Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Philippe A. Bonnefoy Postdoctoral Associate Department of...

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


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


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


4

Outline







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


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


More Complex Multi-Airport System

New York Multi-Airport System

7* Significant airport: an airport that serves more than 500,000 passengers per year


8

Outline







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)


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


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


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


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


14

Outline







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


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


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)


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


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.


“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


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


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)


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.


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”


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


26

Outline







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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


35

Outline







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


37

Illustration of Conflicting Departure and Approach Paths within the NY Metroplex (EWR Arr. 22L - LGA Arr. 13 - TEB Arr. 19)


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”.


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.


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%

)


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)



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


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


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


44

Questions Questions & &

CommentsComments

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Philippe A. Bonnefoy Postdoctoral Associate Department of...

Documents

Transcript of Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Philippe A. Bonnefoy Postdoctoral Associate Department of...