland/Akron-Canton Secondary 1,450,000 10,610,000 14%
Dallas DFW Dallas/Fort Worth Primary 52,800,000 60,161,160 88%
Dallas DAL Dallas/Love Field Secondary 7,360,000 60,161,160 12%
Dallas AFW Dallas/Alliance Cargo 585 000 tons 07
Detroit DTW Detroit/Metropolitan Primary 30,600,000 31,557,000 97%
Detroit FNT Detroit/Bishop Secondary 957,000 31,557,000 3%
Houston IAH Houston/Intercontinental Primary 37,700,000 45,490,000 83%
Houston HOU Houston/Hobby Secondary 7,790,000 45,490,000 17%
Miami MIA Miami/Intl Primary 31,700,000 52,100,000 61%
Miami FLL Miami/Fort Lauderdale Primary 20,400,000 52,100,000 39%
Norfolk ORF Norfolk/Intl Primary 3,420,000 4,384,000 78%
Norfolk PHF Norfolk/News Williamsburg Primary 964,000 4,384,000 22%
Orlando MCO Orlando/Intl Primary 32,400,000 34,240,000 95%
Orlando SFB Orlando/Sanford Secondary 1,840,000 34,240,000 5%
Philadelphia PHL Philadelphia/Intl Primary 29,900,000 30,896,000 97%
Philadelphia ACY Philadelphia/Atlantic City Secondary 996,000 30,896,000 3%
San Diego SAN San Diego/Intl Primary 16,800,000 20,200,000 83%
San Diego TIJ San Diego/Tijuana Secondary 3,400,000 20,200,000 17%
Toronto YYZ Toronto/Pearson Primary 30,300,000 31,619,000 96%
Toronto YHM Toronto/Hamilton Secondary 549,000 08 31,619,000 2%
Toronto YTZ Toronto/Island Secondary 770,000 31,619,000 2%
Vancouver YVR Vancouver/Intl Primary 16,100,000 16,603,000 97%
Vancouver YXX Vancouver/Abbotsford Secondary 503,000 08 16,603,000 3%
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
General Observations
All metropolitan areas with greatest number of
Originating Passengers (eliminating transfers)
feature a MAS
Originating traffic drives MAS formation
Transfer traffic wants to use only 1 airport
Second airports mostly serve a small fraction
of total at airport with most passengers.
This reflects concentration factor …
Until recently, Low-Cost airlines have been
important drivers of new MAS (US, Europe)
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Metropolitan areas with
significant multi-airport systems
de Neufville data base for 2007
Traffic in Millions Metropolitan Region For Region Originating
Multi-Airport System
London 137 52 Yes
New York 106 43 Yes
Tokyo 99 42 Yes
Los Angeles 85 37 Yes
Paris 84 32 Yes
Chicago 100 30 Yes
Hong Kong 67 27 Yes
Miami 59 25 Yes
San Francisco 57 24 Yes
Washington/Baltimore 61 21 Yes
Shanghai 43 19 Yes
Seoul 42 19 Yes
Moscow 37 18 Yes
Osaka 38 17 Yes
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Metropolitan areas with
significant multi-airport systems
de Neufville data base for 2007
Traffic in Millions Metropolitan Region For Region Originating
Multi-Airport System
Bangkok 42 17 Yes
Beijing 49 17
Boston 36 17 Yes
Sao Paulo 35 17 Yes
Milan 37 16 Yes
Manchester (UK) 35 16 Yes, low-cost
Las Vegas 45 16
Taipei 33 15 Yes
Barcelona 35 15 Yes, low-cost
Amsterdam 48 15 Yes, low-cost
Frankfurt 57 15 Yes, low-cost
Mexico City 36 15 Yes
Atlanta 84 15
Jakarta 32 15
Note: Atlanta has ~ 70% transfers, and not enough originating traffic for MAS
Multi-Airport Systems / 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…
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Why mistakes happened
Two main causes:
1.Failure to appreciate traffic concentration
at primary airports – result of frequency
competition
2.Because planners/forecasters used wrong
mental model [‘catchment area’] that
passengers go to nearest airport. While
distance is a factor, passengers go to
where airlines offer services they want
(intercontinental, low-cost, etc.)
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
What drives traffic allocation in
Multi-Airport System?
Airline competition has been primary
S-shaped market share/frequency share
Drives airlines toMatch flights => Use flights for major markets
Concentrate Traffic at primary airports
Frequency Share
Market
Share
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Right model: “Concentration”
not “Catchment Areas”
Concentration is standard urban
phenomenonExamples: financial, jewelry districts
Customers go to where supply is best,
suppliers go where customers are
Customers choose which location
(airport) depending on where they find
what they need -- not just most
convenient facility
Multi-Airport Systems / 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
if and as possible
There appears to be a ‘threshold”…
Currently ~ 17 million originations/yearNote: Threshold rises higher as “average”
aircraft carries more passengers, larger
aircraft or higher load factor
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Major exceptions to rule:
technical or political
Until recently, major exceptions to
concentration rule were:
Technical -- runways at closest, most
convenient airport too shortBelfast, Belo Horizonte, Buenos Aires,
Rio de Janeiro, Taipei
Political -- or military...Dusseldorf/Bonn, Glasgow+Edinburgh,
Moscow
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Effect of Low-Cost Carriers
LCCs have to some extent developed a
“parallel network” of travel
“network choice” (vs. “airport choice”)
may drive traffic in multi-airport systems
Competition between “low cost” and
“legacy” airlines leading to struggle
between “low cost” and “legacy” hubsMiami/International vs. Miami/Ft. Lauderdale
London/Heathrow vs. London/Stansted, etc.
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Role of Low-cost carriers:
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 citiesProvidence/Baltimore not Boston/Washington
‘No’ interlining of bags, tickets
‘Not’ in Reservation systems
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Situation in 2000 to now:
LCC choose different airports
Southwest/AirTran, Allegiant (USA)
Ryanair and EasyJet (UK) require:Cheap properties (compare Oakland and
San Francisco/International;
London/Gatwick and Luton)
Low congestion and delays
Flexible work force
They have found this at aggressive,
‘hungry’ airports -- not major
facilities
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
US/Canada Network of
Low-Cost Carrier Airports
Metropolitan
Region Secondary
Airport Low-Cost
Carrier
Manchester Southwest Boston
Providence Southwest Dallas/Ft. Worth Love Field Southwest Houston Hobby Southwest Los Angeles Long Beach Jet Blue Miami Ft. Lauderdale Southwest San Francisco Oakland Southwest Vancouver Abbotsford Westjet
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Europe Network of
Low-Cost Carrier Airports
Metropolitan Region
Secondary Airport
Low-Cost Carrier
Brussels Charleroi Ryanair
Copenhagen Malmo Ryanair Weeze Ryanair
Düsseldorf Köln / Bonn easyjet
Frankfurt Hahn Ryanair Glasgow Prestwick Ryanair
Luton easyjet London
Stansted Ryanair Manchester Liverpool easyjet Milan Orio al Serio Ryanair Oslo Torp Ryanair Paris Beauvais Ryanair Rome Ciampino Ryanair + easyjet Stockholm Skvasta Ryanair
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Meanwhile in cargo
Similar development– networks of
hubs away from passenger hubs
Fedex and UPS are developing their
distinct networks of cargo airports
Fedex: Memphis, Toronto/Hamilton,
San Francisco/ Oakland, Köln, Dubai,
Guangzhou, etc.
UPS: Louisville, Los Angeles/Ontario.
Chicago/Rockford, Köln (also), etc.
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Future for Istanbul?
Airports both sides of Bosphorus is
good situation, given difficulties in
crossing
Turkish Airlines almost inevitably will
concentrate at primary airport, likeBritish at London/Heathrow, not others
Air France at Paris/de Gaulle, not Orly
Questions Future of LCC’s at new airport??
Would they serve Ataturk???
Multi-Airport Systems / RdN ©
Summary
Multi-airport Systems:A well-established phenomenon
Largely driven by originating passengers
Second airports usually smaller than primary
Serve distinct markets
Choice NOT driven by ‘catchment’ area
LCC’s have driven much growth of
second airportsHowever, their influence may be decreasing,
as they supplant majors in continental markets