Euro Control Mitigating Challenge 2030

8/8/2019 Euro Control Mitigating Challenge 2030

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/euro-control-mitigating-challenge-2030 1/60

Mitigating the Challenges for Air Transport2030

%



Mitigating the Challenges for Air Transport 2030



1

%

Foreword

The worldwide economic crisis, which originated well outside the Air Transport industry, is having a major and potentially lastingeffect on the industry. In 2009, Europe has seen the largest annual decline in the number of ights on record, with only a verymodest return to growth forecast for 2010. Nevertheless, stakeholders across the industry agree that planning for future capa-city enhancements, even in periods of economic downturn, is essential.

This document reports on the results of a survey with leading Air Transport industry experts who re ected on how airlines andairports may adapt their future operations in order to mitigate capacity challenges, should the available capacity be unable to

accommodate Air Transport demand. The survey is supplemented by a modelling study, assessing the ef ciency of severalmitigation measures. Some measures are the natural response of airline and airport operators while other actions may requirea mix of economic incentives and legislative encouragement.

The report is a companion document to the EUROCONTROL Challenges of Growth study 2008, which provides a long-term(2030) vision of air traf c capacity needs. By using the views of a number of Air Transport experts as the main input into aEuropean-wide modelling study, the report is intended to increase understanding on how airline and airport operators wouldbridge the gap between capacity and demand.

It is hoped that the care which the authors took in writing this report is matched by its usefulness to the air transport community.

Dave Young, Patricia Cauwenbergh

December 2009EUROCONTROL

EDITORS’ NOTE: The present EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre report was developed within the Air transport Evolution researchthread as one of several exploratory studies that constitute the foundations of strategic research on air transport evolution.

This thread aims to provide material to support the EUROCONTROL strategy with an ambition to facilitate informed deci-sions by policy makers within the Air Transport community.



2Mitigating the Challenges for Air Transport 2030



3

%

Executive Summary

Over the last 50 years, there has been a stable growth trend in air tra fc movements despite periods o turbulence and eco-nomic downturn. At a time horizon o 2030, the ight demand in Europe is predicted to be 20.4 million movements per year,which is the double that o 2007 - with 9.9 million ights. This scenario is considered by EUROCONTROL’s orecast experts asrepresenting a “moderate” growth scenario.

In view o the potential demand growth, coupled with the assumption that all o the current airport capacity plans come toruition, EUROCONTROL’s STATFOR Unit, in its Challenges o Growth 2008 (CG08) report, highlights that some 11% o ight

demand will not be accommodated at European airports - i.e. , 2.3 million potential ights per year would not take place.

Mitigating the Challenges or Air Transport explores and assesses a number o measures to mitigate the capacity challenges toreduce the levels o unaccommodated demand. The present report is a contribution to CG08, which provides decision-makers

with accurate estimates o the uture demand or air transport in Europe, and o the economic, in rastructure and environmentalchallenges associated with responding to that demand.

Mitigating the Challenges or Air Transport is the result o a close engagement with stakeholders . A survey with participatingstakeholders was carried out between May 2008 and July 2008, and consisted o a series o interviews with senior managerso the airline and airport community:

two rom the network airlines market segment with operations being organised around a network, with the complexitieso a hub operation

one rom a low-cost airline one rom the Business Aviation sector three rom operators o international airports having a signifcant proportion o connecting passengers two romairline trade organisations (one representing network airlines, the other low-cost airlines).

The report initially presents the survey fndings concerning the “ Exogenous challenges to airline and airport businesses”. Thesefndings were stimulated rom the question:

Do you consider that your ight programme/business and operational requirements are today already constrained byactors outside your scope o in uence? I yes, what are those actors and what are their impacts?

Not surprisingly, the survey highlighted the shortage o both airspace and airport capacity but also raised a number o otherissues in the domains o environment, security, uel price variations, industrial actions, need or urther restructuring, and so on.

A similar question relating to interviewees’ perception o challenges aced on the 2030 time horizon highlights that airspacecapacity will not be the major challenge, but points rather to the continued need or airport capacity (notwithstanding the actthat at least our major European airports have runway expansion plans) as well as to the increasing environmental pressures.

The report then provides an indication o how the di erent stakeholder participants’ organisations are exploring solutions to theidentifed challenges and considers their views on a number o operational initiatives being undertaken to mitigate airport,

airspace and environmental challenges.

The fnal chapter, “ Mitigating the challenges ahead” assesses a number o measures, which airline and airport operators mightapply to alleviate the challenges a ecting airport capacity and the network.

An important conclusion is that the “ e ectiveness” o individual mitigation measures is considerably less than may have beenconsidered to be the case in the past, re ecting the limited scope or action that individual airlines have in relation to their ownbusiness model.

Six measures are presented in this report . For each mitigation measure, the methodology applied in the modelling study andderived rom the survey discussions, coupled with the impact on unaccommodated demand, is presented. The “ e fciency” o each measure varies but the impacts o the SESAR programme, i this meets its objectives, coupled with the increased use o currently less-constrained airports, provides signifcant possibilities or reducing the unaccommodated demand.




These six measures are:

A lternAtive A irports

Shi ting to alternative airports is considered as a real option or some airline and airport operators provided that potentialissues o environmental acceptance and terminal airspace congestion can both be overcome. The measure is e fcient inthat it would reduce unaccommodated demand by around 30%, provided passengers and carriers are willing to relocateto such airports, which in turn is linked to the quality o the ground transportation links.

s chedule s moothing

Schedule smoothing is not considered as an answer to the airport capacity challenge, mainly because there is o ten littlescope or moving ights to a nearby period. As a result, this measure would reduce unaccommodated demand only byaround 5%.

h igh s peed t rAin investment

Shi ting short-haul ights to high speed train is o limited beneft since there are only a small number o routes where thehigh speed train could theoretically replace air services. As a result, this measure would reduce unaccommodated demandonly by around 5%.

sesAr i mprovements

SESAR plus investments to bring airports to the per ormance level o the best-in-class has the potential to increase airportcapacity by a signifcant margin, reducing unaccommodated demand by 40%.

sesAr i mprovements And A lternAtive A irports

Combining the e ects o the two most e ective measures (SESAR improvements and alternative airports) provide evenbetter results with the potential to reduce by hal the number o unaccommodated ights.

s hifting to l Arger A ircrAft

Shi ting to larger aircra t is an option to accommodate more demand in the presence o a limitation on the allowable dailyrequency between congested airports. In case o a requency limitation o 15 daily ights in congested airports, the

method has the potential to reduce the impact o the cap by more than a third.

This report is being published against a background o a worldwide economic crisis , which is having, and is orecast to continueto have, a savage impact on the airline industry. In view o this background o demand contraction, one could argue that it ishardly opportune to be discussing challenges that impact the growth o the air transport industry at a time when that industry

is in severe decline. However, the tra fc growth scenario, which provides the basis or the analysis within this report, assumesthat there is no growth until 2011 ollowed by an historically low annual growth o close to 3%. The use o such a “conservative”growth scenario is designed to ensure that the results o this report maintain their relevance.



5

%

1. Introduction 7Why a Mitigation Analysis? 7

The Approach 9

Report Structure 11

2. Exogenous challenges to airline and airport businesses 13The Present situation 14

Airport capacity shortage 16Airspace capacity shortage 17Additional challenges 17Other highlights 20

The Future 21Lack o airport capacity 22Environmental sustainability 22E fcient managment o a highly-congested air tra fc network 22Delivering and exploiting the benefts o SES, espacially SESAR 22The impact o climate change on demand and in rastructure 22Additional highlights 22

Looking or solutions 25

Airport capacity challenge 25Airspace capacity challenge 28Towards a more sustainable aviation 28Other highlights 30

3. Mitigating the challenges ahead 31 The Approach 31

Six Mitigation Measures 33Alternative airports 34Schedule smoothing 37High speed train investment 40SESAR improvements 43SESAR improvements and alternative airports 45Shi ting to larger aircra t 46

Conclusions and Outstanding issues 51

Acknowledgements

Re erences 55

Glossary 56

Table o contents




Liste o Figures

Figure 1: The long-term view is o a stable growth trend (Re . 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 2: Overview o the Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 3: Exogenous Challenges to Airline and Airport Businesses and Operations – The Present Situation . . . 15

Figure 4: Exogenous Challenges to Airline and Airport Businesses and Operations – The Future . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 5: Analytical environment o the mitigation analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 6: Shi ting to Alternative Airports - Summary o Stakeholder Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 7: Alternative Airports - Impact on Reducing Unaccommodated Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 8: Schedule Smoothing - Summary o Stakeholder Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 9: Schedule Smoothing - Impact on Reducing Unaccommodated Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 10: Rail Services - Summary o Stakeholder discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 11: High Speed Train Investment - Impact on Reducing Unaccommodated Demand . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 12: SESAR Improvements - Impact on Reducing Unaccommodated Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 13: SESAR Improvements and Alternative Airports - Impact on Reducing Unaccommodated Demand . . 46

Figure 14: Shi ting to Larger Aircra t in case o Frequency Capping by Regulation – Stakeholder Discussion . . . 48

Figure 15: Shi ting to Larger Aircra t - Impact on Reducing Frequency Capping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 16: Summary o Mitigation Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51



7

%

Why a Mitigation Analysis?

This is the third in a series o studies published in 2001, 2004 and now 2008 aiming to explore and assess ways in which airlineand airport operators may adapt their operations in order to mitigate the capacity challenge.

Over the last 50 years, there has been a stable growth trend in air tra fc movements even with periods o turbulence andeconomic downturn. Forecasts indicate that the uture outlook or growth remains encouraging with around 3% per annum inEurope, which is not as high as the 4-5% average o the last ew years but still positive, and some parts o Europe, particularlyin the east, should see stronger growth. At a time horizon o 2030, the ight demand in Europe is predicted to be 20.4 millionmovements per year, which is double that o 2007 - with 9.9 million ights. This scenario is considered by EUROCONTROL’s

orecast experts as representing a “moderate” growth scenario. In view o the potential demand growth, coupled with the

assumption that all o the current airport capacity plans come to ruition, EUROCONTROL’s STATFOR Unit, in its Challengeso Growth 2008 (CG08) report, highlights that, even so, some 11% o ight demand will not be accommodated at Europeanairports - i.e. , 2.3 million potential ights per year would not take place.

Mitigating the Challenges or Air Transport 2030 is a contribution to the EUROCONTROL Challenges o Growth 2008 (Re . 9),which was published in November 2008. Challenges o Growth 2008 aims to provide decision-makers with accurate esti-mates o the uture demand or air transport in Europe, and o the economic, in rastructure and environmental challengesassociated with responding to that demand. The studies, which were based, inter alia, on a long-term demand orecastand airport capacity projections, have or several years provided a oundation or Long-Term Strategic planning in Air Tra fcManagement.

The aim o the Mitigation Analysis, which is the third in a series o studies (the frst two having been published in 2001 and2004) is to explore and assess a number o measures or mitigating capacity challenges in order to alleviate the level o unac-commodated ight demand.

The mitigation element o the CG08 update improves on the previous studies as a result o a closer engagement with stakehol-ders. The scope o the study is there ore wide and with the ambition to highlight any exogenous challenge that is consideredby airline and airport operators as limiting their ability to satis y the expected tra fc growth in the short, medium and long term.Once these challenges have been highlighted, a subsequent aim o this report is to explore the ways in which the airspaceusers and airport operators may adapt their operations to mitigate the capacity challenge.

This report is being published against a background o a worldwide economic crisis, which is having, and is orecast to continueto have, a savage impact on the airline industry. IATA recently announced a revised outlook or the global air transport industry

or 2009 with losses estimated to be in the region o US$4.7 billion.

IATA also orecasts a reduction in passenger demand o close to 6% with an accentuated impact on revenues due to a reductionin premium class passengers. Cargo demand is expected to be equally impacted.

In view o this background o demand contraction, one could argue that it is hardly opportune to be discussing challenges thatimpact the growth o the air transport industry at a time when that industry is in severe decline.

However, past periods o turbulence and crises have shown that the industry is resilient and that passenger demand will return(see Figure 1, next page).

1. Introduction




1. Introduction

There ore, when considering that, while there is uncertainty about when exactly air transport will return to a period o sustainedgrowth, there should be no doubt that such a period is on the horizon. As such, any discussion o the challenges, and the wayso mitigating these, retain a high degree o importance or the industry.

1960

10Flights in Europe (Million)

Figure 1: The long-term view is of a stable growth trend (Ref. 9)

A n n u a l

G r o w t h

8

6

-5%

0%

5%

4

2

0

1970 1980 1990 2000

IFR flights

Long-Term Trend

Growth

O i l O i l

E c o n o m i c b o o m

G u l f W a r

I T b o o m

K o s o v o

9 / 1 1



9

%

The Approach

As a result o a closer engagement with stakeholders, Mitigating the Challenges or Air Transport 2030 improves on previousstudies. Some elements o the previous studies have been used again, notably in the analytical approach to assessing theimbalance between capacity and demand at a uture time horizon.

However, the present report is intended to provide a signifcantly enhanced fdelity o the results through the involvement o arepresentative panel o senior-level managers within the aircra t and airport operators’ community. Following the survey, theparticipants’ input was used to defne more detailed simulation scenarios than has previously been possible. The fgure belowsummarises the ramework o the study, the key steps o the approach and the relationships between the di erent sections o the report.

Previous Challenges togrowth studies

(CTG01 and CTG04)

EXOGENOUS CHALLENGES

RESULTSINPUT

see chapter 2 of current report

see chapter 3 of current report

Explore exogenous challenges impactingthe operations of airlines andairports and understand how

they may adapt to those challenges

MITIGATION ANALYSISDeepen the approach proposed in

CTG01 and CTG04 and assess measureswhich airline and airport operators

might apply to alleviate capacity challenges

see section 3 of CG08 report

Contribution toEUROCONTROL Challengesof Growth 2008 (CG08)

Measuring and Mitigating the Challenges

Targeted ResearchMost recent reports published

by airline tradeorganisations, ACI, etc.

Stakeholder DiscussionWith 10 senior-level managers

of airline andairport operators

Figure 2: Overview of the Approach




Stakeholder Discussion

A survey was conducted between May 2008 and July 2008 via interviews with a representative panel o senior-levelmanagers within the airline and airport community.

In total, 15 stakeholder organisations were contacted o which nine agreed to contribute to the study:

two rom the network airline market segment with operations organised around a network and the complexities o ahub operation

one rom low-cost airline one rom the Business Aviation sector three rom operators o international airports having a signifcant proportion o connecting passengers

two rom airline trade organisations (one representing network airlines, the other low-cost airlines).

A total o 10 interviewees, representing the above nine organisations, contributed to the survey.

A survey that ocuses on external “ orces” impacting airspace and airport operators’ businesses should be based on theopinions o politicians, regulators and a wide range o actors within the industry, covering not only airlines and airports butalso ANSPs, the military and niche operators such as business jets, tour operators, general aviation, etc.

However, as a way to test the approach o combining survey results with analytical modelling, it was considered pertinentto ocus initially on airline and airport operators. Although uture studies o a similar nature could be improved by increasingthe range o stakeholder participation, which would take into account the di erent business models o air transportactors, the panel o participants described within this report is thought su fciently representative and diverse to achievethe ultimate aim o the present report: namely, the assessment o a number o “realistic” approaches to mitigating thecapacity challenge.

Previous Challenges to Growth studies

A number o di erent options or mitigating airport capacity constraints have been assessed in previous Challenges toGrowth reports and these were taken as a starting point or the discussions with participants in the study.

Targeted Research

In addition, to complement the opinions expressed by the participants in the survey, it was essential to deepen the analysis,where appropriate, through targeted research. Such additional material was obtained through the most recent reportspublished by airline trade organisations, the SESAR consortium, ACI, the European Commission and also rom elementso the Challenges o Growth 2008 study. Where appropriate, this material is highlighted in italics.

1. Introduction



11

%

Report Structure The report is organised as ollows. Chapter 2 “Exogenous challenges to airline and airport businesses” reports the fndingso the survey with the ocus on: exploring the exogenous challenges impacting the operations o airlines and airports; and onunderstanding the ways in which the airspace users and airport operators could adapt their operations in order to mitigateagainst these exogenous challenges.

Chapter 3 “Mitigating the challenges ahead” assesses a number o measures, which airline and airport operators might applyto alleviate capacity challenges. Those measures have been adapted to di erent market segments a ter consultation withoperators and airports.

The content o this report re ects as closely as possible the views expressed by the 10 interviewees. When re erring to theinterviews, the authors have not explicitly stated the origin o the various statements so as to respect any engagementsconcerning confdentiality. Where a specifc re erence to an organisation is made, this is restricted to those elements o thediscussion which are “operational” in nature. This approach is designed to underline the importance or otherwise o a particularconcept or mode o operation or a particular business segment. Obviously (and we hope that this is the case) some partici-pants in the survey will doubtless recognise their own statements.






13

%

This chapter reports the fndings o a survey ocusing on exploring the exogenous 1 challenges impacting the operations o airli-nes and airports. The scope o the survey was there ore wide and with the ambition to highlight any challenge which was consi-dered by the participants as limiting their ability to satis y the expected tra fc growth in the short, medium and long term.

A stakeholder discussion outline was developed and sent to the participants prior to each interview. The aim o this discussionoutline was two old. Firstly, this provided the ramework and scope or the discussion and there ore allowed them to prepareaccordingly; and, second, it created a common ramework throughout the various discussions. The outline was, however, inno way seen as a constraint on the eventual scope o each interview but more as a starting point or the discussions.

The interviews were confdential and conducted using the ollowing open-ended questions as a starting point or discussions:

Do you already today consider your business and operational requirements or ight programme to be constrained

by actors outside your scope o in uence? I yes, what are those actors and what are their impacts? What actions are you taking to mitigate such challenges?

Do you consider the impact o these external challenges or any potential new ones to become more constraining inthe uture?

What measures would you implement in response to the potential challenges as a unction o your business model?

The discussions were recorded - a total o 22 hours - debrie ed, analysed to extract key messages, then organised to identi ymain themes or observations.

In addition, so as to complement the opinions expressed by the participants in the survey, the authors considered it essentialto deepen the analysis, where appropriate, through targeted research. Such additional material was obtained through the mostrecent reports published by airline trade organisations, the SESAR consortium, ACI, the European Commission and also romelements o the Challenges o Growth 2008 study. (Where appropriate, this material is highlighted in italics).

1 As opposed to changing drivers internal to the industry, such as the evolution and emergence o business models, the evolution o the structure o markets and o governance models, etc., which are not part o the current study.

2. Exogenous Challenges

to airline and airport businesses




The Present Situation Airport and airspace capacity shortage remain the major challenges, which are outside the remit o airlineand airport operations. The survey also points to other exogenous challenges, which are less o priority orthe time being, but a ect airline and airport businesses; namely, growing environmental pressures, securitymeasures, uel prices, industrial actions, the need or urther restructuring, long lead times in aircra t manu-

acturing, and an uncertain uture.

Re ecting the somewhat alarming fnancial predictions or 2009 made by IATA, the survey results also highlight that airlinescurrently ace two immediate and undamental challenges; namely, preserving cash and care ully matching capacity todemand. As a consequence o the need to cut costs wherever possible, pressure will clearly mount on the other principalactors; namely, Airports and Air Navigation Service Providers. These pressures will mani est themselves through a ocus onthe need to improve their operational e fciency and to place strict controls on the evolution o the charges they pass on to theairline industry.

In its Short Term Tra fc Forecast, EUROCONTROL’s STATFOR unit predicts a reduction in ight movements o around 5% in2009. A return to even modest growth is not expected be ore the beginning o 2010, although the possibility that this predictionmay be “optimistic” cannot be discounted.

In view o the demand contraction, one could argue that the world o ATM has e ectively been given a certain amount o “breathing space”. Delays can be expected to drop and the shortage o capacity both on the ground and in the air will be lessapparent. In short, one could argue that it is hardly opportune to be discussing system constraints which impact the growth o the airline industry at a moment when that industry is in severe decline.

However, past crises (oil crises, Gul War, 9/11, etc.) have shown that the industry is resilient and that passenger demand willreturn.

The above events have in act only created more or less short-term dips in demand against a long-term growth trend that isapparent since the invention o the jet engine. Even i air transport may not develop in the uture as it did in the past, essentiallybecause it will become more expensive due to environmental costs, uel prices, and so on, orecasts indicate that the utureoutlook or growth remains encouraging.

Whereas the return o passenger confdence is airly slow ollowing a terrorist attack or degraded geopolitical situation, theact that the current crisis is economic in nature means that the return in passenger demand could be quite sudden and

pronounced when indeed it does happen. As individuals start to perceive more certainty in their own economic situation thenthey will rapidly wish to experience again the “ eel good” actor associated with travelling. Once business confdence startsto return, the demand or both premium seats on the aircra t as well as cargo can be expected to increase rapidly. The onlyquestion in all this is: “When?”

The ollowing general question was raised as a starting point or the discussions with participants in the survey:

Do you already today consider your ight programme/business and operational requirements to be constrained byactors outside your scope o in uence? I yes, what are those actors and what are their impacts?

There is more than one answer to the question o actors inherent in the current system, which acts as a constraint to theoperations o airlines and airports.

In a now somewhat dated 2001 White Paper “Transport Policy or 2010”, the European Commission highlighted core issuesarising rom the growth o the air transport sector:

•The congestion of the European skies causing delays, and•The chronic shortages of airport runway, taxiway and terminal capacity on the ground.

2. Exogenous challenges



15

%

The European Commission rein orces this statement in its 2006 mid-term review report (Re . 13):

Air transport needs strong infrastructures both in the air and on the ground. The on-going creation of the Single Sky should further increase the ef ciency of EU air transport; leadership is needed in terms of the future structure of air traf c management systems. The

necessary investments in airport capacity also need to be made, accompanied by clearer rules on airport charging. Measures are needed to reduce the negative environmental effects caused by rapid growth of traf c, while maintaining the competitive- ness of the sector and taking into account discussions in the context of ICAO.

Figure 3 summarises the di erent challenges identifed by participants in the survey as outside their control. The survey parti-cipants have prioritised those concerns di erently, depending on the principal nature o their business, i.e. , an airport operator,a network airline, a low-cost carrier or a business aviation operator.

Two major concerns are highlighted as outside the immediate in uence o airline and airport operations, namely issues relatingto airport and airspace capacity constraints. It is interesting to note that the airport operator sees a clear and important rolethat they have in the provision o airport capacity as is the case or the Air Navigation Service Provider. However, the decisionstaken at a political level relating primarily to environmental constraints places the provision o capacity increasingly outside o their direct in uence.

As the Vice-President o the European Commission, Jacques Barrot (Re . 15) said: “We are working on Air Traf c Management and the Single European Sky to increase capacity in the sky. But if we do not address airport problems, this effort would be meaningless”. He added that: “We should both plan the construction of new airports, and make every effort to better utilisethe existing infrastructure”.

Airspace CapacityShortage

Airline and AirportBusiness and Operations

KEY EXOGENOUS CHALLENGES

OTHER CHALLENGES

Airport Capacity Shortage1 - Growing Shortage of Runway Capacity2 - Increasing Lack of Aircraft Stands, Terminal Capacity, etc.3 - Reduced Capacity in case of Low Visibility Conditions4 - Gaining access to airports and terminals

Long Lead Timesin Aircraft

Manufacturing

An Uncertain FutureIndustrial ActionsSecurity Measures

Need for FurtherRestructuring

Fuel Prices

Figure 3: Exogenous Challenges to Airline and Airport Businesses and Operations - The Present Situation

GrowingEnvironmental

Pressures




Airport Capacity Shortage The need or additional airport capacity is the concern brought orward by all participants in the survey - including airport ope-rators - but not all make the case or signifcant airport capacity expansion, questioning the major investments this implies.

Several participants stated that capacity shortage is a localised issue, which a ects a small number o airports 2, and highlightedthe importance o having the right airport capacity at the right place, i.e. , being closely matched to the ight demand. Thisissue was particularly underlined by the low-cost airlines whose expansion plans can be curtailed by capacity ceilings atcertain airports. The question o investment should be approached with caution in particular in the light o current pressuresand changes a ecting the market.

While airport operators recognise the necessity to fnd the right balance between the commercial interest o an airport with thewell-being o the local population, their biggest concern in the uture is the imposition o environmental regulatory measureson their in rastructure, and hence on their business, without having any in uence on the negotiation process. For example, thecurrent concern o Aéroports de Paris (ADP) is to have a ceiling limit o movements imposed at Charles de Gaulle (CDG) as iscurrently the case at Paris Orly (ORY) airport. A concern o FRAPORT is the possible imposition o a night cur ew and the majorramifcations or the cargo business.

The airport capacity challenge covers the ollowing concerns:

a - A growing shortage o runway capacity

The number o ights landing and taking-o per hour on a runway can be constrained by physical limits o the airport in rastructure,the surrounding airspace, or by limits imposed through regulations (yearly capping, cur ews, slot allocation policy, etc.).

For example, at Paris Orly (ORY) airport, the imposition o a ceiling limit o 250,000 movements per year means that roughlyonly two thirds o the airport’s physical capacity is exploited.

At Paris Charles-De-Gaulle (CDG), the capacity which is declared today is not derived rom the physical capacity o runwaysbut takes into account many actors; notably, ATC complexity and bad weather conditions (scheduling capacity is based onInstrument Meteorological Conditions as opposed to Visual Meteorological Conditions). When comparing CDG with AtlantaHartsfeld (ATL) airport in terms o capacity o ered, the di erence is signifcant. The number o movements per hour is 112at CDG, whereas ATL manages 60% more movements on our parallel runways. This comparison between CDG and ATL isessentially valid rom the point o view o the physical similarities o each airport and is there ore a power ul lobbying re erence

or the airlines. However, the di erences between the airports in terms o tra fc mix and the scheduling capacity practicesshould not be ignored in the comparison.

b - An increasing lack o aircra t stands, terminal capacity, maintenance and ancillary acilities

There is a general perception o insu fcient runway capacity but there is also insu fcient airport terminal capacity, which may

lead to deterioration in passenger service standards or to the impossibility o dealing with extra passenger demand. An important issue is the growing recognition o the consequences o larger aircra t on the terminal buildings and linkedin rastructure such as ootbridges, parking positions, etc.

A major concern or low-cost carriers is the complexity o airport operations, highlighting the con icting interestsbetween operational priorities (based on rapid throughput o passengers and luggage), security requirements andcommercial agendas (which are linked to revenue maximisation). For low-cost carriers, the airport terminal is a unctionalbuilding, which provides the connection to the plane. They question the rationale or building “high-technologyarchitecture” airport terminals as shopping arcades. For example, Terminal 5 at Heathrow, which has been designedaround multiple shopping oors and has cost around €6.5 billion; another instance is Singapore airport Terminal 3.

c - Reduced capacity during low visibility conditions

Adverse weather conditions - such as snow, thunderstorms, og, etc. - may induce large variations in airport and airlineoperating e fciency. A sudden deterioration in the weather can have an enormous impact not only at the airport a ected by

2 Airports that are most in need o capacity are hub and some principal airports.




17

%

inclement weather but throughout the network; the consequences are delays, diversions and cancellations o ights. Hence,it is not just a question o requency but rather an issue o severity o the impact.

Some airports are seldom a ected by adverse weather, but - when this happens - weather can cause signifcant disruptionto operations. This, or example, is the case at Frank urt airport.

According to a study of thunderstorm-induced delays at Frankfurt airport, thunderstorms in 1997 increased the accumulated regular delay time by a factor of 6.3. On average, a thunderstorm typically caused about 740 delay minutes in addition to the 280 regular delay minutes for a sum of 100 arriving aircraft within four hours of average impact time. (Ref. 18).

According to CODA (Re . 6), weather represented, in 2008, nearly 25% o all ATFCM delay (en-route and airport) and was

the main cause o the airport ATFCM delay with 39%. At London Heathrow, or instance, a strong headwind can reducethe runway capacity, signifcantly inducing important holding delays (both ground holding or departures and in the air orarrivals). In 2008, weather represented 7% o departure delay causes and 28% or arrivals.

In the United States, inclement weather is cited as the source o 75% o airline disruptions (Re . 2).

While adverse weather conditions will remain a act o li e, becoming even more signifcant as highlighted in CG08 (Re . 9),the role o ATM should be to minimise the associated capacity reductions during low visibility operations and to ensure areturn to nominal capacity as rapidly as possible ollowing an adverse weather event. In this domain, technology such as

A-SMGCS as well as procedures such as airport collaborative decision making (A-CDM) are particularly relevant.

d - Gaining access to airports and terminals

The capacity o an airport is not only determined by the physical in rastructure; but, clearly, this is also a ected by the easewith which passengers are able to reach the airport by car or public transport and/or can travel to the terminal or betweenterminals. The relative lack o e fcient interconnection between terminals is o particular concern to all participants in thestudy.

Airspace Capacity Shortage The subject o airspace capacity raised a number o opinions during the discussions. For some, airspace capacity shortagedoes not seem to be a major challenge or the time being, whereas other participants stressed the necessity to take actionnow to improve the current European Airspace, notably in the ollowing areas:

Ensure sector boundaries are defned in a more coherent way, linking to the tra fc ows rather than geographicalconstraints as advocated in the Functional Airspace Block (FAB) logic

Deal with TMA capacity shortage or access to medium/secondary airports located within the vicinity o major hubs

Improve access to regional airports in developing missing IFR approach procedures.

Additional Challenges – Currently o Lower Priority Airport and airspace capacity shortages have been identifed by participants in the study as the major challenges outside theirremit o operations. Airspace and airport operators’ businesses are also vulnerable to other exogenous challenges, but which,

or the time being, are less o a priority; namely, growing environmental pressures, security measures, uel prices, industrialactions, the need or urther restructuring, long lead times in aircra t manu acturing, and an uncertain uture or the industry.

The survey underlined, however, that environmental constraints will in the uture come to represent the major issue in relationto airport capacity shortage.

These exogenous orces have been prioritised di erently by participants in the study, according to whether their perspective isthat o an airport operator, a network airline, a low-cost carrier or a business aviation operator.




a - Growing Environmental Pressure

All environmental challenges are o concern, whether these are global in nature (CO 2 emissions rom aircra t, airport in ras-tructure and ground transport) or local (noise - essentially, night cur ews and local air quality).

Airspace and airport operators consulted are particularly concerned by the cost generated by environmental challenges,which may dampen demand, even i they consider that cost does not a ect their business or the moment. Our survey raisedthe example o the incorporation o aviation CO 2 in the European Emissions Trading Scheme 2012, which will add US$3.2billion in costs. (Re . 3)

However, the Director General ACI Europe, Olivier Jankovec, stated recently that: “Even if environmental constraints are of less

importance for the time being, it is to be noted that already 50% of European airports see environmental issues limiting theirexpansion” . (Re . 1).

In the uture, due to more stringent regulations at local, national and European levels, environmental challenges may have asignifcant impact on the unctioning o the air transport market as well as its business environment.

b - Security Measures

Providing a sa e and secure air transport system is an utmost priority or the air transport industry. Air transport has historically been subject to several orms o security concerns ranging rom sabotage to hijacking. Extensivesecurity arrangements involving airport acilities, airline operations and other control systems are now an inherent part o theEuropean air transport industry.

The adopted measures have already had a considerable impact on rein orcing security in air transport. But the existingaviation security system has, in some cases, degraded the quality o service o ered by both airlines and airports, incurringescalating additional costs.

Contradictory opinions were expressed by participants in the study. The vast majority consider that there is resilience in thesystem and that security measures do not represent a major challenge to their business since procedures in place are exibleenough to cope with changing requirements.

Others are worried by the increasing costs which may impact their business in one way or another; the need to constructbigger terminal buildings or to upgrade existing acilities to cover customs, passport, health and security checks, to managepassenger queues, etc. Security amounts or a substantial proportion o airports’ operating costs, usually around 35%.

An airspace user has estimated the cost of security measures linked to the event of 10 August 2006 - transatlantic aircraft plot in the UK 3 - to around €5 million.

There is a huge discrepancy with rail services, which are ree rom all these security costs. With the exception o the EUROSTARservice, rail passengers are not subject to identity and baggage controls and there are ew services requiring a seat reserva-tion to board the train. In addition, border controls are not systematic.

c - Fuel Prices

One major concern or the airlines is the long-term trend o rising uel prices. This has a large cost impact and may even leadto the reduced viability o their business model.

In times o crisis, alling uel prices are helping to reduce the severity o the losses incurred due to contracted tra fc demand. The complexities o uel price hedging also mean that airlines are susceptible during periods o uel price volatility.

3 The 2006 transatlantic aircra t plot allegedly aimed to detonate liquid explosives carried on board several airliners travelling rom the United Kingdom to

the United States and Canada.




19

%

The fuel bill represents a major component of airlines’ operating costs, reaching record levels of 32% in 2008 but with anexpected drop to 25% in 2009.(Re . 16).

d - Industrial Actions

Industrial action - such as strikes, go-slows, etc. - generate considerable costs associated with the remuneration and repa-triation o passengers whose travel plans are rendered impossible as well as the longer-term impact on passenger loyalty.

According to the ormer Chairman o Air France, Jean-Cyril Spinetta, “ a planned four-day pilots” strike set to start FridayNovember 14, 2008 will cost the airline around 100 million € ($125 million) in lost revenues”. (Re . 17).

e - Need or Further Restructuring

While stakeholders recognise that restructuring and liberalisation have reached a certain level o maturity, they recommendurther actions and measures to be taken to increase the e fciency o the air transport industry.

According to David McMillan, Director General EUROCONTROL: “The number of airline routes within the European Union has increased by 170% since the creation of the single aviation market in 1993. Competition within the European Union has also grown. Between 1992 and 2006, the number of routes with more than two competitors rose by 300%”. (Re . 7).

According to a study undertaken by York Aviation (Re . 8): “Between 2005 and 2007 airlines as a whole within Europeexpanded intra-European connectivity by 426 city pairs. Over the same period, ELFAA members expanded connectivity by 413 city pairs or around 96% of the total growth in connectivity”.

Should no action be taken, the air transport industry will continue to be impacted by important barriers to entry, and there ore

preventing some actors rom being competitive and e fcient. O particular concern are:

The airport slot allocation system

As a senior-level manager o a business aviation operator 4 said: “There is the assumption that airport slot is a limitedcommodity. There ore, the slot has to be allocated in a way that is most avourable to the wider interest o Europe, whichis contested by some airspace users - in particular, low-cost carriers and business aviation - requesting equal access toairport slots.”

Regulatory measures limiting runway capacity such as yearly capping - or instance, Paris Orly (ORY) airport, which iscapped at 250 000 movements a year, cur ews, and so on.

Bilateral air service agreements, which require a more liberal approach.

- Long Lead Times in Aircra t Manu acturingAs a result o long lead times between the placement o an order to the actual commercial production and provision o theaircra t, airlines may see their business heavily impacted or some may buy aircra t in advance o their real needs in order tokeep rom missing out on model availability in uture periods.

Airbus was running 22 months behind on delivery o its frst A380, while Boeing has pushed back delivery o its frst 787Dreamliner by 18 months.

Another example is the growing market or long-range business aviation airplanes. At the peak in 2008, there was a shortagein Europe or such aircra t: the lead time is 5 to 6 years on deliveries, limiting business aviation operators’ ability to satis y theexpected tra fc growth at short- and medium-term and thus penalising their business.

4 Interview dated June 2008




g - An Uncertain Future

The tra fc evolution can vary as a unction o di erent parameters, including economic growth, social trends and environ-mental regulations, which are di fcult to predict. There are potential shocks to the system that are di fcult to actor in, suchas the e ects on air travel o a pandemic, economic downturn, variations in oil prices, terrorist incident, etc. - events whichhave all occurred in one shape or another in recent times.

The participants stressed the need or even more precise tools to estimate the impact o such actors to better matchcapacity to demand.

Other HighlightsWhile the survey ocused on exogenous in uences driving airline and airport operators to adapt their decisions and operations,our discussions with participants highlighted issues linked to the evolution o airlines’ business models.

Air transport will not develop in the uture as it did in the past; it will become more expensive to travel due in particular toenvironmental costs, uel prices, etc, which will generate a decrease o demand in Europe and may lead to the developmentand use o alternative means o communication such as Visio con erence, etc.

The productivity o aircra t movements will be improved either by increasing the aircra t size (a strategy o growth byproductivity - based on larger aircra t - compared with a strategy ocusing on requency) and/or by increasing aircra tutilisation, seat density or load actor.

Externalisation may play a growing role in so ar as airspace users (in particular in the network airline sector) will outsourcethe ownership and maintenance o aircra t, who will in turn rent seats to airlines. Airlines will concentrate on providingcommercial services and on being the inter ace with their customers, which will allow or a more exible and e fcient useo aircra t. This will rein orce the incentive o both renewing the aircra t sooner and putting pressure on to aircra t manu-

acturers to push those developing technologies aster.




21

%

The Future

There are ve major long-term challenges: airport capacity, sustainability, operating a highly-congestedair traf c network, fully-exploiting SESAR, and climate change. Airspace capacity will not be the greatestchallenge. The use of alternative airports is a major contributor to the airport capacity challenge.

Our survey also included discussions on long-term challenges as perceived by airspace and airport operators. This sectionreports on those exogenous in uences that will prove to be critical in the future.

Before providing key highlights of the survey, the authors considered it pertinent to refer to the CG08 (Ref. 9) report, whichprovided early headlines from the present study. CG08 identi ed ve major challenges - discussed below - which, at a timehorizon of 2030, will result from the increasing demand for air transport.

The following gure provides an overview of the major challenges as extracted from CG08 report as well as of the keyhighlights resulting from an analysis of our discussions with survey participants.

Extract from EUROCONTROL Challenges of Growth 2008 Report (Ref.9)

The hierarchy of the challenges is intended to indicate their respective impact on air traf c operations, but this is not “carved in stone”: the challenges are closely inter-linked and overlapping. An understanding of them will continue to improve in thecoming years, so the following order could change:

MAJOR FUTURE CHALLENGES (from CG08)

ADDITIONAL HIGHLIGHTS (from stakeholder discussion)

Increasingenvironmental pressure

Operating a congestedair traffic network

Lack of Airport Capacity Environmental Sustainability

Impacts of climate changeon demand andinfrastructure

Delivering and exploitingthe benefits of SES,

especially SESAR

Use of alternative airportsis part of the solution

to airport capacity

Industrial Actions

will remain a concern

SESAR is notthe biggest challenge

but neither is it withoutrisks nor costs

Business Aviation willbe more constrained by

airport capacity thanby environmental

pressure

Figure 4: Exogenous Challenges to Airline and Airport Businesses and Operations – The Future




Lack o Airport CapacityMore accurately, this is a mismatch between where (and when) the capacity is available, and where the demand is presented.In fact, the situation has improved signi cantly since CTG04. Demand in the new long-term forecast is 1.7 million ights higher in 2025 than it was in the CTG04 forecast, but there is less unaccommodated demand. The improvement comes from a better match between newly forecasted demand and planned capacity: airports and aircraft operators alike are clearly respondingto the messages from CTG04. However, the dif culties of achieving the plans reported by airports should not be under- estimated.

In the most-likely scenario (C)5 , the forecast is that demand for ights will exceed capacity by 0.9 million IFR ights in 2025.This rises quickly and more than doubles to 2.3 million unaccommodated ights in 2030; 11% of demand will not be accommodated. So, once airports start to reach their capacity limits, the number of unaccommodated ights grows rapidly: at 20%/year, compared with just 1.7% annual growth in actual traf c for the same period.

Environmental Sustainability Aviation has recognised that the bene ts it delivers to the economy are not without their costs to the environment. The industry is acting and improving on this key area of performance. But continued growth will make the challenges globally of CO 2 emissions and locally of noise and local air quality even more acute. In some cases, there are dif cult trade-off decisions to be made, and air traf c management has a role in those trade-offs.

E fcient management o a highly-congested air tra fc network In 2030, in the most-likely scenario, nearly 11% of demand is not accommodated by airports’ plans. Demand is for 20.4 million

ights, compared with 18.2 million that can be accommodated. The air traf c network cannot be expected just to ignore thatexcess demand and continue to work smoothly. Even with that extreme volume of unaccommodated ights, i.e. ights that

would not even reach planning stage, there are many extremely congested airports. In the forecast, achieving 18.2 millionthroughputs involves 19 airports operating at capacity 8 hours/day every day.

Delivering and exploiting the benefts o SES, especially SESARThe air traf c industry is coming together to plan and deliver SESAR, so SESAR is certainly not the biggest challenge of growth: indeed it will deliver additional capacity and hence mititgate some of the challenges. But it is not wihtout risks. In particular, the large-scale institutional and social issues associated with reform are at best of uncertain timescale.

The impact o climate change on demand and in rastructure This is better understood than it was four years ago, but this remains an area of potentially high impact on traf c and with signi cant uncertainty: a number of European airports at risk from rising sea levels; increased risk of disruptive weather;changed wind patterns and temperature affecting aircraft performance; in the longer term, signi cant shifts in tourism and other migration as local regions become more or less desirable.

Additional Highlights Those conclusions extracted rom Challenges o Growth 2008 drew on the analysis resulting rom our consultation with airlineand airport operators. In addition to the above-mentioned major long-term challenges, participants in the study have alsohighlighted:

a - Managing the increasing environmental pressure is perceived to be the uture major concern, together with dealingwith the lack o airport capacity. The environmental challenge covers many acets:

One o the per ormance criteria to which the air transport industry must respond relates to its environmental per ormance:reducing noise and pollution around airports, reducing uel-burn and the release o greenhouse gases over the entire ight.

5 Scenario C “Regulation and Growth” has moderate growth but growing environmental challenges bring accelerated responses by industry and regulators. This is seen as the most-likely scenario.




23

%

At a time horizon o 2030, emissions will without any doubtbecome more constraining and more aircra t producing emissionsor noise above unauthorised levels will be a ected by new regula-tions.

Environmental sustainability is essentially a socio-political challenge,heavily exposed to the strength o public, media and politicalopinion.

The implementation o environmental regulatory measures willinevitably introduce additional tasks or all stakeholders o the industry,which will require new investments to be made both to prepare orand to operate the measures or schemes. Our survey raised theexample o the costs o compliance linked with the incorporation o aviation CO2 in the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme.

The environmental challenge covers also the issue o uel availability.Global oil reserves or the next 80 years are probably greater thancurrent estimates and uel availability will not represent a limiting

actor or the air transport industry. Nevertheless, high uel pricescombined with increasing environmental pressure will accelerate thereplacement o the current generation o aircra t.

b - Airport capacity bottlenecks

When dealing with airport capacity bottlenecks, certain actors haveto be taken into account since they can slow down the rate at whichairport operators are able to deliver capacity:

Airport operators are serving a wide range o customers withdi erent needs: both the customer base (long-haul versusshort-haul, low-cost versus network, leisure versus business customers, etc.) and the airline business strategy (hubversus point to point, etc.) can diverge quite signifcantly.

The issue or the airport operator is constant adaptation to improve service levels or its customers while taking intoaccount its own business model: hence, managing con icting interests between operational agendas (based on rapidthroughput o passengers and luggage) and security and commercial priorities (which are linked to revenue maximisa-tion).

Lead times to build new runways and/or to make better use o existing in rastructure are not compatible with the busi-ness model o airport operators’ customers - the airlines, whose horizon or business planning may only be around fve

years at most. In addition, airlines’ specifcations can be extremely dynamic and likely to evolve over the li etime o anyin rastructure development: or example, the user-concept o T3 at Frank urt airport has changed 15 times.

Available sur ace or expansion is limited, making the developmento airport acilities more complex and the use o such acilities moreexpensive. Our survey raised the example o Heathrow airportwhere expansion is constrained by existing buildings or sensitiveresidential zones.

The European situation di ers rom that o the United States whereavailable sur ace or expansion is generally less o an issue (withsome exceptions such as La Guardia or Chicago) and expropriationrules seem to be less complex.

The planning permission process, which is highly in uenced by a multilayer political decision-making process and along and complex neighbourhood consultation. Hence, expected results are uncertain. (Re . 1).

Project Duration Cost

Munich 22 years 800 mil €

T5 Heathrow 14 years 550 mil €

New runway 9 years Close to 180 mil €Frank urt





25

%

Looking or SolutionsThe survey discussed a wide range o measures with airline and airport operators to address airport and airs-pace capacity challenges as well as environmental sustainability.

The previous sections reported the exogenous challenges impacting the current and uture operations o airlines and airportoperators.

This section ocuses on measures or actions aircra t and airport operators are currently taking or envisage taking in the utureto address the principal exogenous challenges a ecting the degree o reedom o their business and operation.

The intention is not to provide an exhaustive view o all the measures or actions that could be undertaken but rather to reportthe opinions and views expressed by participants in the study.

The Airport Capacity Challenge The need or additional airport capacity is the biggest short- and long-term concern raised by all participants in the survey,which has highlighted a number o possible ways o addressing the capacity shortage across the entire spectrum o the airportin rastructure (runways, aircra t stands, terminal capacity, maintenance and ancillary acilities). The complexity and easibilityo implementation o each o these measures is wide-ranging and gains in e fciency will come rom the cumulative e ects o di erent measures:

a - Building new airports or extending current acilities

This measure is highly in uenced by a multilayer political decision-making process and a di fcult neighbourhood consultationprocedure with a high degree o uncertainty as to the eventual outcome.

According to the Challenges of Growth 2008(Re . 9) study, European airports are planning signi cant investments within 20 years’ time. Some 138 airports projected that their total capacity would be 41% higher in 2030 compared with the equivalent in 2007. This gure is derived as follows:

An 18% capacity increase as a result of 27 airports adding new runways and associated infrastructure

A 17% increase as a result of 79 airports which plan to improve the air-side (taxiways, aprons, etc.) or ground-side(terminals, etc.) infrastructure

A 6% increase from ve major new airports.

Only 27 airports reported no current plans to expand capacity.

The process o in rastructure modernisation and replacement is both long and costly. In addition, both the customer base(long-haul versus short-haul, low-cost versus network, leisure versus business customers, etc.) and the airline business

strategy (hub versus point to point, etc.) are extremely dynamic and likely to evolve over the li etime o any in rastructuredevelopment. Consequently, the business case associated with a particular project can be di fcult to justi y as a result o attempting to accurately predict the demand profle evolution. The issue or the airport operator is constant adaptation soas to provide a quality service or its customers while taking into account its own business model.

The principal question is whether or not the planned investments will be enough to enable airports to absorb the expecteddemand. The above-mentioned Challenges o Growth 2008 study analysed in detail a number o potential scenarios ordemand evolution against the capacity improvements described above. In what is considered to be a “most likely” scenario,the report concludes that 11% o potential ights will not be catered or at a time horizon o 2030. This measure - buildingnew airports or extending current acilities - alone is there ore insu fcient to tackle the airport capacity shortage, and soother measures will be necessary.




b - Optimising current airport operations

SESAR developments and measures are considered to be the driving orce or delivering additional capacity rom theavailable in rastructure, provided institutional and social issues associated with the re orm are solved. Benefts o SESARmeasures and technology will drive optimisation o airport operations; the real issue, though, is the integration o these intocurrent procedures and systems. Organisations will have to engage in culture-change processes, which many participantsin the survey see as the major challenge.

An illustration o SESAR measures and benefts, which are o particular interest or the survey participants is summarisedbelow:

Improved weather orecast and automation, which have to be combined with a ully implemented airport CollaborativeDecision Making (A-CDM). Airport operators have been engaged in A-CDM or some time, which is the case o thethree airports participating in the survey. The ocus within SESAR is to build on the A-CDM concept and to develop a

ramework o “true” collaborative decision making and particularly to introduce the notion o per ormance-based airportmanagement.

Mixed mode operation and time-based separation to increase runway throughput. Mixed mode operation is not possibleat all airports due to runway confguration or usage restrictions, such as at Paris Orly (ORY) airport. At London-Heathrow,an additional 15% runway throughput is claimed possible as a result o implementing mixed mode o operation ratherthan segregated operations.

Wake vortex research where the major airport capacity constraint is related to wake vortex:

- Reduction o oblique/in trail separation or arrival tra fc to Closely Spaced Parallel Runways (CSPR)

- Re-categorisation o separation standards possible as a result o the progress that has been made in the predictiono Wake Vortex behaviour coupled with a better understanding o its impact

- Reduction o Separations or Departure and Arrival under crosswind conditions




27

%

Use o advanced planning tools such as DMAN, AMAN and SMAN 7 is essential in order to cope with the complexity o ground tra fc. DMAN and AMAN can be considered as short-term solutions while SMAN is at the R&D stage.

According to the business aviation representative, the issue is to ensure that SES and SESAR benefts concern thewidest range o airports.

In addition to the SESAR programme, other measures were identifed as contributors to the optimisation o airport operations:

Improved governance o the airport slot allocation process, which is a key undamental and urgent, since this is accessto the market which is at stake, particularly as and when more airports become saturated.

An airport operator 8 noted that: “There will not be enough airport slots at a short- or medium-term. Airlines will beforced through nancial incentive or through physical constraint, either to increase aircraft size, either to serve demandfrom another airport or to not satisfy demand”.

Another airport operator, which operates close to its capacity limit, suggested as a “quick win” to orce airlines toadhere more to slots by indicating on the passenger in ormation displays the allocated slot time instead o the airlinecommercial time o departure.

Increase in terminal throughput by building unctional terminals, which reduce the complexity o airport operations, by impro-ving interconnection between terminals, and by introducing competition where terminals would be run by rival operators.

Reconciliation o ATFM and airport slots. Although the survey highlighted the need or increased coherency betweenthe airport slots and ATFM slots, it should be borne in mind that the two processes are not only managed di erentlybut are addressing di erent system constraints. The strategic allocation o airport slots has a commercial value tothe airline and the number o such slots is determined primarily according to the airport in rastructure and associatedcapacity. The ATFM slots on the other hand are a tactical management tool, which takes into account the presence

o constraints along the entire ight trajectory, notably the presence o en-route sector capacity constraints. The in-troduction o Departure Management (DMAN) unctionality, coupled with CDM should enable the departure sequenceto be better organised according to the presence o en-route capacity constraints and the local conditions, therebyintroducing a considerably enhanced level o exibility into the system as compared with today’s operations.

Adopting best practices already in place at some airports.

Participants in the survey highlighted the importance o a concerted approach among all partners o the air transport systemto coordinate and to implement developments and projects, either through European programmes or through partnerships.Our survey raised the example o a business aviation operator, which works in close cooperation with approximately 30airports across Europe to enhance access to airports’ business tra fc. The business aviation operator uses several meansto achieve this collaboration, including investing in aircra t equipment and ground in rastructure such as GBAS, etc., buyingairports, establishing partnership contracts, and committing to a long-term programme o ights to ensure capacity expansion.

7 Departure Manager (DMAN), Arrival Manager (AMAN) and Sur ace Manager (SMAN)8 Extracted rom interview with an airport operator, June 2008.




c - Use o alternative airportsAlternative airports are considered as those with a principal characteristic: that they are less congested. Secondary ormilitary airports typically all into this category. Low-cost carriers are very supportive o such measures provided satis ac-tory ground transportation acilitiesexist. Some low-cost operatorsalready apply this strategy as parto their overall business model andpre er to operate between regionalareas. Network airlines are trying tooperate as much as they can rom asingle airport; since operating rom

two or three airports is costly.In addition, the impact o environ-mental constraints at alternativeairports should not be disregarded.

This measure will be developed inthe chapter “Mitigation Analysis”.

d - Advice rom Community Observatory on Airport CapacityIn early November 2008, the European Commission launched the Community Observatory on Airport Capacity, which willadvise “ the European Commission on developing measures to improve the capacity of the European airport network andwill play an essential role in the implementation of the Commission’s action plan for airport capacity, ef ciency and safety inEurope, published in January 2007”(Re . 14). The newly-established Observatory brings together the European Commission,EUROCONTROL, national authorities, stakeholders and industry representatives including ACI EUROPE. Although theterms o re erence o this Observatory ocuses on advising the EC, our survey highlighted the expectation that the initiativelead to tangible airport capacity enhancement measures.

e - Clearer rules on airport chargingWhile the European Commission states that: “The necessary investments in airport capacity need to be made, accompanied by clearer rules on airport charging”(Re . 15), this topic was not raised by the participants in the survey.

The Airspace Capacity Challenge Airspace capacity shortage is not seen by the participants in the survey as being the biggest challenge in the uture. TheSESAR programme will be the strongest enabler or sustaining uture long-term demand. SESAR developments and techno-logies are recognised as the solution to achieve by 2020 a modernised, high-per ormance European air tra fc managementin rastructure provided institutional and social issues associated with re orm are solved.

Our survey highlighted the importance o SWIM - System Wide In ormation Management - also called a “World Wide Web” orthe distribution o air tra fc management data, which is considered as the backbone o SESAR. “SWIM will manage surveillance, weather and ight data, as well as aeronautical and airspace status information, and will provide this securely and seamlesslyto airspace users and managers. When fully implemented, SWIM will dramatically improve the capabilities of existing systems, reduce capital and operating costs, improve productivity, and offer exible network system expansion”.




29

%

Towards a More Sustainable AviationWhen ocusing on the 2030 time horizon, participants in the study pointed to the growing environmental challenges or aviation.

These challenges contain both a global element (e.g., CO 2 emissions) as well as local elements (noise and local air quality).

Our survey raised the ollowing examples o measures by which aircra t and airport operators are addressing the growingenvironmental challenge. Some measures already exist today and will be rein orced in the uture:

a - Conduct research into improved aircra t and related technologies

Most o the airlines are already renewing their eet so as to introduce cleaner aircra t with more uel-e fcient engines. Someairspace users underlined their current initiatives or the design, in close collaboration with aircra t manu acturers, o the

uture generation o aircra t to ensure neutral growth emissions. For example, the easyJet ecoJet should deliver 25% lessperceived external noise, 50% less CO 2 and 75% less NOx per passenger-km compared with a new aircra t built in 2000(the ACARE re erence year) (Re . 5) or the Next Generation Jet Fuel Project.

b - Focus on operational improvements to achieve the most “sustainable” capacity rom the system.

Airlines and airport operators are taking a wide range o operational initiatives, which will deliver multiple benefts. Theollowing initiatives are provided as examples:

Reducing taxi time, speed and waiting time or departure slot or or gate

Developing autonomous aircra t electrical towing acilities powered only by the APU. Furthermore, aircra t manu acturersare investigating the possibility o equipping the ront nose wheel with an electrical propulsion system powered rom the

APU or use during the taxi phase. This is expected to provide signifcant gains in uel consumption

Reducing the use o APU in providing electrical alternative power sources at the aircra t stand to enable local pollution-ree air conditioning

Implementing improved noise tracking tools to penalise - and there ore, restrict - trajectory deviations

Imposing limits on certain aircra t during those hours where noise quotas run the risk o being exceeded




Reducing the overall carbon ootprint by changing the amount o journeys made by car to reach the airport and toencourage rail and bus, public transport or buying houses/homelands to reduce noise impact area.

Air tra fc procedural and ight-planning improvements are also essential to obtain the most “sustainable” capacity rom thesystem. Our survey raised the ollowing initiatives as examples:

Continuous descent approaches, which according to some participants in the survey are slow in being trialled

A low-cost carrier, seeking a more dynamic ight plan system, is looking at the Lu thansa lido/Flight planning solutions,which would enable real-time re-routings, taking uel e fciency and cost into account, along with other parameters. Theaim or the low-cost carrier is to redistribute ight plans to less congested alternative routes. Today, the ight plan isprocessed overnight. The system demonstrates its ability to work two hours in advance, but the intention in the uture

is to load the ight plans into the aircra t.c - Incentivise airlines (at European level) to reduce gaseous emissions.

The Emissions Trading Scheme is seen as a good incentive system to encourage the use o cleaner aircra t and to compen-sate or the CO 2 produced, but this is not ree o cost.

Other Highlights The survey highlights that schedule smoothing - moving unaccommodated ights to times o the day when more airport capa-city is available - is not considered as an answer to the airport capacity challenge. This is mainly because there is limited scope

or moving ights to a nearby period. This topic is addressed in “Schedule Smothing” (see page 37).

High speed train is not perceived as o ering an alternative mode o transport to aviation, since there are only a small numbero routes where the high speed train could theoretically replace air services; these are mainly domestic and short-haul routeswithin Europe. This topic is urther discussed in section “High Speed Train Investment” (see page 40).




31

%

The previous chapter ocused on exploring exogenous challenges impacting airport and aircra t operators in their operationsand businesses, hence limiting their ability to satis y the expected tra fc growth at short-, medium- and long-term. The ultimateobjective was to acquire a good understanding o how airspace users and airport operators might adapt to these exogenouschallenges.

Acquiring a good understanding o aircra t and airports operators’ business permits an appreciation o the sensitivity o eachactor to the di erent challenges. This is o particular importance to the mitigation analysis, which is covered in this chapter. Theaim o the mitigation analysis is to study and assess a number o measures, which airspace users and airport operators couldapply in order to alleviate the pressures a ecting airport capacity and the network.

The ApproachThe 2008 Mitigation Analysis improves on the previous studies as a result o a closer engagement with theairline and airport community.

Mitigating the Challenges or Air Transport 2030 is the third in a series o studies; the frst two having been published in 2001and 2004, respectively, the “Medium and Long Term Sustainable Growth in Air Transport” (Re . 12) (CTG01) and “Challengesto Growth 2004, Chapter 7 - Analysis o the Possibilities or Mitigating Airport Capacity Constraints” (Re 10) (CTG04).

A number o di erent options - see below - or mitigating airport capacity challenges were assessed in the 2001 and 2004reports. The “broad-brush” approach that each study adopted provided some idea o the upper boundary on mitigation butthe results have to be interpreted with caution, since they do not include the extent to which the market - essentially airlinecompanies and airport operators - are able to reconcile such mitigation measures with the undamentals o their particularbusiness model.

3. Mitigating

the challenges ahead

Previous CtG studies

StakeholderDiscussion

Airport Capacity Plansfrom CG08

STATFOR Long-TermForecast, 2008-2030

Scenarii C & A

Baseline Traffic SampleJuly 2007

Do nothingscenario

FIPS

FIPS

Definition ofMitigation Methods

Mitigation

Results MitigationMeasure n°2





UnaccommodatedDemand


Figure 5: Analytical environment of the mitigation analysis




The scope o the current chapter is broader than the analysis contained in the previous mitigation studies in so ar as the aimis to address the ollowing objectives:

a - Deepen the approach proposed in previous Mitigation Analyses, taking into account the changing context. Much haschanged since 2003, which was the baseline year or the 2004 study. The EU now has 27 member states. Very light jetshave become a reality. There has been agreement on Open Skies between the EU and USA. The emissions trading schemehas come more sharply into ocus. Some airports are approaching capacity aster than expected, among other developments.

b - Propose and assess methods representing a much closer alignment with the real possibilities or action that aircra tand airport operators will have in the uture.

In order to address this challenge, the ollowing approach (see Figure 5 - previous page) has been ollowed, which ocusesmainly on the involvement o a representative panel o senior-level managers within the airline and airport community.

The EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre has developed a tool (FIPS - Flight Increase Process) which allows uture tra fc samples to be created that completely respect the temporal distribution o the baseline sample ( i.e. , the same peaks areobserved in the demand distribution at each airport) but take into account the planned airport hourly capacities.

Future tra fc samples are constructed directly rom the baseline tra fc sample, which is in most o the cases a 28-dayperiod starting 5 July 2007.

Growth fgures are then applied to the baseline tra fc sample, which respect the Long-Term orecast, Flight Movements2008-2030, prepared by the EUROCONTROL STATFOR unit as part o CG08. The 2008 Mitigation Analysis ocuses ontwo long-term orecast scenarios in order to capture di erent potential ways that the demand or airline services mayevolve in the uture9.

Scenario C , the most likely scenario, which has moderate economic growth but growing environmental challenges

Scenario A , the most challenging scenario, which comprises strong economic growth but with an increased use o technology, partially to mitigate the environmental challenges. This scenario was used as the basis or CTG01 andCTG04 and although considered as the “less likely” scenario, it is included here or comparison purposes.

Another major component o the modelling environment is the airport capacity, provided by Challenges o Growth 2008,which has been assessed using a new survey that obtained the current plans o 138 airports - twice the number coveredby CTG04.

The contribution from a representative panel of senior-level managers of aircraft and airport operators allowed themitigation measures to be defned and the modelling methodology to be adapted to take into account the distinctivecharacteristics o the di erent aircra t and airport operators.

As mentioned previously, 15 stakeholder organisations were contacted, nine o which agreed to contribute to the study:

two rom the major (network) airlines sectorone rom low-cost airlineone rom the Business Aviation industry

three rom operators o international airports having a signifcant proportion o connecting passengers two rom airline trade organisations (one representing network airlines, the other low-cost carriers)

A total o 10 interviewees representing the above nine organisations contributed to our survey.

The di erent high-level mitigation options assessed in previous studies were considered as a starting point or ourdiscussions with participants in the study. The main objective, however, was to considerably refne these options to moreclosely re ect the “applicability” o each mitigation measure to each individual actor.

9 The two other scenarios are Scenario B - Business as Usual with moderate growth and little change rom current trends - and Scenario D - FragmentedWorld with increasing tensions between regions and consequent reductions in long-haul trade and travel.

3. Mitigating the challenges ahead



33

%

Six Mitigation Measures A number o options or mitigating airport capacity constraints were assessed in previous Challenges to Growth studies andthese options were considered as a starting point or our analysis as ollows:

Schedule Smoothing

This option simulated the airlines usage o slots in time periods where demand is below available capacity. By schedulingights at up to 1 or 3 hours rom their original slot, CTG04 indicated that the level o unaccommodated demand at 2025

was approximately 11% compared with 17% i no such action was taken.

Increased Use o Secondary Airports

Under this second option, the Schedule Smoothing is augmented by using less capacity constrained airports in the areassurrounding major congested airports. CTG04 indicated that the level o unaccommodated demand could be reduced to5% at 2025.

Frequency Capping

This option considered the impact o applying a “cap” on the number o daily ights on certain airport pairs. This is consistentwith the evolution towards the use o larger aircra t as a means o satis ying a growing level o passenger demand withouta major increase in the number o ight movements. CTG04 used a stringent option to limit the daily ights to a maximumo 10 in each direction on individual airport pairs.

Substitution and Intermodal Transport Links

This option resulted in CTG01 or a small reduction (4%) o the daily number o air movements but the impact on en-routeand airport delay was quite signifcant.

The discussions held within our survey allowed the mitigation options to be rethought and redefned. The aim was to proposeand to assess methods representing a much closer alignment with the real possibilities or action that aircra t and airport ope-rators will have in the uture. As a result, six refned methods were considered in the 2008 mitigation analysis. Four o these,namely alternative airports, schedule smoothing, high speed train investment, and the use o larger aircra t, were specifcallyaddressed by the participants in the study. A urther two, not strictly mitigation measures, namely SESAR improvements consi-dered in isolation as well as coupled with the increased use o alternative airports, were analysed as methods or reducing thelevels o unaccommodated demand at the 2030 time horizon. The measures analysed in this report are there ore:

1 - A lternAtive A irports

2 - s chedule s moothing

3 - h igh s peed t rAin investment

4 - sesAr i mprovements

5 - sesAr i mprovements And A lternAtive A irports

6 - s hifting to l Arger A ircrAft

For each mitigation measure, the results o the modelling study based on the survey discussions are presented in theollowing sections. Each section concludes with a graphical representation o the stakeholders’ opinions encompassing the

degree o importance they attach to the particular mitigation measure (x-axis); the strength o their opinion (y-axis); and, fnally,an indication o the number o stakeholders who share a particular x,y pairing.




1 - A lternAtive A irports

Shi ting to alternative airports is considered as a realistic option or some airline and airport operators. Themeasure is e fcient in that it would reduce unaccommodated demand by 30%-40%, provided passengersand carriers are willing to relocate to such airports, which in turn is linked to the quality o the ground trans-portation links.

Scope

This mitigation measure explores whether unaccommodated ights could be satisfed at a nearby, less congested airport oralternative airport. Those ights or which no alternative airports could be ound are to be considered as “lost” ights.


The ollowing key messages have been in erred rom our discussions with participants in the survey.

Should passengers be prepared to travel to alternative airports, it is important to note that not all ights can be trans erredbetween airports, notably:

- Tra fc that has a relationship with a hub system

- Business tra fc - unless the ground access to/ rom the city is optimum.

On the other hand, point-to-point tra fc such as charter or regional ights with only origin-destination passengers canmore easily be shi ted to alternative airports.

This mitigation measure is more logical and easible or some airlines than or others:

- Low-cost carriers are very supportive o such an approach provided satis actory ground transportation acilities exist.Some low-cost operators already apply this strategy as part o their overall business model and pre er to ensureservices between regional areas. Military airports may be pre erred since it is easier to build new terminal acilities.

- This view is not shared by network airlines, which are trying to operate as much as they can rom one airport, sinceoperating rom two or three airports is costly. However, operating rom more than one airport can be justifed whenthere is no room or expansion at a major airport or when a clear market di erentiation is desirable. For example,Gatwick and Heathrow airports are together providing a global capacity or the London economic area, and the Parisairports o Orly (domestic and international niche destinations) and Charles-De-Gaulle (international hub) are attemp-ting to provide a clear segregation in the nature o their “o er”.

- In addition, hub airlines pre er to grow and to invest at their hub airports up to their maximum allowable capacity be oredeciding to expand their operations elsewhere. Nevertheless, this mitigation measure may be pertinent or point-to-point tra fc with only origin-destination passengers.

- Business aviation o ers signifcant choice to its clients, mainly at non-major airports. Nevertheless, alternative airportsare a viable option or business aviation customers only when they are located at a reasonable distance rom majorcities (maximum time o ground transportation rom airport to destination should be no more than 90 minutes).

The impact o environmental constraints at alternative airports should not be disregarded.

Using alternative airports can work provided there is an overlap between the catchment areas o those airports, sincecustomer demand is di fcult to relocate rom one airport to another. In other words, the question to be answered is:

“Would passengers be prepared to go to either o these airports?”

Should the answer be positive, then some o the tra fc could be trans erred without loss between airports.

At a time horizon o 2030, one would expect that a lot o in rastructure - better road and rail access - to alternativeairports will have been improved.




35

%

The growth o alternative airports cannot be prevented when this is based on market orces. In the recent past, wehave seen many examples o such alternative airports in the vicinity o hub airports, such as Charleroi near Brussels-Zaventem Airport and Hahn near Frank urt Main Airport.

The use o alternative airports should encompass a care ul redesign o TMA procedures that will not lead to ATFMdelays.

In conclusion, shi ting to alternative airports can be considered as a real option or some airline and airport operators (seeFigure 6) as a means to cater or unaccommodated ights, provided ground transportation is o ered to remote airports, andpassengers and carriers are willing to relocate to those airports.

Mitigation Measure Modelled

Specifcations

The current study urther distinguishes between 2 types o alternative (less congested) airports 10:

A secondary airport, located within 45nm around a hub

A regional airport located at a greater distance rom a main hub. For the purposes o this study, an airport locatedbetween 45nm and 150nm rom a hub and having between 100 and 500 tra fc movements per day (re erring to asignifcant economic activity) has been considered as a regional airport.

These alternative airports can be either civil or military airports, since by the 2030 time horizon, it is considered likely thatthere will be increased use o military airports.

10 CTG01 and CTG04 cover exclusively secondary airports.

Figure 6: Shifting to Alternative Airports - Summary of Stakeholder Discussion

- Low cost airline andTrade Organisation

- Business Aviation

- High Density Airports (x3)

In FavourNot in Favour

Low

High

- Major airline (because of hub operations)

- Airline Trade Organisation (hub operations)

- Major airline (because P2P traffic)

I m p o r t a

n c e

t o s t a

k e

h o

l d e r s




This rough distinction may certainly not address the di erent aspects linked to this mitigation measure, notably proper groundtransport links, requency o ights. Notwithstanding, the results are considered su fciently representative o what could beachieved, mainly because it takes into account the di erentiation between types o ights:

Charter ights have been moved to regional airports. Flights a ected by this measure are those ights within Europe( i.e. , intra-European) and those ights rom Europe to the American and A rican continents.

For low-cost carriers, only intra-European ights and those rom Europe to the A rican continent will be trans erred tosecondary airports. All other ights operated by low-cost carriers will not be re-routed to secondary airports. In particular,this includes those ights to hubs so as not to a ect their business tra fc.

Those ights operated by hub carriers 11 between Europe and the American/A rican continents have been moved toregional airports. On the other hand, ights to and rom Asia have been excluded mainly because they would not attractsu fcient passenger demand were they to operate rom a regional airport.

Business Aviation ights between Europe and North A rica and intra-European ights have been moved to secondaryairports. The remainder were not impacted.

Cargo ights 12 have been trans erred to regional airports, regardless o their destination. In act, cargo ights should bedirected to airfelds with runways su fciently long to accept heavy long-hauls. This is considered to be covered by thenotion o regional airports.

The knock-on e ects o this mitigation measure or increasing complexity o tra fc ows en route were not modelled.

The process o assigning ights to less congested airports takes into account the tra fc distribution in July 2007. Flightsare assigned to alternative airports as defned above i , and only i , there is at least one ight operating on the airport pair inJuly 2007. I this was not possible, then the ight remains as unaccommodated. This process ensures the integrity o theanalysis in the sense that unrealistic airport pairs are not created.

Results

The measure is e fcient in that it would reduce unaccommodated demand by around 30% 13, being more e ective in themost likely scenario (scenario C) mainly because the tra fc orecast is more moderate. A second modelling exercise, appliedon a larger sample 14, has been per ormed. This exercise takes better account o the daily uctuations in tra fc demand andprovided even better results since the unaccommodated demand has been reduced on average by 40%.

11 With the exception o British Airways since its business is linked to London Heathrow and Gatwick.12 The transport o reight can take place either through cargo ights or in the hold o passenger ights. It is the frst category, which is concerned by the measure.13 Future tra fc sample constructed on a two-day period in July 2007.14 Future tra fc sample constructed on a 28-day period starting 5 July 2007.


2015CTG01

2025CTG04

2030CG08

Scenario A

2030CG08

Scenario C

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

UnaccommodatedDemand reduced by 30%

Figure 7: Alternative Airports - Impact on reducing Unaccommodated Demand



37

%

The impact o the approach is, however, limited by capacity constraints elsewhere in the network and the willingness o passengers and carriers to relocate. In addition, there may be adverse environmental impacts i ground transport is needed

or access to remote airports, although this may be o set by the reduction in the concentration o emissions at hub airports. There are limits to this strategy, since - ultimately - the location o demand is decided by passengers and shippers. Themitigation measure could, however, be even more e ective, possibly signifcantly so, should airlines elect to create “new”airport pairs by shi ting their tra fc to an origin/destination pair or which there is no tra fc during July 2007.

There are important di erences with the results provided in previous reports. This is primarily because the previous studiestook no account o the di erent airline and airport business models. The surveys conducted as part o this present studyhave highlighted the di erences between operators and between types o ights and this is re ected in the specifcationsused in the modelling exercise. As a consequence, this mitigation measure o ers much less scope or reducing unaccom-modated demand than may have been considered to be the case in the past but represents a much closer alignment withthe real possibilities or action that airspace and airport operators will have in the uture.

2 - s chedule s moothing

Schedule smoothing is not considered as an answer to the airport capacity challenge, mainly becausethere is o ten little scope or moving ights to a nearby period. As a result, this measure would reduceunaccommodated demand only by around 5%.

Scope

This approach involves moving unaccommodated ights to times o the day when more airport capacity is available.

Stakeholder DiscussionA number o key messages have been in erred rom our discussions with airlines and airport operators:

As indicated in the fgure below, this is not considered as a real option to accommodate more demand, mainlybecause there is o ten little scope or moving ights to a nearby period and because it might not be the frst choice o thepassenger. Other mitigation measures should be investigated with a higher priority.

I m p o r t a n c e

t o s

t a k e

h o l d e r s


Low

High

- Scheduled Airline Trade Organisation

- LCC Trade Organisation

- Hub airline 2

- Low Cost Carrier

- Airports (3x) (when some capacity left)

- Business Aviation (for leisure and long-haul flights)

- Hub airline 1 (for flights from West EU to East coast USand specific destinations such as Dakar, Beyrouth)

Figure 8: Schedule Smoothing - Summary of Stakeholder Discussion




This option makes no sense or low-cost carriers since their policy is based on what customers value. This mitigationmeasure would be telling the customers what they should do, rather than responding to what the customer values. Inorder to satis y demand, low-cost carriers pre er to make more use o secondary airports.

Business aviation, on the other hand, may opt or schedule smoothing in certain circumstances. Typically, 80% o business aviation ights cater or business passengers and can there ore be considered as not commercially viablei the client does not consider the timing to be “desirable”. There remains, however, some 20% o business aviation

ights, which are either long-haul or catering or (albeit wealthy) passengers or leisure requirements. This latter segmenthas some exibility in terms o scheduling.

This mitigation proposal puts the entire burden on the airlines to change their schedules. Whether or not this measurecould be applied at certain airports in the event that there is available “o -peak” capacity is there ore dependent entirelyon the voluntary cooperation o the airlines.

Some Major airports - like Charles-De-Gaulle (CDG) - may be more receptive to the proposed approach, mainlybecause they have some spare capacity to move ights and because they have bigger ows.

Should schedule smoothing be considered as a mitigation measure, it is important to take into consideration thecharacteristics o a ight according to its type o operation:

- Particular attention should be paid to business tra fc due to the time sensitivity o clients. On the other hand, point-to-point and leisure ights are less sensitive to schedule change.

- Flights considered by the operating airline to have a high number o connecting passengers and there ore tightly linkedto the airline’s hub operation should not be modifed so as to respect the integrity and optimisation o the hub sche-dule. There is a risk that schedule smoothing has a negative impact on hub connectivity when transit times becomeunattractive. It is important to note that some 80% o sales are realised through o ers appearing on the frst page o a ight reservation system, which is ordered by total journey time. Nevertheless, some shi ting may be envisaged orspecifc ights. For example, on intercontinental ows such as ights rom Western Europe to the East coast o North

America, or to particular destinations in A rica such as Dakar, where no signifcant “jet lag” exists, and passengers arenot there ore a ected by biological cycle constraints.

- For the airlines operating at major hubs, long-haul schedules determine the schedule o the connecting short/mediumhaul ights. There ore, it is essential not to modi y these signifcantly.

- Flights should not be taken in isolation and are part o a schedule; taking out some ights, or example, by not o eringthe return journey, may exclude an airline rom market opportunities.


Specifcations

Based on key messages detailed in the previous section, the ollowing assumptions have been made or modelling themitigation measure:

Maximum two hours shi ting or point-to-point ights, which seem to be less constrained because o their type o operations (no trans ers as in the Hub model). This shi ting is applied to intra-European ights and those rom Europeto the American continent and to Central and Western A rica.

However, only 30 minutes schedule smoothing is considered or the ollowing ights:

- Flights rom and to major hubs (Charles de Gaulle, Heathrow, Gatwick, Schiphol, Frank urt, Munich and Madrid) torespect the high degree o coupling between inbound and outbound waves in these airports as a result o the needto o er passengers attractive connecting times.

- Low-cost ights within the ollowing time slots: 04.00 – 07.00 and 15.00 – 17.30 (UT) because they contain a signi-fcant element o business demand.




39

%

Maximum two hours smoothing or charter ights because those ights are less constrained. Schedule requirements o those passengers are in all likelihood less constrained than those o other airline operators, notably business tra fc.A time shi t o up to one hour or long-haul ights rom or to a major hub, going to the East coast o the US and Canada(Montreal, Boston, New-York Kennedy or Newark, Philadelphia and Washington).

A one hour shi t or business aviation ights to or rom airports located in Europe and A rica.

One exception to this measure concerns ights scheduled between the ollowing time slots: 04.00 - 07.00 and 15.00 -17.30. A time shi t o 30 minutes has been applied as during these time periods the majority o their clients have a highdegree o time sensitivity.

A smoothing o three hours or short- and medium-haul ights, where distance does not exceed 1500 nm rom a huband to airports located in Europe and A rica. The exibility applied to those ights is linked to the opportunity or hubsto increase their output by means o potential unused slots without changing the time slots o connecting ights.

The process o reallocating ights to periods where the airport capacity/demand profle suggests that such action maybe possible takes into account the tra fc distribution in July 2007.

Results

In theory, the e ect o this mitigation measure is that the level o unaccommodated ights will be reduced as more ightsgain access to the system while taking into account the airport capacity.

In act, schedule smoothing is o limited beneft (as indicated in Figure 9 below). As a result, the percentage o “lost” ights- i.e, those or which suitable smoothing could not be ound - remains as high as nearly 24% or scenario A and nearly 10%

or Scenario C.

It is worth noting that Challenges to Growth 2004 suggested that the percentage o unaccommodated demand could bereduced rom around 17% to nearly 11% as a result o schedule smoothing. This ormer study, however, took no accounto the di erent airline business models and the consequential “ability” that airlines would have to move ights in time. Thesurveys conducted as part o this present study have shown that di erent airlines ( or a variety o reasons) will have di fcultyin modi ying their ight times, while at the same time maintaining an attractive and coherent overall o er, and this is re ectedin the results o the modelling exercise. As a result, this mitigation measure o ers much less scope or reducing unaccom-modated demand than might have been considered to be the case in the past.

2015

CTG01

2025

CTG04

2030

CG08Scenario A

2030

CG08Scenario C

0% 20% 40%

Figure 9: Schedule Smoothing - Impact on Reducing Unaccommodated Demand

Small reduction of

Unaccommodated

Demand




The low e fcacy o this mitigation measure is linked to the level o saturation o major airports where the demand is thehighest and where there are only a ew periods that can absorb shi ted ights. In addition, this method involves moving

ights to times o the day when more capacity was available, but this might not be the frst choice o the passenger asre ected in the specifc way that the scenario was modelled or each ight type.

In any event, schedule smoothing is likely to occur to some extent; this, in response to the trade-o between passengerdemand profle during the day, while making the best use o aircra t, sta and other resources. In the uture, airlines will haveto seek the best “trade-o ” between access to the system, the quality o the o er to the passenger in relation to their com-petitors and this within a ramework which is likely to be dictated by environmental constraints related to noise abatement.

3 - h igh s peed t rAin investment

Shi ting short-haul ights to high speed train is o limited beneft since there are only a small number oroutes where the high speed train could theoretically replace air services. As a result, this measure wouldreduce unaccommodated demand only by around 5%.

Scope

This mitigation measure considers the impact o shi ting ights to high speed train (HST).


In our discussions with participants in the study, rail services are perceived as an alternative mode o transport that may ullyreplace air travel through the use o HST; and also as a complementary mode o transport in terms o airport access (CDGExpress, German regional trains) and terminal connection (such as CDGVAL).

A summary o the key messages is provided below:

This mitigation measure is supported as long as therail station is ully integrated into the airport in ras-tructure ( or example, the TGV station at Terminal 2o Charles-De-Gaulle) so that the change rom onemode to the other is convenient or the passenger.

The overall ramework o the uture European trans-portation system must be seen as a Total TransportSystem, including comodality.

There are a small number o routes where the HSTwould be an attractive alternative, mainly domes-tic services and short-haul ights within Europe.Beyond short distances (typically 3 hours), airlineservices become more attractive due to the cost o rail in rastructure and the limited ability o businesspassengers to easily make the return journey in asingle day.

Should high speed train lines connect “appropriate” cities - such as London and Manchester - the attractiveness orlong-haul ights would be increased, since more passengers would go to London Heathrow, where the o er or long-haul ights is more extensive than at Manchester.

The train sector su ers a lack o interoperability. Even i comodality is improved, this will not alleviate the congestionproblems at some airports.




41

%

The better connected, the more attractive an airport. Many airports improve their connectivity with the rail network inorder to bring destinations “closer”, i.e. , getting to the airport faster and consequently, easier to attract passengers frommore distant areas. As a result, the catchment area of the airport is increased signi cantly. There is a trade-off betweenthe average speed of the link and the number of intermediate stops made en-route to the airport.

Some passengers may switch between air and rail services because of a faster railway link, which may result in anincrease of the catchment area. As of today, 60% of the French population is located within three hours of Paris by train. This gure will increase to 80% at a time horizon of 2020-2025.

New business models of partnerships between airspace and train operators are emerging, and in particular where railis in direct competition with air services and provided railway links are available. For example, Air France is selling traintickets on the high speed SNCF service between Paris Charles de Gaulle airport and Brussels. Ultimately, they willoperate train services between these destinations, providing the marketing and customer services and outsourcing theoperation of the train. In addition, many airports are improving on connectivity with the train network to achieve fasterand easier access to the airport, so that they can bring passengers from more distant areas.

HST has no impact on business aviation, either in feeding their business traf c or in taking the traf c away.

In conclusion, the attractiveness of HST as an alternative mode of transport is rather limited (only for domestic and short-haul ights). Interesting to note is the evolution of new business model partnerships between airline and rail operators whenrail is in direct competition with air services. The overall framework of the future European transportation system must beseen as a Total Transport System covering comodality and good airport connectivity.


Low

High

- Increased AirportConnectivity

(all participantsin the survey)

Figure 10: Rail Services - Summary of Stakeholder discussion

- HST attractiveness

Short-haul flights

Major Hub Airline (air-rail partnership) Airline Trade Organisation (comodality)

- Business Aviation (no impact of HST and of airport connectivity)

I m p o r t a n c e

t o s

t a k e

h o

l d e r s





Specifcations

A specifc modelling exercise has not been per ormed or this mitigation measure, since this measure is alreadyaddressed by EUROCONTROL STATFOR in the Long-term Forecast, Flight Movements 2008-2030 (LTF08) study andin Challenges o Growth 2008.

Those studies have considered the impact o shi ting ights to HST; that is, considering rail services exclusively as aactor in reducing the demand or air travel. The possible synergies o train and air transport - in terms o increased

airport connectivity, o comodality - have not been modelled.

The European high-speed train network will see some signifcant developments in the near as well as more distantuture. LTF08 looked at these plans and modeled the uture high speed rail network to assess the competition that HST

creates or air transport. By 2030, close to 100 city pairs will be linked by high speed rail. The main projects includeurther improvements in the Spanish and French network with better international connections; extension o the lines

to Portugal; tunnel construction or the trans-Alpine lines connecting Switzerland and Italy; some stretches in Germanyreaching to Austria; lines rom Sweden to Denmark and developments in Turkey. This reduces ight demand in the

orecast by 0.3-0.5 million ights in 2030.

In addition, the LTF08 considered a sensitivity test that extended the HST network by a urther 205 city pairs, ocusingon replacing busy and short-range airport pairs (more than 10 ights/day and less than 400km air distance). Dependingon the HST travel time, a proportion o air passengers then shi t to HST, a hypothesis which has proven to be the casealready with the introduction o new HST services; or instance, Paris to Strasbourg to cite only one route.

Shi ting short-haul ights to HST by extending the HST network rom 98 city-pairs to over 300 city-pairs reduceddemand by a urther 0.3-0.5 million ights. So it takes three times the connections to double the reduction. In view o

the cost o building HST lines, this is unlikely to be justifable in its own right as a means to reduce demand.


0% 10%

Figure 11: High Speed Train Investment - Impact on Reducing Unaccommodated Demand

UnaccommodatedDemand reduced

by around 4%

2030CG08

Scenario A

2030CG08

Scenario C



43

%

It should be noted that:

Challenges to Growth 2001 already suggested that this option would result in a small reduction (4%) o the daily numbero air movements when compared with the 2015 orecast “do-nothing” but the impact, particularly on en-route andairport delay, was quite signifcant. This was a result o the act that the replacement o air services by the high speedtrain was considered on a number o high density routes already su ering rom airspace congestion, notably Madrid-Barcelona and Rome-Milan.

Shi ting ights to HST should have a positive impact on air travel demand in so ar as it improves the local air quality byreducing road transport to access airports.

4 - sesAr i mprovements

SESAR plus investments to bring airports to the per ormance level o the best-in-class has the potentialto increase airport capacity by a signifcant margin, reducing unaccommodated demand by 40%.

Scope

Discussions with airlines and airports during our surveyhighlighted the importance o the SESAR programme toincrease system capacity by developing and implemen-ting new technologies, approaches, and procedures.SESAR is perceived as the strongest enabler or sustai-ning uture long-term demand. There ore, it seems ap-propriate to complete the 2008 mitigation assessmentby an impact analysis o airport capacity enhancementsthat will be achieved within the li ecycle o the SESARprogramme.


For the timescale 2020-2030, the SESAR programme is recognised as the roadmap or achieving a modernised, high-per ormance European air tra fc management in rastructure.

Capacity improvements are expected in the short-term, associated with Implementation Package 1 (IP1) o the ATM MasterPlan, but the principal benefts o SESAR will be rolled-out during the deployment phase between 2014 and 2020.SESAR also recognises the need or capacity enhancement solutions beyond the 2020 horizon, which will result in a specifcprogramme o innovative or long-term R&D (Implementation Package 3).

An illustration o SESAR measures and benefts, which are o particular interest to survey participants, is summarised undersections “The Airport Capacity Challenge”, item “Optimising current airport operations” page 26, and “The Airspace CapacityChallenge” page 28.


Specifcations

Mitigation measures assessed so ar assumes that airport capacity is based on plans obtained rom airports. This presentmitigation measure ollows a di erent approach because it draws on existing work o SESAR Master Planning. This assumesthat with su fcient investment each airport can, i required, be brought to “best-in-class” (BIC) per ormance, where the“best-in-class” is based on per ormance per runway confguration today, augmented by an amount to represent the

urther improvements o SESAR.




The ollowing table summarises the airport enhancements, which have been taken into account to assess uture airportcapacities (Re . 19):

The runway throughput has been selected as the only re erence or the analysis, considering that the cost o runwaydeployment ar exceeds the implementation costs o the other capacity in uence actors.

Those best-in-class upgrades and SESAR improvements are assumed to occur during Implementation Packages 1 and 2to be operational, respectively, by 2013 and 2020. The Implementation Package 3, which covers additional long-termenhancements, and which is dependent on results expected rom R&D, is due to be delivered beyond year 2020 and hasnot been modelled within this report.

Results

SESAR plus investment to bring each airport to the per ormance o the best in its class has the potential to increase airportcapacity by a signifcant margin, which reduces the unaccommodated demand by up to 40% compared with the “do-no-thing” case. However, these capacity gains require urther investment, which is not yet ully re ected in European airportplans.

Even i the e ect o the proposed SESAR plus investment to bring to best-in-class is signifcant, it is not su fcient to accom-modate all ights. As a result, the percentage o “lost” ights - i.e. , those that SESAR plus investment could not accommo-date - is around 6% or the most likely scenario (Scenario C).

However, it is important to point out that the scope o SESAR is 2020, while the time rame o the current Mitigation Analysisis 2030. As a result, uture airport capacities and the tra fc orecast used in the modelling exercise correspond to di erenttime rames: 2030 or tra fc and 2020 or airport capacities. In addition, IP3 oresees additional measures (related to R&D)that go beyond 2020, which have not been modelled as o today. It is considered there ore “as normal” that SESAR doesnot accommodate all demand but it should emphasise the importance o R&D beyond the 2020 time horizon.

The SESAR defnition phase concluded that su fcient airport capacity would exist to acilitate a tripling o movements com-pared with current levels. The present analysis or the 2030 horizon indicates that, potentially, 6% o ights remain unaccom-modated; this suggests that certain airports will be ully constrained at times. Flights will there ore be unaccommodated i airlines elect not to take any appropriate measure to move to an airport where su fcient capacity may exist.

The limits to mitigation because o a widely-constrained network imply that the best result would be achieved with a mix o methods. This is the objective o the ollowing mitigation measure.


Airport Category Current IP1 Upli t IP2 Upli t Total BICBIC in 2020

Single Runway 50 3% 5% 8% 54

Crossing Runway 55 8% 8% 16% 63

Parallel Dependent Runways 70 8% 23% 31% 91

Parallel Independent Runways 90 13% 5% 18% 106Complex Airports (2) 100 - - 18% 118

Complex Airports (1) 125 - - 30% 163

Movements per hour



45

%

5 - sesAr i mprovements And A lternAtive A irports

Combining the e ects o the two most e ective measures (SESAR improvements and alternative airports)provide even better results, with the potential to reduce by hal the number o unaccommodated ights.

Scope

Within the scope o this study, it was not easible to assess the impact o SESAR improvements coupled with each and everypotential mitigation measure. There ore, the study is restricted to analysing SESAR in conjunction with the most e ectivemitigation measure, namely the use o alternative airports.

Results

Mitigation Measure n°1 explores whether unaccommodated ights could be satisfed at a nearby, less congested airport oralternative airport, while taking into account the di erent types o ights and o airline operators. As a result, the unaccom-modated demand could be reduced by 30%.

With Mitigation Measure n°4, SESAR plus investment to bring each airport to the per ormance o the best-in-its-class hasbeen assessed. The resulting potential to increase airport capacity reduced the unaccommodated demand by up to 40%compared with the “do-nothing” case.

The combination o these measures has the potential to reduce by hal the number o unaccommodated ights (see Figure 14page 48); results vary rom 45% or the most-challenging scenario (scenario A) to nearly 60% or the most-likely scenario(scenario C). As or mitigation measure n°4 - SESAR plus investment, it is important to note that the scope o SESAR is2020 while the time rame o the current Mitigation Analysis is 2030 and that IP3 oresees additional measures (related toR&D) that go beyond 2020, which have not been modelled as o today. There ore, it is considered “as normal” that not alldemand is accommodated.

Another important conclusion is that the percentage gains rom the di erent mitigation measures cannot simply be “added up”.

0% 50%25%

2030CG08

Scenario AThe Most Challenging

2030CG08

Scenario CThe Most Likely

Figure 12: SESAR Improvements - Impact on Reducing Unaccommodated Demand

Unaccommodated Demand reduced by around 40%




6 - s hifting to l Arger A ircrAft

Shi ting to larger aircra t can be a real option to accommodate more demand in the presence o a limitation onthe allowable daily requency between congested airports. In case o a requency limitation o 15 daily fightsin congested airports, the method has the potential to reduce the impact o the cap by more than a third.


2030

CG08Scenario A

2030

CG08Scenario C

0% 20% 40% 60%

Figure 13: SESAR Improvements and Alternative Airports - Impact on ReducingUnaccommodated Demand

Unaccommodated Demand reduced by around 50%



47

%

Scope

The fve methods assessed so ar have all had an impact in terms o reducing the level o unaccommodated demand -expressed in terms o the number o ights. The approach proposed or this mitigation measure is subtly di erent. Here, theobjective is to explore the extent to which passenger demand can be accommodated through the use o larger aircra t inthe presence o a limitation on the allowable daily requency between congested airports.

In the European Commission’s 2001 White Paper “Time to Decide”, the EC had already highlighted that “… it was unac-ceptable to maintain ight frequency between city pairs where a suitable high speed rail alternative exists.”

An eventual regulatory cap on the number o ights between certain city pairs is all the more likely in the ace o theincreasing pressure rom the environmental lobby.

This approach is worth exploring in so ar as it is consistent with the trend towards the use o larger aircra t that is alreadyapparent in the market, provided it takes into account the saturation level o airports when applying a reduction in daily

requencies.

“Going to a slightly larger aircraft actually provides cheaper ights for the consumers, although the frequency of the ights goes down slightly,” George Donohue notes.(Re . 4).


The ollowing key messages have been in erred rom our discussions with stakeholders:

There is a general tendency to adjust aircra t size to demand. Productivity will be improved by increasing the aircra t size(a strategy o growth based on productivity - larger aircra t - compared with a strategy ocusing on requency) and/or byincreasing aircra t utilisation, seat density or load actor. Hence, this is more o a response to supply and demand thanthe result o a requency capping imposed by regulation.

On the other hand, applying a requency capping by regulation could be detrimental to the airline business whererequency between certain airports is an essential li eline o the airline. A regulation that reduces the maximum requencyrom 10 ights per day to 5 ights per day will induce a change in the airline business models, notably in the case o a

hub strategy.

One can already observe some application o “ requency reduction”, such as the quota fxed in certain countries or somelong-haul destinations or the limits imposed on the number o movements at certain airports.

Within the context o limited airports slots, using larger aircra t should be considered as an important enabler or satis yingthe passenger demand growth, since this increases passenger throughput per slot or movement, in particular whencombined with other measures such as increase o runway productivity.

This mitigation measure is considered as a major penalty or low-cost airlines, which operate generally with a single typeo aircra t, such as 737-800 or A320, in order to reduce costs. However, some low-cost carriers may, in the long-term,decide to operate larger aircra t such as A321, i passenger volumes justi y such a strategy.

To maintain the service quality, airports will be required to adapt their in rastructure, not only in terms o runways but alsoin terms o larger parking positions, gates, and reduced remote boarding should the use o larger aircra t become moreprevalent.

Business Aviation operators see requency capping as less o an issue because they generally do not y into congestedairports.

Distance between city pairs and available rail links need to be part o the discussion.




In conclusion, a limit imposed on tra fc based exclusively on the daily ight requency at congested airports is, unsurprisingly,perceived by airports and airlines as detrimental to their business (see Figure 14 below). Shi ting to larger aircra t is a trend,which is already apparent in the airline market, with the exception o the low-cost carrier segment.


Specifcations

The modelling exercise has been constructed as ollows:

- Evaluation o the impact o a reduction in daily requencies at congested airports 15; there ore, only a raction o the overall demand is potentially impacted. An airport is considered as congested when the daily utilisation ratio 16 exceeds 90%.

- Assessment o the e ect o shi ting to larger aircra t at those congested airports.

A limit imposed on tra fc growth based exclusively on the daily ight requency, regardless o the airport slot availability, isperceived as detrimental by the airspace user community. Hence, it has been assumed that the limit on the tra fc growthbetween airport pairs would be applied only on airports designated as congested at the 2030 time horizon. As a result,this solution may be regarded as having limited value or the network as a whole.

Di erent simulations were per ormed in which the number o daily ights at congested airport pairs was not permittedto exceed the ollowing thresholds: 10, 15, 20 and 30 ights per day (re erred to respectively as FC10, FC15, FC20 andFC30).

15 Congested at arrival or departure.16 Total demand versus total capacity.


Shifting to larger Aircraft- Low-Cost carriers because

too complex and too costlybut maybe in the longer term

Frequency Capping- All participants in the survey

except Business Aviation

(do not fly at congested airports)

Shifting to larger Aircraft- Network airlines- International airports

High

I m p o r t a n c e

t o s

t a k e

h o

l d e r s

Low

Not in Favour In Favour

Figure 14: Shifting to Larger Aircraft in case of Frequency Capping by Regulation -Summary of Stakeholder Discussion



49

%

This single parameter may not address a number o the potential points o discussion concerning the application o such ameasure. These include, among others, the di erentiation between types o ights, public service obligations or essential

requencies as part o a hub strategy. Notwithstanding this, the results are considered su fciently representative o whatcould be achieved by applying a requency capping.

Assuming the use o larger aircra t is considered as an acceptable answer to accommodate part o the demand and theincrease in aircra t size takes place within the same category o aircra t, i.e. , not replacing single-aisle aircra t with twin-aisle aircra t - the ollowing approach has been ollowed:

A conservative step, which considered that long-haul ights could be replaced by the version immediately above thecurrent one within the same category o aircra t. For instance, a A340-300 (295-350 seats) is replaced by A340-600(380-419 seats) or a A330-200 (253-293 seats) by a A330-300 (295-337 seats). As a result, an increase in aircra t sizeo 25% is considered as appropriate or long-haul ights.

Concerning medium-haul ights, di erent versions o the A320 amily indicated an increase in the number o seatsvarying rom 15% to 22%; while the Boeing 737 amily o ered an increase o 13% to 26%. Hence, it seems appropriateto assume an increase o 20% as the order o magnitude or medium-haul ights.

A second step, which augmented the aircra t size even urther and assumed an increase o 40% or medium-haul ightsand 50% or long-haul ights. Medium-haul ights have been replaced by the largest aircra t currently available in thecategory o medium-haul aircra t; namely, A321s and B737-900 ER. An equivalent approach has been used or thelong-haul ights.

Aircra t size is one o the scenario parameters or the unconstrained tra fc orecast provided by EUROCONTROLSTATFOR. Hence, in order to avoid any “double counting”, the modelling has been limited to scenario A 17, which hasthe highest tra fc growth and where the impact o aircra t size is lower.

17 Scenario A: strong economic growth in an increasingly globalized world, with technology used success ully to mitigate the e ects o challenges such as

the environment and security.




Results

Be ore presenting the impact o shi ting to larger aircra t, it is interesting to observe that the number o airport pairs likely tobe impacted by such a measure is relatively low. By applying a requency limitation o 15 daily ights in congested airports(FC 15), 6% o airport pairs will be impacted. This fgure reduces to 1% in the case o FC30.

Each potential capping limit applied on congested airports leads to a number o “lost” ights, that is, those ights whichexceed the applied cap. The analysis has there ore consisted o determining the extent to which the use o larger aircra tcould “negate” the impact o the cap.

For the extreme capping scenario (FC5), the use o larger aircra t within the same amily has a limited potential to counteractthe impact o the requency limitation, with less than 25% (conservative step) o the impact o the cap being reversible.

As the number o allowable ights increases ( i.e. , the capping becomes less restrictive), the use o larger aircra t has morepotential or addressing the impact o the cap. The conservative step in the FC30 scenario has the potential to reduce theimpact o the cap by hal . I the aircra t size is increased even urther (second step above), nearly all o the demand impactedby the cap could be recovered.


Larger Aircraft: Conservative Step Larger Aircraft: Second Step

FC 5 FC 15 FC 20 FC 25 FC 30

100

%

75

50

25

0

Figure 15: Shifting to Larger Aircraft - Impact on Reducing Frequency Capping

Impact of FC15 reduced by 35%with Conservative Step







Even i the e ect o SESAR plus investment to bring to best-in-class is signifcant, it is not su fcient to accommodateall ights. It should be noted that the scope o SESAR is 2020 while the time rame o the current Mitigation Analysisis 2030. As a result, uture airport capacities and tra fc orecast used in the modelling exercise correspond to di -

erent time rames: 2030 or tra fc and 2020 or airport capacities. In addition, IP3 oresees additional measures(related to R&D) that go beyond 2020, which have not been modelled as o today. There ore, it is considered “asnormal” that SESAR does not accommodate all demand.

Combining the e ects o the two most e ective measures (SESAR plus investment and Alternative airports) provide evenbetter results with the potential to reduce by hal the number o unaccommodated ights, the results varying rom 45%

or the most-challenging scenario (scenario A) to nearly 60% or the most-likely one (scenario C).

Schedule smoothing and accelerated investment in high-speed train in rastructure o er much less scope or reducingunaccommodated demand than may have been considered to be the case in the past.

Schedule smoothing is o limited beneft to accommodate more demand, mainly because there is o ten little scopeor moving ights to a nearby period; in addition, it might not be the frst choice o the passenger. Participants in the

survey strongly advised that other mitigation measures with a higher priority should be investigated.

Shi ting short-haul ights to high speed train (HST) is also o limited beneft. The attractiveness o HST as an alternativemode o transport is perceived as rather limited (only or domestic and short-haul ights). Interesting to note is theevolution o new business model partnerships between airline and rail operators when rail is in direct competitionwith air services. The overall ramework o the uture European transportation system must be seen as a Total Trans-port System covering comodality and good airport connectivity.

The approach proposed with shi ting to larger aircra t is subtly di erent. Here, the objective is to explore the extent towhich passenger demand can be accommodated through the use o larger aircra t in the presence o a limitation on theallowable daily requency between congested airports. In case o a requency limitation o 15 daily ights in congestedairports, the method has the potential to reduce the impact o the cap by more than a third.

This report has attempted to provide a synthesis o the current challenges being aced by airlines and airport operators usingin ormation rom our survey and coupled with targeted research. The act that the air transport industry is currently experien-cing di fculties linked to the worldwide economic slowdown cannot be ignored but neither can previous experience whichillustrates the resilience o the industry and the expectation that sustained growth will return in the uture.

While the fnal ocus o this report is the 2030 time horizon, this date should not be considered as defnitive in itsel . The act isthat current airport capacity orecasts at the long-term time horizon are not ully aligned with the corresponding uture demandhas as a consequence the creation o so-called unaccommodated demand. So to gain access to the system, airlines will berequired to fnd the appropriate “trade-o ” between employing certain potential mitigation measures (a number o which have

ormed the ocus o this report), maintaining their business model and the overall coherence o their o er to the public.

The modelling approach that has been employed in this study is ully coherent with that used in previous “Constraints

to Growth” studies. This report does, however, provide a signifcant “departure” rom the past in terms o the degree o stakeholder participation that has been sought in the elaboration o each scenario. This has enabled a much fner defnitiono each mitigation measure.

An important conclusion is that the e ectiveness o an individual mitigation measure is considerably less than may have beenconsidered to be the case in the past, re ecting the limited scope or action that individual airlines have in relation to their ownbusiness model.

According to stakeholder reaction to results o the present study, uture e orts could consist o :

- Providing a sensitivity analysis o the results in terms o their variability to the uture tra fc growth scenario (volume e ect)as well as their sensitivity to variations in the temporal nature o the tra fc (“day” e ect)

- Increasing the scope o the analysis to cover, or example, per ormance predictions in a number o areas such as delayand environmental impact; and

- Enlarging the scope o stakeholder participation to refne urther the potential mitigation scenarios.



53

%

Acknowledgements

The Mitigating the Challenges or Air Transport 2030 project team is grate ul to the many contributors throughout the Air TransportIndustry who took the time to support the project with in ormation and in ormed comments.

Particular thanks are due to those who contributed directly to the survey and in so doing provided invaluable input or thespecifcation o the mitigation measures.






55

%

Re erences

1. ACI Europe, Jankovec, O, Director General, 10 April 2008. The Future o Airport Capacity in Europe. Presentation at Regional AirlineCon erence, Malta.

2. Ball M, Barnhart C, Nemhauser G and Odoni A, 2006. Air Transportation: Irregular Operations and Control.http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/ aculty/mball/ball_papers/ball-barnhart-nemhauser-odoni.pd

3. Doganis, R, 14 October 2008. Air Transport Services as economic catalysts or Asia-Pacifc: an introduction. Presentation at AviationDevelopment - Focus on Asia-Pacifc, Kuala Lumpur.http://www.icao.int/DevelopmentForum/Forum_08/Presentations/Doganis.pd

4. Donohue, G, Director o Mason's Center or Air Transportation Systems Research. Un riendly Skies: Can the U.S. Air TransportationSystem be fxed? The Mason Gazette, May, 19 2009.

5. easyJethttp://www.easyjet.com/en/news/easyjet_ecojet.html

6. EUROCONTROL Central O fce or Delay Analysis - CODA, Digest: Annual 2008, Delays to Air Transport in Europe, page 9.https://extranet.eurocontrol.int/http://prismeweb.hq.corp.eurocontrol.int/ecoda/coda/public/standard_page/public_application.html

7. EUROCONTROL, McMillan D, Director General. Development - and its constraints - in world aviation. 5th Annual Assad KotaiteLecture.

8. York Aviation, November 2007, Social Benefts o low are airlines in Europe

9. EUROCONTROL Challenges o Growth 2008 Report (CG08)http://www.eurocontrol.int/stat or/public/standard_page/Challenges_to_Growth.html

10. EUROCONTROL Challenges to Growth 2004 Report (CTG04)

http://www.eurocontrol.int/eatm/gallery/content/public/library/CTG04_report.pd

11. EUROCONTROL Long-Term Forecast, Flight Movements 2008-2030 Report (LTF08)http://www.eurocontrol.int/stat or/public/standard_page/ orecast3_reports.html

12. EUROCONTROL Medium- and Long-Term Sustainable Growth in Air Transport Report. EEC Note n°11/02 (available on request).

13. European Commission (Communication rom the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament): “Keep Europe moving –Sustainable mobility or our continent. Mid-term review o the European Commission’s 2001 Transport White Paper”, SEC (2006)768, 3.2 Aviation, page 10.

14. European Commission - Community Observatory on Airport Capacityhttp://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/airports/observatory_en.htm

15. European Commission Press Release IP/05/1147

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?re erence=IP/05/114716. IATA, Press release n°10 - 24 March 2009: Grim Prospects - Deep Recession, Bigger Losses.

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/2009-03-24-01.htm

17. International Herald Tribunehttp://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/11/13/business/EU-France-Air-France-Strike.php

18. Sasse M and Hau T, Institute or Meteorology and Climatology, University Hanover, 2003. A study o thunderstorm-induced delays atFrank urt Airport, Germany.http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=3195F61B0140E3D9B48A61B44890DAF4.tomcat1? romPage=online&aid=144228

19. SESAR Defnition Phase, Task 2.3.1 – Milestone 4: Document DLT-0706-231-00-06. Compute and Map Operational Concepts & Airspace KPIs Based on Identifed Available Tools and Methodologies, February 2008




ACARE Advisory Council or Aeronautics Research in Europe

A-CDM Airport Collaborative Decision Making

ACI Airports Council International

AMAN Arrival Manager

APU Auxiliary Power Unit

A-SMGCS Advanced Sur ace Movement Guidance & Control System

ATC Air Tra fc Control

ATFCM Air Tra fc Flow and Capacity Management

ATM Air Tra fc Management

CG08 Challenges o Growth 2008

CTG04 Challenges to Growth 2004

CTG01 Medium- and Long-Term Sustainable Growth in Air Transport 2001

CODA Central O fce or Delay Analysis

CSPR Closely Spaced Parallel Runways

DMAN Departure Manager

EC European Commission

EU European Union

FC Frequency CappingFIPS Flight Increase Process

FRAPORT Fraport AG, Frank urt Airport operator

GBAS Ground-Based Augmentation System

HST High Speed Train

IATA International Air Transport Association

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

IFR Instrument Flight Rules

IP1 Implementation Package 1 o the ATM Master Plan

IP3 Implementation Package 3 o the ATM Master Plan

BIC Best-In-Class

LCC Low-Cost Carrier

SESAR SES ATM Research

SMAN Sur ace Manager

STATFOR EUROCONTROL Service o Statistics and Forecasts

SWIM System Wide In ormation Management

TMA Terminal Control Area

Glossary



%



© December 2009 - The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL).

This document is published by EUROCONTROL for information purposes. It may be copied in whole or in part, provided thatEUROCONTROL is mentioned as the source and it is not used for commercial purposes (i.e. for nancial gain). The informationin this document, may not be modi ed without prior written permission from EUROCONTROL.

For further information, please contact:STATFOR, the EUROCONTROL Statistics and Forecast Service

[email protected]://www.eurocontrol.int/statfor

Publication reference number:09/07/15-21

EUROCONTROL CND Experimental CentreCentre de Bois des BordesBP 15F-91222 Brétigny-sur-Orge CedexT l 33 (0)1 69 88 75 00

EUROCONTROL

Documents

Euro Control Mitigating Challenge 2030