Prof. Tae H. Oum - Welcome to the ATRS Homepage ATRS 2008 24 July (2).pdf · ©Air Transport...
-
Upload
phungthuan -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Prof. Tae H. Oum - Welcome to the ATRS Homepage ATRS 2008 24 July (2).pdf · ©Air Transport...
© Air Transport Research Society 1
Key Results of the 2008 ATRS Global Airport Performance Benchmarking Project
Prof. Tae H. OumThe Air Transport Research Society (ATRS),
www.atrsworld.org
The ATRS Global Airport Benchmarking Task Force Asia Pacific: P. Forsyth, Yeong-Heok Lee, Yuichiro Yoshida, Japhet Law
Europe: Nicole Adler, Jaap de Wit, Hans-Martin Niemeier, Eric PelsNorth America: David Gillen, Tae Oum, Bijan Vasigh, Jia Yan,
Chunyan Yu
© Air Transport Research Society 22
OutlineObjective of the Benchmarking StudyMethodologyKey Results on Efficiency and CostsAirport User Charge ComparisonsEffects of Business Strategies and Ownership formsConclusions
© Air Transport Research Society 33
Objective of the Study
To provide a comprehensive, unbiased comparison of airport performance, including:– Productivity and Efficiency– Unit Cost Competitiveness– Aviation User Charges Levels
© Air Transport Research Society 4
Airports Included in the studyCanada-U.S. 63 airportsEurope 38 airports and
10 airport groupsAsian Airport 24 airports
4 airport groupsAustralia and NZ 9 airports
-------------------------------------------------------------Total 134 airports and
14 airport groups
***Need your help in order to include more airports; Can you help us with the data?
© Air Transport Research Society 55
Data Sources: 2001-06 (2007 data for airport user charges)
Airport’s Annual Reports, Financial Statements, and direct data requests;US FAA, DOT statistics;Association of European Airlines (AEA) StatisticsICAO Digest of Statistics:o annual and monthly traffic datao annual financial data -- not for all airports
ACI; IATAo annual traffic statistics; Capacity informationo general information surveys (Asia Pacific and Europe)
occasional and not complete IMF and World Bank – various price indices including GDP deflators for service sectors and PPP
© Air Transport Research Society 66
Characteristics of
Sample Airports
© Air Transport Research Society 7
Passenger Traffic - North American
7
Figure 3.4.1a: Passenger Traffic (2002/04/06)North America
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
ATL
OR
DLA
XD
FWD
EN
LAS
JFK
PH
XIA
HM
SP
DTW
MC
OS
FOE
WR
PH
LM
IAY
YZ
SE
AC
LTIAD
BO
SLG
AC
VG
FLL
SLCBW
IH
NL
TPA
MD
WD
CA
SA
NY
VR
OA
KS
TLP
DX
CLE
YU
LM
EM
SJCPIT
YY
CS
MF
MC
IS
NA
RD
UB
NA
IND
MS
YA
US
SA
TM
KE
ON
TP
BI
AB
QJA
XR
NO
YE
GY
OW
SD
FY
HZ
YW
GA
LBRIC
Mea
Mill
ions
2006 2004 2002
© Air Transport Research Society 8
Passenger Traffic –Asia Pacific
8
3.4.1c: Passenger Traffic (2002/04/06) - Asia Pacific
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
PE
KH
KB
KK
SIN
NR
TC
GS
YD
DX
BIC
NP
VG
CA
NK
UL
TPE
ME
LS
HA
BO
SZX
MN
LK
IXD
EL
BN
ES
EL
AK
LX
MN
PE
RH
AK
AD
LC
HM
FMWL
HK
TC
NP
EN
CN
XH
DY
Mea
Mill
ions
2006 2004 2002
© Air Transport Research Society 9
Passenger Traffic - Europe
9
Figure 3.4.1b: Passenger Traffic (2002/04/06) - Europe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
LHR
CD
GFR
AA
MS
MA
DLG
WM
UC
FCO
BCN
OR
YS
TNM
AN
MX
PIS
TD
UB
CPHZR
HO
SLAR
NV
IEBR
UD
US
ATHLI
SH
ELH
AMTXL
PRG
GV
AC
GN
BH
XED
IBU
DW
AC
IAM
LARIX
SO
FK
EFB
TSTLL
LJU
KBPMea
M illion s
2006 2004 2002
© Air Transport Research Society 10
Concession Revenue Shares – N. America
Concession Revenue Shares - North America (2006)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
%
© Air Transport Research Society 11
Concession Revenue Shares – Asia-Pacific
Concession Revenue Shares - Asia Pacific (2006)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
CH
CM
EL
AK
LW
LGS
YD
AD
LP
ER
BN
EC
NS
Mea
n
HK
GIC
NA
AI
SIN
SE
LP
EK
TPE
CN
XA
OT
MAH
BP
TII
HA
KC
AN
Mea
n
%
© Air Transport Research Society 12
Concession Revenue Shares – Europe
Concession Revenue Share - Europe (2006)
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
STN
LGW
GV
AE
DI
CPH
HA
MLH
RA
THM
AN
AM
SZR
HBR
UM
LAD
US
VIE
Mea
n
BA
AFi
navi
aA
DR
AN
AS
chip
hA
DP
Frap
ort
LFV
AE
NA
PP
LM
ean
%
Share of Non-Aeronautical Revenue
YYZ
Figure S-5: Non-Aeronautical Revenue Share (2006)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
North America
Europe
© Air Transport Research Society 1414
Methodology: EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT
INDEX NUMBER APPROACH:Need to go beyond Partial Factor Productivity (PFP) such as labor productivity ⇒Variable Factor Productivity (VFP)⇒Total Factor Productivity (TFP: capital input accounting problem)⇒ Unit Cost Competitiveness Index = Combines VFP and Input
Price Index
Complementary approaches we are exploring:Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)Econometric Cost Function Approach including Stochastic
Frontier Cost Function
© Air Transport Research Society 1515
Airport Productivity Index
Outputs Inputs
• Aircraft movement• Passengers• (Cargo)• Other revenues
including concessions
• Labour• Other non-capital (soft
cost) inputs• Runways• Terminals• Gates
© Air Transport Research Society 1616
Potential Reasons for the Measured Productivity (gross VFP) Differentials
Factors Beyond Managerial Control:– Airport size (Scale of aggregate output)– Average aircraft size using the airport– Share of international traffic– Share of air cargo traffic– Extent of capacity shortage - congestion delay– Connecting/transfer ratio
We compute ‘residual (net)’ productivity measures after removing effects of these Factors
© Air Transport Research Society 17
Residual (Net) Variable Factor Productivity: Overall Efficiency Measure – North AmericaFigure S-4a, Residual Variable Factor Productivity (2006), North America
YVR = 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
ATL
RD
UM
SPTP
AR
NO
MC
OPB
IR
ICYV
RFL
LH
NL
BNA
MKE
PDX
YYC
YOW
LAS
LGA
CLT
SAT
JAX
SDF
SNA
ABQ
DC
AIA
HO
AKBO
SIN
DIA
DSE
AM
CI
PHX
AUS
YUL
DEN
SLC
DTW SA
NM
EMM
DW
CVG SF
OYE
GYW
GEW
RYH
ZSJ
CO
RD
JFK
SMF
CLE
ALB
PHL
DFW LA
XM
SY STL
PIT
BWI
ON
TM
IA
Mea
n
YVR
=1.0
YYZ asked us not to include it in efficiency analysis.
© Air Transport Research Society 18
Residual (Net) Variable Factor Productivity: Overall Efficiency Measure –Asia Pacific
18
Figure S-4c Residual Variable Factor Productivity (2006) - Asia PacificHKG=1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
BNE
SYD
AKL
MEL
CH
C
ADL
PER
CN
S
WLG
Mea
n
HKG SI
N
ICN
AOT
CAN HAK
PEK
XMN
MFM
MAH
B
KIX
SZX
NR
T
AAI
PVG
Mea
n
HKG
=1.0
© Air Transport Research Society 19
Residual (Net) Variable Factor Productivity: Overall Efficiency Measure – Europe
Figure S-4b Residual Variable Factor Productivity (2006)- EuropeCPH=1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
CPH
OSL
AMS
GVA AT
HBR
UIS
TM
LAZR
HST
ND
US
EDI
BHX
FCO
HAM
MAN
LGW
WAW VI
ER
IXLH
RPR
GC
GN
MU
CM
ean
Schi
phol
ANA
ADR
Berli
nD
AAAD
PFi
navi
aBA
ALF
VPP
LAE
NA
Frap
ort
Mea
n
CPH
= 1.
0
© Air Transport Research Society 20
Global Comparison – Net VFP
Figure S-4, Residual Variable Factor Productivity (2006)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
North America
EuropeAsia Pacific
© Air Transport Research Society 21
Cost Competitiveness –North America (= net VFP + input price effect)
21
Figure 5.4a Cost Competitiveness 2006 - North AmericaYVR=0.0
ATL
RD
UTP
AR
ICM
CO
CLT
HN
LPB
ISA
TR
NO
MSP
LAS
FLL
BNA
SDF
ABQ
YVR
JAX
YYC
MKE
IND
PDX
AUS
MC
ISL
CSN
APH
XSM
FD
CA
MSY
YUL
YOW
MEM IAH
OAK
ALB
SEA
CLE
CVG
BOS
SAN
DTW ST
LD
ENO
RD
PHL
YEG
YHZ
SJC
PIT
MD
WIA
DD
FW LAX
BWI
YWG
ON
TSF
OLG
AM
IAJF
KEW
RM
ean
-1.000
-0.800
-0.600
-0.400
-0.200
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
YYZ asked not to be included in the analysis.
© Air Transport Research Society 22
Cost Competitiveness–Asia Pacific (= Net VFP plus Input Price (how low input prices are)
22
Figure 5.4c Cost Competitiveness (2006) - Asia PacificHKG=0.0
BN
E
AK
L
SY
D
CH
C
ME
L
CN
S
ADL
WLG
PE
R
mea
n
HA
K
XMN
AO
T
PEK
CAN
SZX
MA
HB
HKG
PVG
ICN
SIN
MFM
KIX
NR
T
mea
n
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
© Air Transport Research Society 23
Cost Competitiveness –Europe (= Net VFP plus Input Price (how low input prices are)
23
Figure 5.4b Cost Competitiveness 2006 - EuropeCPH =0.0
MLA
ATH
RIX
IST
PRG
CPH
AMS
FCO
EDI
BR
UO
SL
DU
SM
ANLG
WG
VA
WAW
BH
XV
IELH
RZR
HC
GN
MU
CH
AM
mea
n
PPL
AN
AS
chip
hol
ADR
Ber
linB
AA
Fina
via
DA
AA
DP
Frap
ort
LFV
AE
NA
Mea
n
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
© Air Transport Research Society 2424
Top PerformersTop Operating Efficiency Performers based on Net
VFP (Labor + Soft cost inputs only):Canada/US: Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham, Minneapolis Europe: Copenhagen, Oslo, AmsterdamAsia-Pacific: Hong Kong, Singapore, Seoul-Incheon Oceania: Brisbane, Sydney, Auckland
Top Performers Based on Unit Cost Competitiveness IndexCanada/US: Atlanta, Tampa, Raleigh-Durham, Europe: Riga, Athens, Malta, IstanbulAsia: Haikou, Xiamen, AOTOceania: Brisbane, Auckland
© Air Transport Research Society 2525
OutlineObjective of the Benchmarking StudyAirports IncludedMethodologyKey Results on Efficiency and Costs2007-Airport User Charges ComparisonConclusions
© Air Transport Research Society 26
Figure S-8b Landing Charges for Airbus 320, 2007North America
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
ATL
CLT
SLC
TPA
FLL
PBI
SAT
RIC
LAS
MC
IM
EMR
DU
SDF
OAK
SNA
SJC
PHL
MD
WR
NO
HN
LAL
BM
CO
IND
ABQ
CVG SA
NIA
DYV
R*
MSP
DC
API
TD
TW SEA
YYC
*D
ENLA
XYO
W*
MIA
PDX
YHZ*
AUS
YEG
*YW
G*
IAH
OR
DSF
OYU
L*YM
X*BO
SD
FW STL
JFK*
EWR
*LG
AYY
Z*
US$
© Air Transport Research Society 27
Figure S-8b Landing Charges for Airbus 320, 2007Asia Pacific
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800KU
LD
XBC
NX
CEI
HD
YH
KTBK
KAD
LC
GK
MAA DEL
BOM
MN
LSI
NC
NS
TPE
SEL
ICN
HKG
MFM PE
RPE
KPV
GC
ANXM
NSH
AH
AK SZX
NR
TKI
XW
LG
US$
© Air Transport Research Society 28
Figure S-8b Landing Charges for Airbus 320, 2007Europe
0200400600800
10001200140016001800
TXL
FRA
LGW
-off-
peak
STN
-off
peak
MU
CM
LAG
VA FCO
MXP CIA LIS
ZRH
STN
-pea
kAR
ND
US
HEL
HAM KE
FC
DG
OR
YM
AN-o
ffpea
kPR
GVI
EED
IIS
TM
AD BCN
KBP
ATH
RIX
SOF
AMS
LGW
-pea
kC
PHD
UB
BUD
CG
NM
AN-p
eak
LHR
TLL
WAW OSL
BTS
LJU
BHX
BRU
US$
© Air Transport Research Society 29
2007: A320 Landing Fees – Global Comparison
NRTKIX
Figure S-8b Landing Charges for Airbus 320, 2007
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
US$
EuropeNorth AmericaAsia Pacific
© Air Transport Research Society 30
Figure S-8a Landing Charges for Boeing 747, 2007North America
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
US$
© Air Transport Research Society 31
© Air Transport Research Society (ATRS)
Figure S-8a Landing Charges for Boeing 747, 2007Asia Pacific
010002000
3000400050006000
70008000
US$
© Air Transport Research Society 32
Figure S-8a Landing Charges for Boeing 747, 2007Europe
010002000300040005000600070008000
US$
Global Comparison: 2007 B747 Landing fee
NRTKIX
Figure S-8a Landing Charges for Boeing 747, 2007
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
US$
Europe
© Air Transport Research Society 3434
Summary – Landing/Takeoff Charges
Global Results: Airports charging highest aircraft movement charges:– Boeing 747: Toronto, Kansai, Birmingham– Airbus 320: Toronto, Brussels, Wellington
North American Results (both B747 and A320):– Highest charges: Toronto, LaGuardia, Newark,
JFK– Lowest aircraft movement charges: Atlanta,
Charlotte, Tampa, Salt Lake City
© Air Transport Research Society 3535
Summary – Landing Charges (cont’d)
Asia-Pacific Results:– Highest charges for B747: Kansai, Narita,
major Chinese airports, Incheon; – Highest charges for A320: Kansai, Narita,
Wellington, Major Chinese airports
– Lowest charges: Kuala Lumpur, Thailand airports; Dubai; Adelaide, Jakarta Soekarno-Hatta, Singapore
© Air Transport Research Society 3636
Summary – Landing Charges (cont’d)
European Results:– Highest charges for B747: Brimingham;
Ljubljana, Bratislava, Tallinn, Warsaw– Highest charges for A320: Brussels,
Ljubljana, Bratislava, Warsaw
– Lowest charge for B747: Gatwick-offpeak; Manchester-offpeak; Stansted; Berlin Tegal;
– Lowest charges for A320: Berlin Tegal, Frankfurt, Gatwick-offpeak, Stansted Off Peak,
© Air Transport Research Society 3737
OutlineObjective of the Benchmarking StudyAirports IncludedMethodologyKey Results on Efficiency and CostsAirport User Charge ComparisonsEffects of Business Strategies and
Ownership Forms
© Air Transport Research Society 3838
Results on Business StrategiesDiversification of Revenue Source is good:– Airports with larger share of non-aeronautical
revenue achieves higher Net VFP (efficiency)
Outsourcing:– Airports who contract out their terminal
operations to outside operator achieve higher efficiency
– Outsourcing entire terminal operations to expert firms improve efficiency
© Air Transport Research Society 3939
Empirical Results on Ownership Forms
Majority private sector ownership is bestPPP with with a government majority is worse than even 100% government owned arm length corporation.On Average, Independent Airport Authorityare better performer than City Owned AirportsU.S. airports operated by port authorities are worst efficiency performers.Cities with multiple airports (e.g. New York):Privatization of one or more airports would improve the efficiency of all airports
© Air Transport Research Society 4040
Please Note
The ATRS Global Airport Performance Benchmarking Report : 3 volumes, over 400 pages with valuable data and analysisCan be purchased by visiting
www.atrsworld.org
© Air Transport Research Society 41
Thank You