![]() In a 2013 report, the UK Airports Commission suggested that failing to alleviate capacity constraints at the nation’s airports could cost users and providers of airport infrastructure up to £20 billion over the next 60 years, and that costs to the economy more broadly could reach £45 billion. Research suggests the impact of congestion goes even further. But London’s loss is continental Europe’s gain: hubs like Frankfurt and Amsterdam picked up some of the business travelers who would have otherwise flown via Heathrow. In short, Heathrow’s constraints hurt the city of London more broadly. Estimates represent the number of people who would travel were there no constraints on airport capacity. Passenger estimates are based on GDP, the main driver of growth in air travel. But London’s other airports captured only about half of Heathrow’s overflow 2 2. It would be logical to assume those passengers, squeezed out of Heathrow, would have simply turned to nearby airports. ![]() GDP-which is closely correlated with airline-traffic growth-indicates that Heathrow should have handled nearly 15 million more passengers than it did in 2013. More surprising is the way in which Heathrow’s limitations affected neighboring airports. The number of passengers traveling through Heathrow has grown at less than 1 percent on average per year since 2000 during that same period, London’s other airports grew at nearly twice that rate. Our first finding won’t necessarily come as a surprise as airports approach maximum capacity, passenger growth stalls. Five trends at congested airports Passenger growth flattens and the city loses overall We identified five trends-some of which are straightforward and intuitive, and others that are more complex-that can help airlines better understand what happens as airports begin to approach maximum capacity and in turn plan their response. We then analyzed the ways in which passenger numbers, aircraft types, ticket prices, and flight routes have shifted at those airports over time, and compared those shifts with the patterns seen at similarly large but unconstrained airports throughout the world. We reviewed both runway and terminal capacity, where data were available. Our findings are meant to be suggestive of what happens at constrained airports, rather than statistically significant. ![]() To begin to answer these questions, we looked closely at trends from some of the world’s most constrained airports: Beijing Capital International Airport, Haneda Airport in Tokyo, and London Heathrow Airport. Most important, there is little consensus around an essential question: Is a congested hub airport good or bad for home airlines? But beyond executives’ intuition and anecdotal experience, there is little information that can help airlines understand the impact of an airport becoming constrained, or how they should respond. And they may have a hunch that aircraft become harder to schedule and utilize. For instance, they might rightly suspect that on-time performance drops as airports become constrained. Most airline executives know that congestion is a growing trend and have a general sense of what to expect when a hub or home airport begins approaching maximum capacity. Other major airports-in cities such as São Paolo and Hong Kong-come close to saturation during peak travel periods and show no signs of slowing down. Jakarta’s Soekarno–Hatta International Airport, which was designed to accommodate 22 million passengers a year, handled more than 52 million in 2013 in 2014, Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport in Guangzhou, China, operated at nearly 20 percent above capacity. Even as they expand their operations, many major airports around the world are operating at or beyond capacity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |