Transcript 1.231 Term Project Multiple Airports in Campania Italy
1.231 Term Project Multiple Airports in Campania Italy
Shiro Yamanaka CTL MST ’04
Motivation
Campania regional gov’t hopes to build a second airport near Naples
Prepare for future growth Environmental concerns Safety concerns
Biggest Concern
How do we get airlines to ACTUALLY use it??
Campania Airports
Why Concerned?
Threshold for successful multi-airport systems
Metropolitan Region
London Los Angeles Tokyo New York Paris San Francisco Miami Chicago Washington Osaka Boston Hong Kong Seoul Dallas/Fort Worth Atlanta Las Vegas
Multi-Airport System, 2001
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Traffic, Millions of Passengers Total
112 90 82 95 74 65 55 88 55 36 35 41 37 68 80 37
Originating
41 38 35 34 31 22 21 21 19 17 16 16 15 14 14 14
Source:
de Neufville, and Odoni. Airport Systems. 2002.
For more info, refer to: de Neufville, Richard. “Management of Multi-Airport Systems: A Development Strategy.” Journal of Air Transport Management 2.2 (1995): 99-110. Campania Airports
Why Concerned? (Cont.)
Source:
de Neufville, and Odoni. Airport Systems. 2002.
Metropolitan Region
London Los Angeles Tokyo New York Paris San Francisco Miami Chicago Washington Osaka Boston Hong Kong Seoul Dallas/Fort Worth Atlanta Las Vegas
Brussels Houston Orlando Milan Toronto Shanghai Multi-Airport System, 2001
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Traffic, Millions of Passengers
36 35 41 37 68 80 37
26 Total
112 90 82 95 74 65 55 88 55
Originating
41 38 35 34 31 22 21 21 19 17 16 16 15 14 14 14
13 44 32 25 29 18 13 12 11 11 8
Campania Airports
Why Concerned? (Cont.)
Source:
de Neufville, and Odoni. Airport Systems. 2002.
Metropolitan Region
London Los Angeles Tokyo New York Paris San Francisco Miami Chicago Washington Osaka Boston Hong Kong Seoul Dallas/Fort Worth Atlanta Las Vegas Brussels Houston Orlando Milan Toronto
Dusseldorf/Bonn Sao Paulo Taipei
Shanghai
Moscow St. Louis Berlin Buenos Aires Montreal Rio de Janeiro Belfast Multi-Airport System, 2001
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Traffic, Millions of Passengers Total
112 90 82 95 74 65 55 88 55 36 35 41 37 68 80 37 26 44 32 25 29
22 20 21
18
17 21 12 13 9 4 6 6 4 4 2 Originating
41 38 35 34 31 22 21 21 19 17 16 16 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 11 11
11 10 9
8
8
Political: former capital Technical: runway length Technical: runway length Political/Military Political: mid-America Political: was divided city Technical: runway length
Widely viewed as mistake
Technical: runway length Technical: runway length
Why Concerned? (Cont.)
Source:
de Neufville, and Odoni. Airport Systems. 2002.
Metropolitan Region
London Los Angeles Tokyo New York Paris San Francisco Miami Chicago Washington Osaka Boston Hong Kong Seoul Dallas/Fort Worth Atlanta Las Vegas Brussels Houston Orlando Milan Toronto Dusseldorf/Bonn Sao Paulo Taipei Shanghai Moscow St. Louis Berlin Buenos Aires Montreal Rio de Janeiro Belfast
Naples Multi-Airport System, 2001
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Planning Total
112 90 82 95 74 65 55 88 55 36 35 41 37 68 80 37 26 44 32 25 29 22 20 21 18 17 21 12 13 10
Traffic, Millions of Passengers Originating
41 38 35 34 31 22 21 21 19 17 16 16 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 11 11 11 10 9 8 8 4
4
6 6 4 4 2
2
Political: former capital Technical: runway length Technical: runway length Political/Military Political: mid-America Political: was divided city Technical: runway length Widely viewed as mistake Technical: runway length Technical: runway length
Why Concerned? (Cont.)
Source:
de Neufville, and Odoni. Airport Systems. 2002.
Metropolitan Region
London New York Los Angeles Chicago Tokyo Paris Dallas/Fort Worth San Francisco Miami Washington Houston Hong Kong Osaka Boston Orlando Brussels Milan Dusseldorf/Bonn Toronto Taipei Sao Paolo Shanghai Moscow Buenos Aires Berlin Montreal Rio de Janeiro Belfast
Second
49.5
95.9
11.4
22.1
45.6
52.8
11.7
31.8
47.3
98.0
25.9
15.9
80.4
23.7
3.9
27.5
38.8
37.8
N/A 30.5
34.4
80.0
43.8
79.5
19.8
16.5
43.3
Traffic at Secondary Airports (% of Primary Airport) Third Fourth Fifth
14.7
74.3
9.9
0.1
6.3
2.9
6.9
2.2
1.5
1.9
0.8
26.7
17.3
78.5
8.0
4.0
1.0
6.5
1.3
1.4
33.3
8.3
1.0
Sixth
0.9
Overall Average 41.1
17.8
Why Concerned? (Cont.)
Due to inadequate demand and airlines’ tendency to concentrate service at the primary airport,
planners worry that no one will use the new airport!
Campania Airports
Naples: Other Characteristics
Campania Airports
Naples: Other Characteristics
Campania Airports
Naples: Other Characteristics
Length Width Orientation Material Max Weight
Runway
2.650 m.
45 m.
06 – 24 Asphalt 28,000 Kg. SIWL Source: NACO Report 2002 Campania Airports
Naples: Other Characteristics
M S L
Aircraft Mix
NLA H 0% 20% 65% 15% 0%
Runway Occupancy Time
Take Off Landing 66 s 45 s Source: NACO Report 2002
Distance
Minimum Separation Approach Path Departure Path Campania Airports 5 n. mi 19 n. mi.
4 n. mi.
Naples: Other Characteristics
New airport is almost 30 Km from downtown Naples.
Currently, no good access to the site, but the gov’t plans to build highway and high speed rail link.
Campania Airports Source: NACO Report 2002
Naples: Other Characteristics
Hourly Departure Flights
12 10 8 # Flights 6 4 2 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Time 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
CAPACITA’ ATTUALE E FUTURA E UTILIZZAZIONE DELL’AEROPORTO DI CAPODICHINO Movimenti aerei annui
Capacità 2020
GC 78.000
Capacità Attuale
52.300
DE 67.000
119.000
80.000
Hourly Arrival Flights
12 10 8 # Flights 6 4 2 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Time 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Source: http://www.gesac.it
Most Agg. Frcst: 119,000 mvmt / yr 4.7% annual growth for 18 yrs Least Agg. Frcst: 80,000 mvmt / yr 2.4% annual growth for 18 yrs
2002 2009
Intervallo di possibile saturazione
2019 2020 year
Source: NACO Report 2002 However, 119,000 mvmt / yr represents approx. 20 mvmt / hr assuming 16-hour operation / day.
Campania Airports
Why Concentrate?
S-shape relationship between Frequency Share and Market Share
Observation
Market Share vs Frequency Share "S-Shaped Relationship" 100% Market Share, % - Airline with low frequency share suffers from disproportionably low market share, while airline with larger frequency share tend to capture dominating market share. 0% Frequency Share, % (Reproduced from de Neufville and Odoni. Airport Systems. 2002.) - Thus, airlines tend to concentrate their flights at one airport in order to dominate the market, or at least to prevent competitor from doing so. Campania Airports
Why Concentrate?
Previous studies also used Binomial or Multinomial Logit Models to predict passenger behavior in Multiple Airport Systems Results: Airport access time and flight frequency seems to be the most important attributes (Con) Given more than one reasonably accessible airports, and if they all provide high frequency of service (usually defined to be >= 9 flights per day) to his or her destination, the traveler will most likely choose the one closest (Con) However, if one airport provides noticeably low frequency of service to his or her destination, the traveler is likely to choose the one which provides the higher frequency even if it is farther away. In other words, when there is a large gap between frequencies at competing airports, access time attribute becomes less important. (Mix)
Why Concentrate?
Logit Model Results (Cont.): Lower fares are important for leisure travelers, but business travelers seem to care more about service frequencies when choosing airport. For both types of travelers, the airport access time is important. (Mix) Changes in both airport access time and service frequency influence the behavior of both leisure travelers and business travelers, but the latter seems to be more sensitive to the changes. It is because business travelers have higher value of time than leisure travelers. (Con) Experience with one airport seems to affect the passenger choice of airport as well. Passengers prefer to use the airport they are comfortable with, even if it may be older and more congested. (Con) Campania Airports
Why Concentrate?
Airlines are very much aware of these preferences, and adjust their distribution of flights accordingly!
Campania Airports
What we recommended?
(so far…)
Given the tendency of urban sprawl and high uncertainty about the future of commercial air transport, it is recommended to secure the site for future development. (Is it better to have the option in 2050 or not?) Accept the fact that it might be necessary to close down the old airport.
Instead of letting them competing directly, try to differentiate services: Low fare carrier? (Southwest examples in the US. Rome traffic?) Charter and Cargo?
Different set of destinations?
Minor League network: Gatwick, Orly, Brussels, etc.