1

Allocation of Runway Construction Costs to Users based onRequired Runway Length

Frederico Morgado

AIRDEV - Lisbon, 19th April 2012

2012

2

Motivation

� Assign Runway construction costs based on a rationale

of user-pays

� Aircraft should pay more if they require longer or more

expensive (per unit area) runways

� Build a charge to be seen as right of usage – to be

added to normal landing fee

• Previous authors on this issue:

▫ Levine (1969) – charges should reflect airfield requirements

▫ Mohring (1976) – heavier vehicles should pay for extra costs

▫ Littlechild and Thomson (1977) – the cost of a runway depends

essentially on the largest aircraft

▫ Button (2010) – club systems with users paying right of usage

3

Methodology

• Airports considered with given Runway Length (RL)

(case of LIS, OPO, FAO)

• Check aircraft Required Runway Length (RRL )

• Check adequacy of RL to RRL’s

• Room for lump sums paid by the government if:

– Reduced number of yearly landings

– RL too long compared to aircraft requirement (RL>>>RRL)

• Build charge based on:

– Required Runway Length (RRL )

– Required Runway strength

4

Selected airports

Airport and

RunwayRunway Length

Runway

Width

Lisbon, 03/21 3805 m 45 m

Lisbon, 17/35 2400 m 45 m

Porto, 17/35 3480 m 45 m

Faro, 10/28 2490 m 45 m

5

Aircraft movements

Aircraft type LisbonLisbon

%Porto

Porto

%Faro

Faro

%A319 40.174 29,5% 9.404 17,4% 7.982 18,1%

A320 37.231 27,3% 7.282 13,5% 4.656 10,6%A321 9.141 6,7% 1.560 2,9% 3.924 8,9%

A310 3.236 2,4% 508 0,9% (n/a) (n/a)

A330-200 6.589 4,8% 798 1,5% (n/a) (n/a)

A340-300 1.837 1,3% (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

BAe-146-200 (n/a) (n/a) 472 0,9% (n/a) (n/a)

Embraer ERJ-145 8.377 6,1% 7.484 13,8% (n/a) (n/a)

Embraer ERJ-190 (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) 346 0,8%

Fokker 100 5.863 4,3% 6.622 12,2% (n/a) (n/a)

B737-300 (-3B2) 1.824 1,3% (n/a) (n/a) 2.486 5,6%

B737-400 (-3C1) 972 0,7% (n/a) (n/a) 1.500 3,4%

B737-700 (n/a) (n/a) 808 1,5% 3.166 7,2%B737-800 2.410 1,8% 9.663 17,9% 9.046 20,6%

B757-200 3.287 2,4% 830 1,5% 1.698 3,9%B767-200 (ER) (n/a) (n/a) 1.014 1,9% (n/a) (n/a)

Beechcraft 1900 (D) 3.805 2,8% (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

Citation V (XLS) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) 348 0,8%

CRJ 200 (ER) 752 0,6% (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

CRJ 900 (n/a) (n/a) 2.659 4,9% (n/a) (n/a)

Dornier 228 996 0,7% (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

Other piston&heli (n/a) (n/a) 990 1,8% 4.497 10,2%

Others 9.793 7,2% 4.013 7,4% 4.363 9,9%

TOTAL 136.287 100,0% 54.107 100,0% 44.012 100,0%

6

Aircraft RRL (Required Runway Length)

Example for B737-300

• MTOW for basic

configuration

• Sea level

• Standard day

• Zero wind

7

Required vs. Existing R.Lenghts (RRL/RL)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

125%

150%RRL % Lisbon 03/21 RRL % Lisbon 17/35

RRL % Porto RRL % Faro

Same aircraft,

different engines

RL too

short

8

How to measure adequacy of RL to RRL?

������ �∑ �� ��� �

���� � �� ������

Adequacy in

terms of length

alone

Adequacy in terms

of length and

frequency

� Technical efficiency of infrastructure

� Most common definition:

ε(technical) = Movements performed / Capacity

� New definitions related to R.Length:

������ ���������

� � 1�

∑ �� ��� ����∑ �������

9

Technical efficiency based on R.Length

99.65% of

movements

0.35% of

movements

Frequency

of runway

use

Adequacy of RL

to aircraft RRL

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Lisbon 17/35 Lisbon 03/21 Porto Faro

ε(technical) εRL(1) εRL(2)

Frequency of use

by aircraft with

high RRL/RL

10

Allocation of construction costs by aircraft types

� Runway Cost = f(RRL; width;pavement strength)

� Two situations:ACN: Aircraft Classification Number

11

RRL and ACN for aircraft in Lisbon (2009)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

AC

N

Lisbon, 2009

Increasing RRL

Higher RRL but

lower cost per

sqm

12

Allocation of construction costs by aircraft types (cont)

Paid by all

Paid by 2+3

Paid by 2

Paid by 2+3

Paid by 2

Paid by 3���� �����

�� �� �!

���! � ���� ���! "������ �!

���� � ���! ���� " ���!

��

ALL

2+3

2

Yearly Costs of

Construction

13

Allocation of construction costs by aircraft types (cont)

Length of parcel

Runway width

Yearly Cost of

Constr (per sqm)

����# � ���$%�∑ ���&���

�'# (

���)# � ��� )*� # ���$%) "���$%)*�

∑ ���&��)

�'# (

���� � + ����#,

#��

For each

Parcel:

For each aircraft:

14

Example for Lisbon (2009) , with YCC=1M €

For lowest ACN

General aviation Commercial

Typical runway length2,000 to 4,000 ft

(610 to 1,220 m)

8,000 to 13,000 ft

(2,438 to 3,962 m)

Typical width 75 ft (22.9m) 100 ft (30.5m)

Pavement depth

(total/asphalt

concrete/base)

12/4/8 in

(304.8/101.6/203.2

mm)

20/4/16 in

(508.0/101.6/406.4

mm)

Typical linear cost US$ 1,200 / linear foot US$ 1,200 / linear foot

Typical cost per unit

area16 US$/ft2 (121 €/m2) 20 US$/ft2 (151 €/m2)

Source: Florida Department of Transportation, ‘Airport Costs’ (April 15, 2011).

For highestACNLINEAR

then SCALED

15

Example for Lisbon – construction cost for each aircraft type

0

10.000.000

20.000.000

30.000.000

Construction cost for individual aircraft types (Lisbon)

Construction cost = 121 to 151 € /m2Total cost = 25.85 M€

Total length = 3805m

16

Example for Lisbon (2009) , with YCC=1M €

Aircraft type

RRL

(m) ACN

Cost

(€)/m2

Parcel

No.

Parcel

length

(m)

No. of

Landings

Landing fee (€)

(per 1M €)

Total

Landing

fees (€)

Beechcraft 1900 (D) 1162 4 6,09 2 562 1.903 5,06 9.617

Dornier 228 600 5 6,11 1 600 498 2,61 1.300

CRJ 200 (ER) 1768 13 6,30 4 468 376 9,14 3.436

Embraer ERJ-145 2270 13 6,30 11 20 4.189 13,57 56.844

Fokker 100 1850 26 6,61 5 82 2.932 10,24 30.025

A319 1300 32 6,75 3 138 20.087 3,67 73.799

B737-300 (-3B2) 2175 37 6,87 8 40 912 10,85 9.898

B757-200 (-535-E4B) 1950 38 6,89 6 100 411 9,02 3.704

B737-400 (-3C1) 2135 38 6,89 7 185 486 10,58 5.143

B757-200 (-535E4) 2250 38 6,89 10 50 411 12,08 4.964

B757-200 (PW2040) 2280 38 6,89 12 10 411 12,71 5.224

B757-200 (PW2037) 2900 38 6,89 16 500 411 51,34 21.095

A320 2200 39 6,92 9 25 18.616 11,22 208.905

B737-800 2350 46 7,08 14 50 1.205 16,93 20.405

A310 2400 50 7,18 15 50 1.618 20,50 33.174

A321 2300 52 7,22 13 20 4.571 16,29 74.434

A330-200 3050 67 7,58 17 150 3.295 79,52 261.983

A340-300 3350 68 7,60 18 300 919 191,72 176.098

19 455

TOTAL 3.805 1.000.047

Scaled for 1M€

17

0

2

4

6

8

(€)

Parcel 1, length 600m

Example for parcels calculation - Lisbon (2009)

00,5

11,5

22,5

3

(€)

Parcel 7, length 185 m

0

5

10

15

(€)

Parcel 17, length 150m

18

Conclusion

� Airport charges may be linked to aircraft types in

terms of requirements for:

� Runway Length (related to RRL)

� Runway strength (related to ACN)

� Such charges are to cover runway construction costs

� Such charges may be calculated based on expected

number of landings per aircraft type

� Technical efficiency may be related to RL and RRL’s to

provide indication on requirement of lump sums from

other sources

19

Thank you

Frederico MorgadoUniversidade do Algarve – Portugal

fmorgado@ualg.pt

2012

20

RRL and ACN for aircraft in Lisbon (2009)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 20 40 60 80

RR

L (m

ete

rs)

ACN

Increasing cost per sqm