Efficiency in Italian Airports Management: The Implications for Regulation

Paolo Malighetti

+

Gianmaria Martini

+

Renato Redondi

§

and Stefano Paleari

+ + University of Bergamo § University of Brescia

Workshop

HERMES

2007

Quale futuro per il settore del trasporto aereo?

Plan

•

The problem

•

Past studies

•

Performance measurement methods (DEA)

•

Variables used

•

Results

•

Price regulation

•

Conclusions

Airports – Hermes 2007

2

The problem

•

Air transportation industry has shown important developments during the last decades

•

Regulation has

– opened the market to new comers; – increased the effective competition among incumbent firms; – adopted more efficient regulation schemes to compute airports' fares. •

Players (airlines)

– New business models have deeply renewed the competitive arena, especially with the appearance and progressive strengthening of the low cost carries.

Airports – Hermes 2007

3

The problem

•

In this new context both the airports management and pricing play a crucial role.

•

Pricing may start a phase of competition between airports.

– Within a given area both passengers and freights show a sufficiently high propensity to move – An airport has the chance, by charging lower fares than its local competitors, to modify the carriers’ decisions and to increase the number of connections supplied

Airports – Hermes 2007

4

The problem

• Airport’s management should have an incentive to improve their efficiency, and, through it, to increase both their profit margins and market shares. • Efficiency target may also be induced by an effective regulation • The latter needs a

severe assessment

management. about the efficiency in airport’s • These issues are particularly relevant for the Italian air transportation market, which represents the fourth one at an European level, and where a price cap regulation “has recently been introduced” • The goal of this paper: – to assess the current efficiency in management of Italian airports – to present a method to compute the efficiency targets for the regulation period, so that a severe assessment may be possible.

Airports – Hermes 2007

5

Past studies

• • • • • • • • • The efficiency in the airports' management has been investigated by several contributions. US – Gillen and Lall [1997], – Sarkis and Talluri [2004] – Oum and Yu [2004] EU – Pels et al. [2003] UK – Parker [1999] Japan – Yoshida [2004] – Yoshida and Fujimoto [2004] Australia – Hooper and Hensher [1997] – Abbott and Wu [2002] Brazil – Pacheco and Fernandes [2003] Spain – Martin--Cejas [2005] To the best of our knowledge this paper is the first attempt to apply the DEA analysis to Italian airports, using inputs data.

Airports – Hermes 2007

6

Performance measurement methods

• Price cap regulation involves – Five-year regulatory period (usually) – Set CPI - X price-cap – CPI = consumer price index – X factor based on regulator’s assessment of potential productivity growth – If firms “beat the cap” they keep the profits => incentives • Information on productivity potential may be derived from – Multi-input, multi-output empirical techniques (DEA) • • They use data from a number of businesses Measure annual total factor productivity (TFP) as the growth in the industry plus obtained firm – level relative efficiency measures • Results should form the basis for the discussion

Airports – Hermes 2007

7

Performance measurement methods

•

Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

– Frontier estimation method – Linear programming technique – Fits a piece-wise linear surface over the input/output data of a sample of firms – Inefficiency = distance a firm is from the frontier – Multi-input and multi-output •

Advantages - does not impose functional form & easy to calculate

•

Disadvantages – assumes no data noise

Airports – Hermes 2007

8

output A further issue: Are all firms at optimal size?

Can a firm increase productivity by becoming larger?

This is the idea of SE To measure SE in DEA we estimate an extra frontier: the

Constant Returns to Scale

(CRS) frontier The CRS frontier allows small firms to be compared to big firms, and vice versa.

Performance measurement methods

DEA an example VRS frontier (variable returns to scale) Compare firms of similar size CRS frontier VRS frontier airports SE TE TE CRS Technical Efficiency (TE) Horizontal distance from the frontier Technical Efficiency CRS (TE CRS ) Horizontal distance from the CRS frontier Scale Efficiency (SE) Horizontal distance between the VRS and CRS frontiers

Airports – Hermes 2007

input 9

Performance measurement methods

• • • Technical efficiency (TE) – minimum inputs used to produce given outputs Scale efficiency (SE) – potential productivity gain from achieving optimal size of firm Formally, we adopt linear programming to solve this problem

Max u

,

v i m

  1

u i j n

  1

y i

, 0

v j x j

, 0

s

.

t

.

1 

i m

  1

u i y i

,

l j n

  1

v j x j

,

l

;

u i

 0 ,

v j

 0

l

 1 ...

L Airports – Hermes 2007

10

Performance measurement methods

• • To avoid the problem of infinite solutions we solve

Max u

,

v s

.

t

.

0 

i m

  1

u i i m

  1

y i

,

l u i y i

, 0 

j n

  1

v j x j

,

l

;

j n

  1

v j x j

, 0

u i

,

v j

 0  1

l

 1 ...

L

The dual is (with a lower number of constraints) the “envelope” problem

Min h

, 

s

.

t

.

h

0

h

0

x l L

  1 

l j

, 0

y i

,

l



y i

, 0 ; 

l L

  1

l L

  1

h

0 , 

l



l



l

 

x

1 0

j

,

l

 0 ;

i

 1 ,...,

m j

 1 ,...,

n

The constraint

l L

  1 

l

 1 is added to compute

h

0 

h

0

h

0

NP



h OP

0

Airports – Hermes 2007

11

Performance measurement methods

•

From DEA compute Malmquist input oriented total productivity indeces

•

Intuition

– Overtime the frontier may change (technical progress effect) • Index TC (Technical Change) – Overtime the airport may catch up the frontier • Index EC (Efficiency Change) •

Total factor productivity change (TFPC)

– aggregate change in outputs net of inputs – It is the combination of TC and EC

Airports – Hermes 2007

12

EC



x c

/

x t

 1

x d

/

x t

y

Performance measurement methods

C

TC



x e

/

x t

 1

x c

/

x t

 1 

x x d d

/

x

/

x f t

1 / 2 OF t+1 B E OF t y t+1

TFPC = EC x TC

y t F D A x f x d x t x c Same airport at dates t (A) and t +1 (B) x t+1 x e x

Airports – Hermes 2007

13

A model of airport management

• We follow Pels

et al.

[2003] and consider two outputs – Air Transport Movements (ATM) – Air Passenger Movements (APM) • ATM is considered as input when the APM frontier is studied • We consider the following inputs – ATM model • Entire airport area (AREA) • • Total lenght runways (RUNWAYS) Total number of aircraft parking positions (PARKING) – APM model • ATM • • • • Terminal surface (TERMINAL) Number of aircraft parking positions (PARKING) Number of check – in desks (CHECK) Number of lines for baggage claims (CLAIM)

Airports – Hermes 2007

14

The data

•

Population is composed by 37 Italian airports (all members of Assaeroporti – they account for more than 90% of Italian traffic)

•

We had to run a field investigation to collect the data

•

The data set is composed by 27 Italian airports (73% of population)

•

Data for 2005 and 2006

Airports – Hermes 2007

15

The data

APM (number) ATM (number) TERMINAL (sm) PARKING (number) CHECK (number) CLAIM (number) AREA (hectares) 2005 Average Standard Deviation 4.081.942 6.281.745 Minimum Maximum Average 2006 Standard Deviation 283.492 28.683.456 4.421.576 6.746.659 Minimum Maximum 237.997 30.288.704 52.496 41.366 68.315 78.462 6.864 3.000 308.284 329.000 54.938 44.297 71.846 77.859 6.579 6.000 316.004 329.000 27,3 44,3 25,1 65,4 7,0 6,0 115,0 267,0 28,5 47,5 24,8 65,0 7,0 6,0 115,0 267,0 4,3 317,8 2,8 333,9 2,0 55,0 RUNWAYS (meters) 3.651 2.603 1.688

Source

: Assaeroporti and our elaborations 14,0 1.605,0 14.895 4,6 319,3 3.651 2,9 333,3 2.603 2,0 61,0 1.688 14,0 1.605,0 14.895 Table 1: Descriptive statistics for Italian airports • • • • Both ATM (mean) and APM) increase from 2005 to 2006, but also its variability across airports (standard deviation). RUNWAYS is the unique input unchanged between the two years. All other inputs have increased, on average In 2006 the typical Italian airport has – A terminal surface of 44.297 sm – About 28 aircraft parking positions – About 47 check--in desks – 5 lines of baggage claims – It is extended on an area of 319 hectares.

Airports – Hermes 2007

16

Results - ATM

Airport Alghero Ancona Bari Bergamo Bologna Brescia Brindisi Cagliari Catania Code CRS VRS (TE) CRS/VRS (SE) AHO 0,43 AOI 0,35 BRI 0,34 BGY 0,47 BLQ 0,66 VBS 0,27 BDS 0,23 CAG 1,00 CTA 0,89 Florence Genoa FLR 0,81 GOA 0,41 Lamezia T. SUF Milan LIN LIN 0,24 1,00 Milan MXP MXP 0,59 Naples NAP 1,00 Olbia OLB 0,50 Palermo Pescara Rimini Rome CIA PMO 0,70 PSR PSA CIA 0,27 0,16 0,84 Rome FCO FCO Turin 0,85 TRN 0,58 Trapani Treviso Trieste Venice Verona TPS TSF 0,25 0,40 TRS 0,20 VCE 0,69 VRN 0,40 1,00 0,74 0,74 0,61 0,72 0,83 0,62 1,00 0,95 1,00 0,62 0,81 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,69 0,74 0,96 0,81 0,92 1,00 0,63 1,00 0,85 0,57 0,72 0,58 2005 0,43 0,47 0,47 0,77 0,92 0,33 0,37 1,00 0,93 0,81 0,66 0,30 1,00 0,59 1,00 0,73 0,94 0,28 0,20 0,91 0,85 0,92 0,25 0,48 0,36 0,96 0,70 RS IRS IRS IRS IRS IRS IRS IRS 0,41 0,28 0,40 0,46 0,65 0,26 0,24 CRS 1,00 IRS 0,71 2006 CRS VRS (TE) CRS/VRS (SE) 1,00 0,77 0,82 0,63 0,75 0,85 0,63 1,00 0,83 0,41 0,37 0,49 0,74 0,86 0,31 0,37 1,00 0,86 DRS 0,61 IRS 0,43 IRS 0,26 CRS 1,00 DRS 0,59 CRS 0,72 IRS 0,50 DRS 0,76 IRS IRS IRS 0,32 0,17 0,82 DRS 0,87 IRS IRS IRS IRS 0,59 0,25 0,39 0,20 DRS 0,68 IRS 0,40 1,00 0,63 0,85 1,00 1,00 0,81 0,73 0,76 0,98 0,82 1,00 1,00 0,69 1,00 0,89 0,61 0,69 0,66 0,61 0,68 0,31 1,00 0,59 0,88 0,69 1,00 0,32 0,20 0,82 0,87 0,85 0,25 0,44 0,32 0,99 0,61 RS IRS IRS IRS IRS IRS IRS CRS IRS IRS IRS IRS IRS IRS DRS CRS IRS IRS IRS IRS DRS IRS IRS DRS DRS IRS DRS IRS Table 2: DEA efficiency results, ATM

Airports – Hermes 2007

17

Results - ATM

• • • • • • • Average

TE

– 2006 = 0.83

Airports on the VRS frontier – 2006 = 8 airports (30%) Average

SE

– 2006 = 0.62

Airports on the CRS frontier – 2006 = 3 airports (11%) IRS – 2006 = 20 airports (74%) DRS (IRS) means that to become efficient an airport has to vary its size by taking into account that the proportional increase in inputs will induce a less (more) than proportional increase in output DRS is a proxy of congestion DRS – 2006 = 5 airports (18%) – 3 out of 4 largest airports (Fiumicino, Malpensa and Venice) CRS – 2006 = 2 airports

Airports – Hermes 2007

18

Results - ATM

TFPC mean -0.04% Productivity up in 13 airports (all largest) Productivity down in 6 airports Airport Alghero Ancona Bari Bergamo Bologna Brescia Brindisi Cagliari Catania Florence Genoa Milan LIN Naples Olbia VRS 2005 VRS 2006 1,00 0,74 0,74 0,61 0,72 0,83 0,62 1,00 0,95 1,00 0,62 Lamezia T. 0,81 1,00 Milan MXP 1,00 1,00 0,69 1,00 0,77 0,82 0,63 0,75 0,85 0,63 1,00 0,83 1,00 0,63 0,85 1,00 1,00 0,81 0,73 Technical Efficiency change TEC Technical change TC 1,00 0,99 1,04 1,11 1,03 1,04 0,95 0,92 0,98 0,99 1,01 1,03 1,00 0,87 1,00 1,01 1,05 1,00 1,00 0,81 1,05 0,98 0,98 0,94 0,93 0,93 0,99 0,95 1,13 1,17 0,91 0,96 Total factor productivity change TFPC 0,99 0,98 1,02 1,01 1,03 1,00 1,01 0,94 0,81 0,93 1,00 1,00 1,13 1,17 0,74 1,01 Palermo Pescara Rimini Rome CIA 0,74 0,96 0,81 0,92 Rome FCO 1,00 Turin 0,63 0,76 0,98 0,82 1,00 1,00 0,69 1,03 1,02 1,02 1,09 1,00 1,09 1,04 0,98 0,98 0,94 1,03 0,95 1,07 1,00 1,00 1,02 1,03 1,04 Trapani Treviso 1,00 0,85 1,00 0,89 1,00 1,05 1,00 0,95 1,00 1,00 Trieste 0,57 0,61 1,07 0,94 1,00 EC (mean) = +1.93% EC up in 17 airports EC down in 3 airports TC (mean) = -1.89% TC up in 5 airports

Airports – Hermes 2007

19

Results - APM

Airport Alghero Ancona Bari Bergamo Bologna Brescia Brindisi Cagliari Catania Code CRS VRS (TE) CRS/VRS (SE) AHO 0,96 AOI 0,27 BRI 0,76 BGY 0,97 BLQ VBS 0,71 0,40 BDS 0,79 CAG 0,88 CTA 1,00 Florence Genoa FLR 0,61 GOA 0,42 Lamezia T. SUF Milan LIN LIN 0,88 0,80 Milan MXP MXP 0,90 Naples NAP 0,96 Olbia OLB 0,56 Palermo Pescara Rimini Rome CIA PMO 0,91 PSR PSA CIA Rome FCO FCO Turin TRN 0,35 0,43 1,00 1,00 0,58 Trapani Treviso Trieste Venice Verona TPS TSF TRS VCE 0,59 1,00 0,39 0,77 VRN 0,72 1,00 1,00 0,77 1,00 0,71 0,84 1,00 0,95 1,00 1,00 0,54 1,00 0,92 0,92 0,99 0,57 0,93 1,00 0,99 1,00 1,00 0,58 1,00 1,00 0,67 0,81 0,73 2005 0,96 0,27 0,98 0,97 1,00 0,48 0,79 0,93 1,00 0,61 0,78 0,88 0,87 0,97 0,97 0,98 0,98 0,35 0,43 1,00 1,00 0,99 0,59 1,00 0,58 0,95 0,98 RS IRS IRS 2006 CRS VRS (TE) CRS/VRS (SE) 0,97 0,32 DRS 0,73 DRS DRS 1,00 0,69 IRS IRS 0,24 0,75 DRS 0,81 CRS 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,76 1,00 0,70 0,92 1,00 0,82 1,00 0,97 0,32 0,95 1,00 0,99 0,26 0,75 0,99 1,00 IRS DRS DRS DRS DRS IRS DRS DRS IRS IRS CRS CRS DRS 0,54 IRS 0,49 CRS 0,79 IRS DRS DRS 0,61 0,44 0,96 0,96 0,90 0,97 0,56 1,00 0,31 0,47 1,00 1,00 0,41 0,87 0,80 1,00 0,55 1,00 0,98 0,91 0,97 0,57 1,00 1,00 0,95 1,00 1,00 0,54 1,00 1,00 0,67 0,93 0,82 0,61 0,79 0,96 0,98 0,99 1,00 0,98 1,00 0,31 0,49 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,49 0,79 0,62 0,93 0,97 RS IRS IRS DRS CRS IRS IRS IRS DRS CRS IRS IRS DRS DRS DRS IRS DRS CRS IRS IRS CRS CRS IRS IRS IRS IRS DRS DRS Table 4: DEA efficiency results, APM

Airports – Hermes 2007

20

Results - APM

• • • • • • • Average

TE

– 2006 = 0.89 (higher than ATM) – Airports are more efficient in passenger movements rather than aircraft movements Airports on the VRS frontier – 2006 = 13 airports (48%) Again DRS might be a proxy of congestion Average

SE

– 2006 = 0.82 (much higher than ATM) – Airports are closer to the optimal size under APM rather than ATM Also for passengers large airports tend to experience it Airports on the CRS frontier – 2006 = 7 airports (26%) IRS – 2006 = 14 airports (52%), lower than ATM The number of airports with CRS is higher than under ATM DRS – 2006 = 8 airports (30%) higher than ATM – 3 out of 4 largest airports (Linate, Malpensa and Venice) It is easier to reach the optimal size under APM than under ATM CRS – 2006 = 5 airports (18%) (Fiumicino between others)

Airports – Hermes 2007

21

TFPC mean 0.3% (negative for ATM) Productivity up in 13 airports (all largest) Productivity down in 9 airports Change in productivity for the whole Italian economy -0.9% (OECD)

Results - APM

Airport Alghero Ancona Bari Bergamo Bologna Brescia Brindisi Cagliari Catania Florence Genoa Lamezia T. 1,00 Milan LIN 0,92 Milan MXP 0,92 Naples 0,99 VRS 2005 1,00 VRS 2006 1,00 Technical Efficiency change EC 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,77 1,00 0,71 0,84 1,00 0,95 1,00 1,00 0,54 0,76 1,00 0,70 0,92 1,00 0,82 1,00 1,00 0,55 0,99 1,00 0,98 1,10 1,00 0,86 1,00 1,00 1,03 Technical change TC 1,03 Total factor productivity change TFPC 1,03 1,00 1,02 1,11 1,04 0,91 0,99 1,01 0,89 0,86 0,94 1,00 1,01 1,11 1,02 1,00 0,99 0,87 0,89 0,86 0,97 1,00 0,98 0,91 0,97 1,00 1,06 0,99 0,98 1,05 1,02 1,03 0,89 1,05 1,08 1,02 0,87 Olbia Palermo Pescara Rimini Rome CIA 0,57 0,93 1,00 0,99 1,00 0,57 1,00 1,00 0,95 1,00 0,99 1,08 1,00 0,96 1,00 1,05 0,97 1,00 1,04 1,27 1,04 1,05 1,00 1,00 1,27 EC (mean) = +0.9% EC up in 6 airports EC down in 8 airports TC (mean) = -0.6% TC up in 14 airports Rome FCO 1,00 Turin 0,58 Trapani Treviso 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,54 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,93 1,00 1,00 1,04 1,02 0,99 0,66 1,04 0,95 0,99 0,66 TC down in 10 airports Trieste 0,67 0,67 1,00 1,00 1,00 Venice Verona 0,81 0,73 0,93 0,82 1,16 1,12 1,04 0,98 1,21 1,09 Table 5: Individual Malmquist Indices, APM, 2005 to 2006 Not only large airports exploit the technical progress

Airports – Hermes 2007

22

Price regulation

• • •

In applying Price Cap regulation the computation of the productivity target is crucial (

x

factor) The Malmquist Indeces allow to estimate it The method is the following (an example):

– Take measure of the sector TFP change (e.g. 1.1% per year) – Take measure of TE obtained for each firm by conducting a DEA analysis (Table 2 for ATM or Table 4 for APM) – Assume a five-year regulatory period – Ask firms to achieve 1.1% plus also catch-up 50% towards frontier • Suppose that airport BETA has scored (TE = 0.755) • • Catch-up required = 50% of (1-0.755) over 5 years = 2.3% per year => X-factor = 1.1%+2.3% = 3.4%

Airports – Hermes 2007

23

Price regulation

•

Estimate of “maximum” target

x

– ATM => 1.58% per year

factor

– APM => 1.27% per year • •

Maximum target because airport’s sources of inefficiences are (Pels

et al

.):

– Input indivisibilities (timing in reaching optimal use of input is not immediate) – Governmental regulation, climatic conditions – Airlines inefficiencies – Management inefficiencies (x – inefficiency)

The above target does not distinguish between them and the management is directly responsible only for the last one.

Airports – Hermes 2007

24

Conclusions

• • • • • • • Many airports can improve their efficiency Observed efficiency is higher for passenger movements rather than for aircraft movements Average sector productivity seems to be higher than whole Italian economy Size effect: – DRS for large airports (signal of congestion?) – Higher exploitation of technical progress in ATM ATM – TE => 0.83; SE => 0.62

APM – TE => 0.89; SE => 0.82

Maximum target for x factor in Price Cap regulation – ATM => 1.58% – APM => 1.27%

Airports – Hermes 2007

25