UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO
INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Census Information Center
BQN ANALYSIS REPORT Commisioned by the Aeronautical and Aerospace Institute of Puerto Rico Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 2 II. RAFAEL HERNÁNDEZ AIRPORT FLIGHT ROUTE MAPS ...... 2 Map 1.1 Rafael Hernández Airport to John F. Kennedy International Airport Flight Route Map ...... 2 Map 1.2 Rafael Hernández Airport to Fort Lauderdale, FL, Airport Flight Route Map ...... 3 Map 1.3Rafael Hernández Airport to Newark Liberty International AirportFlight Route Map ...... 3 Map 1.4 Rafael Hernández Airport to Orlando International AirportFlight Route Map ...... 4 Map 1.5Rafael Hernández Airport to O’Hare International Airport Flight Route Map ...... 5 Map 1.6Rafael Hernández Airport to George Bush Intercontinental Airport Flight Route Map ...... 5 Map 1.7Rafael Hernández Airport to Los Angeles International Airport Flight Route Map ...... 6 Map 1.8Rafael Hernández Airport to Robert L. Bradshaw International Airport Flight Route Map ...... 6 Map 1.9Rafael Hernández Airport to Cyril E. King Airport Flight Route Map ...... 7 Map 1.10Rafael Hernández Airport to Las Américas International Airport Flight Route Map ...... 7 Map 1.11Rafael Hernández Airport to Queen Beatrix International Airport Flight Route Map ...... 8 Figure 1.1Top 4 Destination Airports of the BQN (2015 vs 2016 in calendar year) ...... 9 III. BQN VS MIA STATISTICS ...... 9 Map 2.1BQNFacilities Diagram ...... 11 Map 2.2MIAFacilities Diagram ...... 12 Table 2.1Facility Information of the Miami International Airport (January 1989 to January 2017) ...... 13 Table 2.2Facility Information of the Rafael Hernández Airport (January 1989 to January 2017) ...... 14 Table 2.3Passenger Airlines and Destinations of the Rafael Hernández Airport ...... 15 Table 2.4Cargo Airlines of the Rafael Hernández Airport ...... 15 Table 2.5Passenger Airlines and Destinations of the Miami International Airport ...... 17 Table 2.6Cargo Airlines of the Miami International Airport ...... 22 Table 2.7Cargo, in pounds, of the MIA, SJU, and BQN Airports (FY2014 vs FY2015) ...... 26 Table 2.8Enplanements of the MIA, SJU, and BQN Airports (FY 2014 vs FY2015) ...... 27 Figure 2.1Enplanements in the BQN and MIA (CY1990 to CY2016*) ...... 28 Figure 2.2Military Enplanements, Itinerant Operations (CY1990 to CY2016*) ...... 29 Table 2.9Efficiency Statistics of the Miami International Airport (MIA) (FY2009 to FY2016) ...... 30 Table 2.10Capacity Statistics of the Miami International Airport (MIA) (FY2009 to FY2016) ...... 31 IV. AMENDMENTS IN THE CABOTAGE LAWS FOR ALASKA AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACT IN PUERTO RICO ...... 32 Figure 3.1 Cargo and Passengers of the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (1997 to 2015) ...... 38 Table 3.1 Cargo and Passengers’ Growth Rate after Cabotage Changes (1997-2002 and 2003-2009) ...... 39 V. REFERENCES ...... 43
BQN Analysis Report 1 BQN ANALYSIS REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
An exemption of the air cabotage laws represents an opportunity for growth for the aeronautical industry in Puerto Rico and specifically the Aguadilla Rafael Hernandez Airport (BQN). This study, commissioned by the Aeronautical and Aerospace Institute of Puerto Rico, has been prepared to present a comparative analysis of current Rafael Hernandez routes and capabilities, the Miami Airport and the Alaska Anchorage airport. The last section includes an analysis of the potential impact of the amendment of the cabotage laws for Puerto Rico and the Rafael Hernandez Airport.
II. RAFAEL HERNÁNDEZ AIRPORT FLIGHT ROUTE MAPS
Map 1.1 Rafael Hernández Airport to John F. Kennedy International Airport Flight Route Map
• Flight time from Aguadilla to New York is 3 hours 50 minutes.
• Distance from Aguadilla to New York is approximately 2,536 kilometers.
BQN Analysis Report 2 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and Google Maps, 2017.
Map 1.2 Rafael Hernández Airport to Fort Lauderdale, FL, Airport Flight Route Map
• Flight time from Aguadilla to Florida is 2 hours 30 minutes.
• Distance from Aguadilla to Florida is approximately 1,580 kilometers.
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and Google Maps, 2017.
Map 1.3Rafael Hernández Airport to Newark Liberty International AirportFlight Route Map
• Flight time from Aguadilla to New Jersey is 3 hours 50 minutes.
• Distance from Aguadilla to New Jersey is approximately 1,585 kilometers.
BQN Analysis Report 3
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and Google Maps, 2017.
Map 1.4 Rafael Hernández Airport to Orlando International AirportFlight Route Map
• Flight time from Aguadilla to Orlando is 2 hours 50 minutes.
• Distance from Aguadilla to Orlando is approximately 1,129 kilometers.
BQN Analysis Report 4 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS); and Google Maps, 2017. Map 1.5Rafael Hernández Airport to O’Hare International Airport Flight Route Map
• Flight time from Aguadilla to Chicago, Il is 7 hours 35 minutes with layover. • Distance from Aguadilla to Chicago, Il is approximately 3,264 kilometers.
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS); and Google Maps, 2017.
Map 1.6Rafael Hernández Airport to George Bush Intercontinental Airport Flight Route Map
• Flight time from Aguadilla to Houston is 7 hours 55 minutes with layover.
• Distance from Aguadilla to Houston is approximately 3,124 kilometers.
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and Google Maps, 2017. BQN Analysis Report 5
Map 1.7Rafael Hernández Airport to Los Angeles International Airport Flight Route Map
• Flight time from Aguadilla to Los Angeles is 9 hours 05 minutes with layover.
• Distance from Aguadilla to Los Angeles is approximately 5,343 kilometers.
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and Google Maps, 2017.
Map 1.8Rafael Hernández Airport to Robert L. Bradshaw International Airport Flight Route Map
• Flight time from Aguadilla to St. Kitts & Nevis is 10 hours 50 minutes with layover.
• Distance from Aguadilla to St. Kitts & Nevis is approximately 486 kilometers.
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and Google Maps, 2017.
BQN Analysis Report 6 Map 1.9Rafael Hernández Airport to Cyril E. King Airport Flight Route Map
• Flight time from Aguadilla to St. Thomas is 10 hours 10 minutes with layover.
• Distance from Aguadilla to St. Thomas is approximately 229 kilometers.
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and Google Maps, 2017.
Map 1.10Rafael Hernández Airport to Las Américas International Airport Flight Route Map
• Flight time from Aguadilla to Santo Domingo is 5 hours 55 minutes with layover.
• Distance from Aguadilla to Santo Domingo is approximately 269 kilometers.
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and Google Maps, 2017.
BQN Analysis Report 7 Map 1.11Rafael Hernández Airport to Queen Beatrix International Airport Flight Route Map
• Flight time from Aguadilla to Aruba is 9 hours 50 minutes with layover. • Distance from Aguadilla to Aruba is approximately 732 kilometers.
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and Google Maps, 2017.
BQN Analysis Report 8 Figure 1.1Top 4 Destination Airports of the BQN (2015 vs 2016 in calendar year)
80 73 2015 2016 66 70 64 62 63
60 54 48 50
40 29 30 Passengers(000)
20
10
0 Florida (FLL) New York (JFK) Orlando, FL (MCO) New Jersey (EWR)
Destination (City, Airport Code) Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Domestic Market (US Carriers), 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports.asp?pn=1&Airport=BQN
III. BQN VS MIA STATISTICS
In 1940, during World War II, the United States Armed Forces built a runway in Aguadilla, PR.
After eight years, the named military base officially became the “Ramey Air Force Base” with 3,796 acres. In 1973, the United States Department of Defense deactivated the military base and named it
“Borinquen International Airport” under the administration of the Ports Authority of Puerto Rico. Later, in 1987, it changed its name to the Rafael Hernández Airport (BQN) in honor of the Puerto Rican writer, and continues being a civil-military airport. In 2012, it became the first airport in Puerto Rico designated to the “Free Trade Zone” (FTZ) of the Department of Commerce of the United States, achieving benefits such as: “100% exemption on Municipal License Taxes on exports outside the United
States”, “100% exemption on exports for the zone and sub-zone”, among others.
BQN Analysis Report 9 According to Senate Project 936 of June 15, 2009, the runway of the BQN is “a NASA alternative to land ferries in emergencies”. BQN has facilities that could be comparable with the Miami
International Airport (MIA) in Florida, USA. MIA is one of the major airports in North America; in 1920,
Glenn H. Curtiss donated the land, but it was inaugurated in 1928 as a civil airport. BQN has the largest runway in the Caribbean with a dimension of 11,702 ft. x 200 ft., while the MIA has four runways: three are smaller than the BQN and one is slightly larger (13,016 ft. x 150 ft.). In the last Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) evaluation1, completed in March 2017, it is explained that all runways of the airports studied are paved with asphalt, but that BQN’s runway is in poor conditions, while those of
MIA are in good conditions. According to the FAA reports, all runways of these airports have good lights.
Another factor that determines the total cargo and passengers transported at both airports is the quantity of gates in each terminal. The MIA has one hundred twenty-five (125) gates distributed in six (6) terminals, while the BQN has two (2) gates and one (1) terminal. According to the FAA official reports, the MIA covers approximately 3,230 acres, while the BQN, 1,600. That may explain the difference in movement at both airports, but authorities point out that BQN could reach a greater capacity than the current one, since it has an additional space that could be used for its expansion
(Map 2.1 and 2.2).
1 Retrieved from: http://www.gcr1.com/5010WEB/airport.cfm?Site=BQN&CFID=2281952&CFTOKEN=36798871 and http://www.gcr1.com/5010WEB/airport.cfm?Site=MIA&CFID=2281952&CFTOKEN=36798871.
BQN Analysis Report 10 Map 2.1BQNFacilities Diagram
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/dtpp/search/results/
BQN Analysis Report 11 Map 2.2MIAFacilities Diagram
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/dtpp/search/results/
BQN Analysis Report 12 On the other hand, MIA has fifteen (15) jets while BQN has one (1) jet and nine (9) helicopters.
Both airports have communication towers with USA. However, MIA has two towers combined with other systems while the BQN in August 2008, had its first control tower as an FAA member. Since
January 1989 until August 2003, the Miami International Airport was classified as “Towers with Radar”.
Then, it was changed to “Combined TRACON and Tower with Radar”. During every period, the MIA was an FAA Facility, according to the Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS) (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1Facility Information of the Miami International Airport (January 1989 to January 2017)
Source: Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS), 2017.
BQN Analysis Report 13
However, the Rafael Hernández Airport, since January 1989 until July 2007, was classified as a
“Non-FAA Facility”. According to the Air Traffic Activity System, this term changed in February 2013 to
“Federal Contract Tower” (Table 2.2).
Table 2.2Facility Information of the Rafael Hernández Airport (January 1989 to January 2017)
Source: Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS), 2017.
Currently, the Airports-Worldwide (2017) website states that BQN has four (4) commercial airlines and fourteen (14) cargo lines. Meanwhile, MIA (one of the most important airports in the
United States) has fifty-two (52) commercial airlines and thirty-four (34) cargo airlines (2017) (Tables
2.3 to 2.6).
BQN Analysis Report 14 Table 2.3Passenger Airlines and Destinations of the Rafael Hernández Airport
Airlines Destinations
Continental Airlines Newark
JetBlue Airways New York-JFK, Orlando
Puerto Plata [seasonal], Punta Cana, Santo PAWA Dominicana Domingo
Spirit Airlines Fort Lauderdale
Source: Airports-Worldwide, 2017. Retrieved from http://www.airports-worldwide.com/puerto_rico/rafael_hernandez_puerto_rico.php.
According to the Airports-Worldwide (2017) website, BQN has three (3) commercial airlines to
United States and one (1) to Dominican Republic(Table 2.3).
Table 2.4Cargo Airlines of the Rafael Hernández Airport
Airlines Destinations
Aruba, Barbados, Curaçao, Grenada, Providenciales, San Juan, Ameriflight Santiago de los Caballeros, St. Croix, St. Thomas, St. Lucia
Atlas Air Malta (charters several times per month)
CaribEx Daily flights to Santo Domingo and on demand flights to the Worldwide/CaribEx Intl Caribbean and the US Airlines
CaribEx Antigua, Miami, Providenciales, San Juan, Santiago de los
Worldwide/CaribEx Intl Caballeros, Santo Domingo, St. Kitts, St. Lucia, St. Maarten
BQN Analysis Report 15 Airlines Destinations
Airlines operated by
Skyway Enterprises
Contract Air Cargo Santiago de los Caballeros, Santo Domingo
Aruba, Barbados, Curaçao, Port of Spain, Santiago de los Corporate Air Caballeros, St. Lucia
FedEx Express Memphis, Greensboro (NC), Indianapolis
FedEx Feeder operated Santiago de los Caballeros, Santo Domingo by Mountain Air Cargo
Martinair Cargo Amsterdam, Bogotá, Lima, London Stansted
Merlin Ventures Ltd Barbados, Miami
Merlin Express Providenciales, Santiago de los Caballeros
Mountain Air Cargo Providenciales, Santiago de los Caballeros, Santo Domingo
Roblex Aviation
Dallas/Fort Worth, Greensboro/High Point/Winston-Salem, Tradewinds Airlines Hartford, Indianapolis
Source: Airports-Worldwide, 2017. Retrieved from http://www.airports-worldwide.com/puerto_rico/rafael_hernandez_puerto_rico.php.
The Airports-Worldwide (2017) website informs that BQN has five (5) cargo airlines going to the
United States and eight (8) other companies usually flying to the US Virgin Islands, Europe, and other territories in South and Central America. CaribEx Worldwide/CaribEx Intl Airlines, operated by Skyway
Enterprises and Merlin Ventures Ltd, carry merchandise from the BQN (Table 2.4).
BQN Analysis Report 16 Table 2.5Passenger Airlines and Destinations of the Miami International Airport
Airlines Destinations Concourse
AerolíneasArgentinas Buenos Aires-Ezeiza, Punta Cana J
Aeromexico Mexico City F
Aeromexico Connect Mérida, Monterrey F
Aerosur Camagüey, Havana, Santa Cruz de la Sierra F, G
Air Berlin Düsseldorf J
New Routes: Berlin-Tegel [November 19]
Air Canada Toronto-Pearson J
Seasonal: Montréal-Trudeau
Air Europa Madrid F
Seasonal: Tenerife-North
Air France Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Pointe-à-Pitre, Port-au-Prince H
AirTran Airways Atlanta [ends October 7], Baltimore G
Alaska Airlines Seattle/Tacoma F
Alitalia Milan-Malpensa, Rome-Fiumicino H
American Airlines Antigua, Aruba, Atlanta, Barbados, Baltimore, Belize City, Belo D, E
Horizonte, Bermuda, Bogotá, Boston, Buenos Aires-Ezeiza, Cali,
Cancún, Caracas, Chicago-O'Hare, Curaçao, Dallas/Ft. Worth,
Denver, Detroit, Grand Cayman, Grenada, Guatemala City,
Guayaquil, Hartford, Houston-Intercontinental, Kingston, La
Paz, La Romana, Las Vegas, Liberia (CR), Lima, London-
BQN Analysis Report 17 Airlines Destinations Concourse
Heathrow, Los Angeles, Madrid, Managua, Maracaibo,
Medellín-Córdova, Mexico City, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Montego
Bay, Montevideo, Montréal-Trudeau, Nashville, New Orleans,
New York-JFK, New York-LaGuardia, Newark, Orlando, Panama
City, Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Port-au-
Prince, Port of Spain, Providenciales, Puerto Plata, Punta Cana,
Quito, Raleigh/Durham, Recife, Rio de Janeiro-Galeão, St. Croix,
St. Kitts, St. Louis, St. Lucia, St. Maarten, St. Thomas, Salvador
da Bahia, San Salvador, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, São Paulo-
Guarulhos, San Francisco, San José (CR), San Juan (PR), San
Pedro Sula, Santiago de Chile, Santiago de los Caballeros, Santo
Domingo, Tampa, Tegucigalpa, Toronto-Pearson, Tulsa,
Washington-Dulles, Washington-Reagan
Seasonal: Eagle\Vail
New Routes: Brasília [November 17]
American Eagle Atlanta, Birmingham (AL), Charleston (SC), Charlotte, D
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, Columbus (OH),
Greensboro/High Point/Winston-Salem, Indianapolis, Knoxville,
Jacksonville, Louisville, Memphis, Norfolk, Pensacola,
Pittsburgh, Richmond, Savannah, Tallahassee
New Routes: Cleveland, Nassau [both November 18]
BQN Analysis Report 18 Airlines Destinations Concourse
American Eagle Camagüey, Cienfuegos, Fort Myers, Freeport, Gainesville, D operated by George Town, Governor's Harbour, Havana, Holguín,
Executive Airlines Jacksonville (FL), Key West, Marsh Harbour, Nassau, North
Eleuthera, Santiago de Cuba, Treasure Cay
Avianca Barranquilla, Bogotá, Cali, Cartagena de Indias, Medellín- J
Córdova, Pereira
Avior Airlines Barcelona (Venezuela) F
Bahamasair Nassau G
British Airways London-Heathrow F
Caribbean Airlines Georgetown, Port of Spain J
Cayman Airways Grand Cayman, Cayman Brac F
Continental Airlines Houston-Intercontinental, Newark H
Seasonal: Cleveland
Continental Marsh Harbour, North Eleuthera, Orlando, Tampa G
Connection operated by Gulfstream
International Airlines
Continental Express Cleveland H operated by
ExpressJet Airlines
Copa Airlines Panama City H
Corsair Paris-Orly [resumes December 17] F
BQN Analysis Report 19 Airlines Destinations Concourse
Delta Air Lines Atlanta, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, Detroit, Memphis, H
Minneapolis/St. Paul, New York-JFK
New Routes: London-Heathrow [March 27, pending
government approval], Washington-Reagan [October 31]
Delta Connection New Routes: Raleigh/Durham [November 20] H operated by Pinnacle
Airlines
Finnair Seasonal: Helsinki F
Gulfstream Havana F, G
International Airlines
IBC Airways Cap Haïtien J
Iberia Airlines Madrid F
Insel Air Bonaire, Curaçao, Port-au-Prince, St. Maarten F
Lacsa San José (CR) J
LAN Airlines Bogotá, Caracas, Guayaquil, Punta Cana, Santiago de Chile J
LAN Argentina Buenos Aires-Ezeiza, Punta Cana J
LAN Ecuador Quito J
New Routes: Guayaquil [October 4]
LAN Perú Lima, Punta Cana J
Lufthansa Frankfurt, Munich J
Seasonal: Düsseldorf
SBA Airlines Caracas F
BQN Analysis Report 20 Airlines Destinations Concourse
Seasonal: Maracaibo
Sky King Havana, Holguín F, G
Sun Country Airlines Seasonal: Minneapolis/St. Paul F
Surinam Airways Aruba, Paramaribo F
Swiss International Zürich J
Air Lines
TACA Airlines Guatemala City, Managua, San Pedro Sula, San Salvador J
Seasonal: Roatán
TAM Airlines Manaus, Rio de Janeiro-Galeão, São Paulo-Guarulhos J
Transaero Airlines New Routes: Moscow-Domodedovo [October 27] F
United Airlines Seasonal: Denver J
United Express Chicago-O'Hare, Washington-Dulles J operated by Shuttle
America
US Airways Charlotte, Philadelphia J
Virgin Atlantic London-Heathrow F
Airways
Vision Airlines Camagüey, Havana, Holguín, Santiago de Cuba F, G
WestJet Toronto-Pearson F
Source: Airports-Worldwide, 2017. Retrieved from http://www.airports-worldwide.com/usa/florida/miami_international_florida.htm. Note: “All flights to Cuba are operated as scheduled by Special Authority Charters”.
BQN Analysis Report 21
According to Airports-Worldwide (2017), out of fifty-two (52) commercial airlines in the MIA, just ten (10) carry passengers to the United States, as shown in Table 2.5. American Airlines is the only commercial airline of the MIA that carries passengers directly to San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Table 2.6Cargo Airlines of the Miami International Airport
Airlines Destinations
Caracas, Ciudad del Este, Lima, Manaus, Quito, Sao Paulo- ABSA Cargo Airline Viracopos, Vitoria
ABX Air Cincinnati, Paramaribo, Santo Domingo
Air Atlanta Icelandic New York-JFK, Oslo-Gardermoen
Air Jamaica Cargo Kingston, Montego Bay
Air Transport International Guatemala City, Panama City, San José de Costa Rica
Aruba, Belize City, Campinas, Curitiba, Lima, Manaus, Maracaibo,
Amerijet International Mérida, Port of Spain, Salvador, San Juan, San Pedro Sula, San
Salvador, Santiago de los Caballeros, Santo Domingo, St. Maarten
Chicago-O'Hare, Lima, Manaus, Oslo-Gardermoen, Sao Paulo- Atlas Air Viracopos, Rio de Janeiro (From September 3rd)
Cathay Pacific Cargo Anchorage, Hong Kong, Houston-Intercontinental
Capital Cargo International Mérida, Orlando, Toledo Airlines
BQN Analysis Report 22 Airlines Destinations
Caribbean Airlines Cargo Barbados, Port of Spain
Cargolux Houston-Intercontinental, Luxembourg, Mexico City
Cayman Airways Cargo Grand Cayman
Bogotá, Caracas, Iquitos, Lima, Manaus, Medellín, Santiago de Centurion Air Cargo Chile, Sao Paulo-Viracopos, San Juan
China Airlines Cargo Anchorage, Atlanta, Seattle/Tacoma, Taipei-Taoyuan
Bogotá, Caracas, Iquitos, Lima, Managua, Manaus, Montevideo, Cielos del Perú Quito
DHL Airways Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, Toledo
DHL Aero Expreso Panama City, Quito, San José de Costa Rica
Estafeta Carga Aérea Cancún, Mérida
FedEx Express Memphis, Quito, San Juan, Valencia (Venezuela)
Florida West International Bogotá, Guatemala City, Guayaquil, Lima, Los Angeles, Manaus,
Airways Medellín, Quito, Santo Domingo, San José de Costa Rica
Freeport, Grand Cayman, Havana, Kingston, Marsh Harbour, IBC Airways Montego Bay, Nassau, Port-au-Prince, Providenciales
Korean Air Cargo Anchorage, Dallas/Fort Worth, Seoul-Incheon, Toronto-Pearson
Amsterdam, Buenos Aires-Ezeiza, Caracas, Curitiba, Guatemala
LAN Cargo City, Guayaquil, Lima, Manaus, Montevideo, Porto Alegre, Quito,
San José de Costa Rica, San Miguel de Tucumán
Línea Aérea Carguera de Bogotá, Curitiba, Manaus, Medellín, Quito, Sao Paulo-Viracopos Colombia
BQN Analysis Report 23 Airlines Destinations
Amsterdam, Bogotá, Buenos Aires-Ezeiza, Guayaquil, Lima, Quito, Martinair Cargo Santiago de Chile
MasAir Mexico City
Mountain Air Cargo Freeport, Kingston
Skyway Enterprises Nassau
Barranquilla, Bogotá, Cali, Caracas, Lima, Manaus, Medellín, Tampa Cargo Quito, Valencia (Venezuela)
Tradewinds Airlines Lima
TransportesAéreos Cochabamba, Panama City, Santa Cruz de la Sierra Bolivianos
Bogotá, Greenville/Spartanburg, Guatemala City, Guayaquil,
Jacksonville (FL), Lima, Louisville, Managua, Philadelphia, Quito,
San José de Costa Rica, San Pedro Sula, Santo Domingo, Sao Paulo-
UPS Airlines Viracopos, West Palm Beach
VenezolanaServiciosExpresos Caracas, Maracaibo
World Airways Cargo Bogotá, Caracas, Cali, Lima, Manaus, Quito
Source: Airports Worldwide, 2017. Retrieved from http://www.airports-worldwide.com/usa/florida/miami_international_florida.htm.
BQN Analysis Report 24 One interesting point about the MIA cargo is that seven (7) out of thirty-four (34) cargo airlines carry merchandise to the United States, as shown in Table 2.6. The other cargo airlines distribute merchandise to the US Virgin Islands, Europe, South and Central America, Alaska, and Canada, among other locations. Centurion Air Cargo and FedEx Express transport merchandise from Miami to San Juan,
Puerto Rico (Airports Worldwide, 2017).
In pursuit of the BQN expansion and with focus on turning it into Puerto Rico’s main cargo airport, a master plan has been developed that considers the expansion of the current runway, along with other infrastructure constructions that would allow it to compete directly with the Luis Muñoz
Marín International Airport in San Juan, PR. In 2012, the Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and
Public Works published a transportation plan that included the BQN, stating that “to improve capacity we must increase the number and size of freeways and traffic services, and also include new construction, expansion of existing facilities and the redesign of specific locations”.2 Both airports received federal funds (AIP Grants) to increase its capacity and improve its services and infrastructure.
From 2006to 2016 (fiscal years) BQN received 22.5 million dollars and the MIA 135.2 million dollars
(figures not adjusted by inflation).3
According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in 2015 the total cargo weight of the
Miami International Airport (MIA) was 7,630,761,702 pounds, falling in the fifth position of the 132 airports studied. However, the Rafael Hernández Airport (BQN) had a total cargo weight of
713,335,570 pounds and the Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport had 1,008,603,300 pounds. The difference between the cargos may respond to the size of each hub: the larger the hub, the greater the cargo. In terms of growth, the highest increase took place in SJU (18.62%) when comparing the three
2 Puerto Rico Transportation and Public Works Department (February 2012). Aguadilla Urbanized Area-2032 Long Range Transportation Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.dtop.gov.pr/carretera/det_content.asp?cn_id=254 3 Retrieved from: https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_histories/ BQN Analysis Report 25 airports in this study. The second highest increase was in BQN with 8.00% and the lowest rate corresponded to the MIA with 6.09% (Table 2.7).
Table 2.7Cargo, in pounds, of the MIA, SJU, and BQN Airports (FY2014 vs FY2015)
2015 Landed 2014 Landed Airport Svc % Rank ST LocID City Hub Weight Weight Name Lvl Change (pounds) (pounds)
Miami 5 FL MIA Miami P L 7,630,761,702 7,192,790,882 6.09% International
Luis Muñoz
24 PR SJU Marín San Juan P M 1,008,603,300 850,270,758 18.62%
International
Rafael 34 PR BQN Aguadilla P N 713,335,570 660,524,330 8.00% Hernández
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 2017.
According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in 2015 the total enplanements of the
Miami International Airport (MIA) were 20,986,349, obtaining the eleventh position of the 1,555 airports studied. However, the Rafael Hernández Airport (BQN) had a total of 202,197 enplanements and the Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport had 4,187,888. In terms of growth, the highest increase took place in the MIA (7.78%) when considering the three airports in this study. The second highest was SJU with 1.09%. The lowest rate corresponded to BQN with -4.73% (Table 2.8).
BQN Analysis Report 26 Table 2.8Enplanements of the MIA, SJU, and BQN Airports (FY 2014 vs FY2015)
Airport Svc 2015 2014 % Rank ST LocID City Hub Name Lvl Enplanements Enplanements Change
Miami 11 FL MIA Miami P L 20,986,349 19,471,466 7.78% International
Luis Muñoz
43 PR SJU Marín San Juan P M 4,233,638 4,187,888 1.09%
International
Rafael 182 PR BQN Aguadilla P N 202,197 212,239 -4.73% Hernández
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 2017.
From 1990 to 2016, the Miami International Airport (MIA) had increased the total of enplanements and total air carriers, as shown in Figure 2.1. Even though total enplanements increased from 11.7 million in 1990 to 15.9 million in 2000, they decreased to 13 million in 2002. However, since
2002, it has been increasing again, reaching 19.8 million in 2016. The trends of the total air carriers were different during the periods. BQN, on the other hand, had 10,335 air carriers in 1990, increasing to 140,791 in 1995. Then, in 1999, the quantity decreased to 17,472 and in2008, the quantity increased to 238,354. In 2015, the amount of air carriers decreased to 198,679, and again increased to 244,242 in
2016.
BQN Analysis Report 27 Figure 2.1Enplanements in the BQN and MIA (CY1990 to CY2016*)
300,000 25,000,000 Aguadilla Miami
250,000 20,000,000
200,000 15,000,000
150,000
10,000,000 100,000 Enplanements in MIA MIA in Enplanements Enplanements in BQN in Enplanements 5,000,000 50,000
0 0 2011 2011 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2015 1994 2004 2014 2016* Period (In calendar year)
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), 2017. Note: (*) = The 2016 data is estimated.
According to Figure 2.2, the military enplanements in Rafael Hernández Airport in Aguadilla,
Puerto Rico, were higher than in the Miami International Airport, except in 1998, 2002, and 2007. Since
2006 until 2007, the quantity in this airport decreased from 12,962 to 624, respectively. In Miami
International Airport, since 1990 until 2016, the total military enplanements decreased from 7,178 to
1,115, respectively.
BQN Analysis Report 28 Figure 2.2Military Enplanements, Itinerant Operations (CY1990 to CY2016*)
18,000
16,000 Aguadilla Miami 14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
Military Enplanements Military 4,000
2,000
0 2011 2011 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2015 1994 2004 2014 2016* Period (In calendar year)
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), 2017. Note: (*) = The 2016 data is estimated.
The FAA prepared Capacity Profiles for the MIA and other airports in the United States; the international airports of Puerto Rico were not included. The MIA Capacity Profile details that the
“estimated capacity rate in Marginal Conditions” is 148 operations per hour, while the MIA reported
132 in 2014. The “estimated capacity rate in Instrument Conditions” is 148 operations per hour, whilethe MIAreported in 2014 was 104. The “estimated capacity rate in Visual Conditions” is 150 operations per hour; however, the airport reported 132 in 2014. Finally, a capacity rate of 106 operations per hour is estimated as part of future improvements.4
4Retrieved from: https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/profiles/media/MIA-Airport-Capacity-Profile-2014.pdf
BQN Analysis Report 29 Table 2.9Efficiency Statistics of the Miami International Airport (MIA) (FY2009 to FY2016)
Performance Indicator 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Average Gate Arrival
Delay 7.1 4.5 1.9 -0.1 1.6 1.1 3.9 4.5
(Minutes per Flight)
Average Number of
Level-offs per Flight * * 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1
(Counts per Flight)
Distance in Level Flight
from Top of Descent to
Runway Threshold * * 27.3 29.2 29.3 29.2 28.3 29.3
(Nautical Miles per
Flight)
Effective Gate-to-Gate
Time 169.4 167.1 163.1 160.1 159.9 159.0 172.9 180.3
(Minutes per Flight)
Tax-In Time 8.7 8.7 8.0 8.1 8.2 7.7 9.2 10.2 (Minutes per Flight)
Tax-Out Time 16.8 17.0 16.9 16.6 16.8 17.3 18.2 19.2 (Minutes per Flight)
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, NextGen, 2017. Notes: 1) (*) = Consistent data for the time period prior to FY 2011 are not available. 2) “As described by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), efficiency addresses the operational and economic cost- effectiveness of gate-to-gate flight operations from a single-flight perspective. In all phases of flight, airspace users want to depart and arrive at the times they select and fly the trajectory they determine to be optimum.”
BQN Analysis Report 30 To improve day-to-day operations, the United States Department of Transportation created the
NextGEN tool. It provides efficiency and capacity statistics for the participating airports. One of them is the MIA, but not BQN (Tables 2.9 and 2.10).
According to Table 2.9, the average gate arrival delay of the Miami International Airport decreased from 7.1 minutes per flight in 2009, to 4.5 in 2016. The average number of level-offs per flight was stable, close to 2.2 and 2.1 counts per flight from 2011 to 2016. In 2011, the distance in level flight from top of descent to runway threshold was 27.3 nautical miles per flight, while in 2016, it increased to 29.3. The effective gate-to-gate time increased between
2009 and 2016, from 169.4 to 180.3 minutes per flight. The tax-in time increased from 8.7 to
10.2 minutes per flight in the period 2009-2016. On the other hand, the tax-out time increased from 16.8 to 19.2 minutes per flight between 2009 and 2016.
Table 2.10Capacity Statistics of the Miami International Airport (MIA) (FY2009 to FY2016)
Performance Indicator 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Average Daily Capacity 2,062 2,015 2,071 2,037 2,050 1,987 2,052 2,042 (Number of Operations)
Average Hourly Capacity During Instrument 121 111 118 109 116 108 108 108 Meteorological Conditions (IMC) (Number of Operations)
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, NextGen, 2017. Note: “As described by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO): The global Air Traffic Management (ATM) system should exploit the inherent capacity to meet airspace user demands at peak times and locations while minimizing restrictions on traffic flow. ICAO also notes: The ATM system must be resilient to service disruption and the resulting temporary loss of capacity.”
BQN Analysis Report 31 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) calculates two capacity statistics for some airports.
From 2009 to 2016, the average daily capacity in number of operations of the Miami International
Airport (MIA) decreased from 2,062 to 2,042, as shown in Table 2.10. The lowest average occurred in
2014 with 1,987 and the highest average arose in 2011 with 2,071. Similarly, in the period 2009-2016, the average hourly capacity during instrument meteorological conditions in number of operations decreased from 121 to 108.
In conclusion, the BQN could be better positioned if the airport is enhanced, taking advantage of the Free Trade Zone and of the aerospace niche just created in Aguadilla. BQN is a great resource for the export of Puerto Rico goods. The MIA is an airport that had an accelerated growth in the last years.
However, it has been said that, to provide a good service, airports should not overrun its maximum capacity utilization. In this direction, the United States Department of Transportation is providing assistance and the FAA in 2015 (fiscal year) has designated 2.7 million dollars to conduct an Airport
Master Plan Study.
IV. AMENDMENTS IN THE CABOTAGE LAWS FOR ALASKA AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACT IN PUERTO
RICO
1. Background Review
It would be helpful to start this section by defining what cabotage is and its origin. Cabotage is maritime, fluvial, lacustrine, ground and air transportation of persons, goods, and national or nationalized luggage, between different parts of a country’s territory by vehicles registered in another country (Lexicoon, 2017). In naval terms, cabotage is the transportation of cargo and passengers
BQN Analysis Report 32 between ports of the same country, sailing relatively near the coast. Etymologically, it means to navigate cape in cape and comes from the French word “caboter”, which refers to the navigation formed between headlands. This report emphasizes the air cabotage laws and their consequences in the development of air cargo transportation.
For the development of air cargo in the Anchorage International Airport in Alaska, senator Ted
Stevens decided in 2003 to present amendments to exempt Anchorage airport from the air cabotage laws that limited economic development in the area. In general, the purpose was to create and maintain jobs and enhance the cargo capacity. The amendment stated the following:
Cargo in Alaska:
I. In general, eligible cargo taken on or off any aircraft at a place in Alaska in the course of
transportation of that cargo by any combination of two or more air carriers or foreign air
carriers in either direction between a place in the United States (US) and a place outside the
US, shall not be deemed to have broken its international journey in, be taken on in, or be
destined for Alaska.
II. Eligible cargo - for purposes of paragraph (I), the term “eligible cargo” means cargo
transported between Alaska and any other place in the US on a foreign air carrier (having
been transported from, or thereafter being transported to a place outside the US on a
different air carrier or foreign air carrier) that is carried:
a. under the code of a US air carrier providing air transportation to Alaska; b. on an air carrier way bill of US air carrier providing air transportation to Alaska; or c. under a term arrangement or block space agreement with an air carrier; d. under the code of a US air carrier for purposes of transportation within the US.
Stevens (2003-2004) explained to the President of the United States that:
BQN Analysis Report 33 “This amendment deals with protecting existing jobs and creating new jobs on the ground in
Alaska relating to the airport. Anchorage is the top-ranked cargo airport in North America: 600
wide body cargo carriers per week; 19 airlines providing all-cargo main deck freighter service
through Anchorage; 9 hours by air from 95 percent of the industrialized world; 3000 miles from
Tokyo; 3000 miles from New York city; 4000 miles from London; 4000 miles from Frankfurt;
4400 miles from Hong Kong…Foreign airlines provide much of this international cargo lift to and
from the US through Anchorage. Federal law allows these planes to land in Alaska, creating an
enormous number of jobs on the ground. Federal law, as currently interpreted, does not allow
U.S. carriers to use excess capacity on their foreign partners to move international cargo from
Anchorage to the lower 48. The foreign carrier must make the full trip by itself. It is prohibited
from transferring cargo to or from a U.S. carrier flying the international leg of the journey”.
Stevens (2003-2004) also highlighted the following:
“Anchorage is under attack from foreign cargo hubs seeking to exploit this weakness. Cities
such as Tashkent, Kharbarovsk, and Anadyr in Asia and Calgary and Vancouver in Canada are
aggressively pursuing the cargo carriers that Anchorage now serves. The US is losing jobs to
foreign countries because of it. This amendment will reverse that decline. American carriers,
both cargo carriers and passenger carriers, which accept cargo will make use of this
amendment in various ways: relocation of sort and transfer operations from Asia back to the
United States; enhanced service to US, Asian, and European cities; increased opportunities for
integrated logistics products sold by US companies, and more opportunities to strengthen US
carriers through international partnering. This amendment does not create more flights by
foreign carriers. It does not reduce the number of flights flown by US carriers. All cargo moving
under this authority must be shipped on a US codeshare or similar arrangement, such as a US BQN Analysis Report 34 waybill. It preserves and creates American jobs in the increasingly important global air cargo
sector”.
Brehmer (2014), in the article Rare cargo options offered at Stevens Airport, which was published in the Alaska Journal of Commerce said, that thanks to the little two-paragraph amendment by the senator Ted Stevens, presented and approved in 2003, now Anchorage airport is open to more business opportunities than virtually any other hub on Earth. He also quoted the Anchorage Airport manager John Parrot that delineated, “What we were doing is trying to find ways to contribute to the efficiency of the overall global supply, specifically the supply chain that connects Asia and North
America” (Parrott, and in Brehmer, 2014).
A US Department of Transportation exemption for Alaska in the Federal Aviation Administration authorization passed in 2004. This allowed cargo landed in the state on its way to and from the lower
48 states to be shuffled among planes and carriers at that time without being subject to federal regulations. It is still considered to be on its international journey. “Nowhere else in the world, in a significant country, is a foreign carrier allowed to pick up cargo within a country, take it to another place in that country and offload it,” Parrott (nd) in Brehmer (2014) argued.
About the location and the services that Anchorage brings to other countries, Duerre (2013) states that in the Anchorage Airport most of the transport cargo comes from Asian countries. Parrott
(nd) as quoted by Duerre (2013) also expresses that “Anchorage is strategically located between Asia and the lower 48 states as most wide-body cargo planes carry only enough fuel to travel 4,000 miles.
For Asian products to reach the east coast, cargo planes must travel twice that distance, but Alaska exists in-between. So, to effectively utilize these aircrafts all over the world in all markets, you need an airplane that will go about 4,000 miles and work all over the globe as long as we are here as a fueling
BQN Analysis Report 35 stop”. The exception of the air cabotage laws brings growth opportunities in Anchorage for a process called cargo-transfer. It allows foreign carriers to exchange cargo among their own fleet or to transfer cargo among different carriers within US soil.
One of the most interesting points that Parrot (nd) in Duerre (2013) emphasizes is that, “The US
Department of Transportation recognizes that Alaska is part of the United States, but it is so different geographically that it can, in some cases, be treated as a separate country”. This point reflects the similarities between Alaska and Puerto Rico (PR) in many respects. Puerto Rico is geographically separated to the mainland, with an economic structure that differs significantly from the US. The condition of being an island forces Puerto Rico to be extremely dependent on marine and air transportation to trade in this globalized world. Cabotage laws have not allowed Puerto Rico to contract foreign carriers in order to trade with the US, the first trade partner of Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico is geographically well located in “the middle” of America. Thus, it is relatively easy to fly from Puerto Rico to the US, Europe, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. A
“Stevens Amendment for Puerto Rico” would help economic development in this economically depressed island. This would allow the entry of new air cargo companies, a greater usage of its capacity for the benefit of the international transport, and the creation of new jobs. In addition to the benefits that the economy of Puerto Rico could obtain, these foreign airlines would not be penalized for stopping in Puerto Rico, which creates a mutual profitable relationship.
In a letter written by Lectora (2016), the Puerto Rico Task Force Committee is asked to consider an amend, such as the Stevens Amendment to reestablish a “transit-without-visa” program on the island. He supports his argument by explaining that:
BQN Analysis Report 36 “Alaska and Puerto Rico share important similarities regarding the air cargo industry, which
justify the application of the Stevens Amendment to Puerto Rico. Both are geographically
isolated from the mainland; therefore, both are heavily dependent on-air transportation. Both
have an important strategic location that is ideal for an international air cargo hub. However,
prior to 2004 Alaska could not fully utilize this geographic location advantage because most
cargo flights were overflying the state; the same is happening in Puerto Rico now. Furthermore,
planes that make refueling stops in Puerto Rico or pick up cargo cannot take full advantage of
cargo transfer options due to limited legal authority and cabotage laws”. In addition, Lectora
(2016) explained that:
“The Stevens Amendment leveled the playing field for Alaska against competing airports,
making Alaska more attractive to domestic and foreign air carriers for cargo flights refueling
and transfers. Alaska is now a major international air cargo hub. The same should be done for
Puerto Rico. Implementing the Stevens Amendment will attract domestic and foreign air
carriers that could combine their networks on the Island by transferring and consolidating their
cargos between airplanes and between airlines. Thus, helping create a major air cargo hub to
serve air trade routes between North America/South America and Europe/South America and
the Middle East/South America (sic)”.
Puerto Rico is in dire need of new economic growth initiatives such as the ones given to Alaska with the Stevens Amendment. Villamil (2014) in the article Ley de Cabotaje beneficia solo a Estados Unidos y no a la Isla (Cabotage law benefits only the United States and not the Island) stated that "We are now in what I call an ‘institutional gap’, where the laws of the United States are adopted to fulfill a need for that country, but when applying the law to Puerto Rico, it is not necessarily compatible with our reality, which results in unexpected and non-beneficial impacts". BQN Analysis Report 37 2. Potential Impact of Amending Air Cabotage Laws for Puerto Rico
There are proposals to amend federal regulations with the objective of excluding Puerto Rico of the federal air cabotage laws, as achieved in Alaska. If this exception applies to the Rafael Hernández
Airport in Aguadilla, which has the potential capacity of handling relatively large operations, a greater number of passengers and cargo could be transported in this well-located airport. The proposal would allow the establishment of new industries that in turn, would create new jobs and new money that will be injected into the economy. In addition, it could be of great help in setting up new businesses and subsequent job creation.
Figure 3.1 Cargo and Passengers of the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (1997 to 2015)
6,500,000 6,500,000
6,000,000 6,000,000
5,500,000 5,500,000
5,000,000 5,000,000
4,500,000 4,500,000
4,000,000 4,000,000 Passengers Passengers 3,500,000 3,500,000 Cargo (LBS IN
3,000,000 3,000,000 thousands) in Cargo(LBS THOUSANDS)
2,500,000 2,500,000 2011 2011 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2004 2005 2006 2014 2015 Period (In years)
Source: Forecast Technical Report Alaska International Airport System, May 2013, 1995 to 1999 data; Activity Summary Report FY2000-2009 and 2010-2015.
In Figure 3.1 we can observe the growth that the total passengers and cargo experienced in Alaska after the Stevens Amendment in 2003 (red line). There were some
BQN Analysis Report 38 cyclical movements around 2010 that may respond to external factors, but in general there was a solid growth in both series when we considered the whole period 1997-2015.
In fact, in Table 3.1 we illustrate the growth obtained after the Stevens Amendment. After the cabotage amendments in Alaska, both average cargo and average passengers grew in comparison to the immediate period before. The average annual cargo grew by 33.1% from the period 1997-2002 to the period 2003-2009. In the case of passengers, the growth amounted to 18% annually.
Table 3.1 Cargo and Passengers’ Growth Rate after Cabotage Changes (1997-2002 and 2003-2009)
Description 1997-2002 2003-2009 Growth Rate
Average of annual
cargo (LBS in 3,466,951 4,614,700 33.1%
thousands)
Average of annual 5,016,209 5,904,590 17.7% passengers
Source: Forecast Technical Report Alaska International Airport System, May 2013, 1995 to 1999 data; Activity Summary Report FY2000-2009 and 2010-2015.
BQN Analysis Report 39 Figure 3.2 Estimation of increases in BQN based on growth rates in Alaska after amendments
250,000,000 600,000 Passengers (right axis) 500,000 200,000,000
400,000 150,000,000
300,000
100,000,000 Cargo (left axis) 200,000
50,000,000 100,000
- -
Source: Forecast Technical Report Alaska International Airport System, May 2013, 1995 to 1999 data; Activity Summary Report FY2000-2009 and 2010-2015. Note: The * indicates projections
Based on the Alaska experience, both passengers and cargo figures would increase in the next eleven (11) years. However, it is important to point out that this forecasted process yields conservative figures for the following reasons: Projections shown in Figure 3.2 are solely based on the Alaska experience; However, for some years the Alaska growth rates after amendments were negative while the Federal Aviation Administration5projected that the growth rates, without assuming any changes in the cabotage laws, for the following 11 years in BQN would be close to 1%.
5 The Federal Aviation Administration provides a forecast for BQN terminal in their webpage https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/taf/ BQN Analysis Report 40 Table 3.2 Potential Economic Impact of New Passengers in BQN Based on Alaska’s experience,
2016-2028
New Passengers from 2016 to 2028 289,603
Average Expenditures by Visitor(in 2015) $757.30
Accumulated New Direct Economic Activity $219.3 million
Accumulated Direct and Indirect Economic
Activity Generated $403.5 million
Accumulated Direct and Indirect
Employment Generated 6,045
Source: Author’s calculations based on the Planning Board of Puerto Rico
By assuming that the cabotage amendments would have created a similar impact in BQN, we can project the potential economic impact of such amendments based on the Alaska experience. By assuming so, cabotage amendments could potentially increase visitors to Puerto Rico by 17% annually
(from Table 3.1, with approximates of 290 thousand of accumulated additional visitors by 2028).
According to the Planning Board, the total average expenditures of visitors were $757 dollars in 2015.
Under such scenario, the direct economic activity would represent $219.3 million dollars and the indirect economic activity (using the 2013 input output matrix) would amount to $184.2 million dollars.
Using input-output projections, we find that the total employment generated in Puerto Rico could approximate 6,045. These are conservative figures because we are not considering the economic activity generated by additional cargo movement and we are only projecting economic impact in the
Aguadilla airport, disregarding the largest airport in Puerto Rico (SJU). However, it is important to point out that even this conservative estimation of accumulated employment generation, is greater than the current total number of workers in municipalities in the Northwestern region of Puerto Rico (where
BQN Analysis Report 41 BQN is located) such as Quebradillas (whose employed population was 5,967 in 2014) and Rincón
(whose employed population was 4,268).
If Puerto Rico adheres to free trade, liberated from the cabotage federal laws as in Alaska, it could have even more opportunities to the immediate economic activity: interaction with other countries, growth of technological capacity, and improvement of its competitiveness, among others.
BQN Analysis Report 42 V. REFERENCES
Airports-Worldwide. (2017). Rafael Hernández Airport. Retrieved from http://www.airports-
worldwide.com/puerto_rico/rafael_hernandez_puerto_rico.php.
Albarran, R. (2014). Las leyes de cabotaje en Puerto Rico. Prezi. Retrieved from
https://prezi.com/rdhu9bjvehcc/las-leyes-de-cabotaje-en-puerto-rico/
Brehmer, E. (2014, November 19). Rare cargo options offered at Stevens Airport. Alaska Journal of
Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.alaskajournal.com/business-and-finance/2014-11-
19/rare-cargo-options-offered-stevens-airport#.WOt_dFXyuUk
Duerre, A. (2013, April 2). Ted Steven’s Airport Manager Excited about Future of Air Cargo. Alaska
public media. Retrieved from http://www.alaskapublic.org/2013/04/02/ted-stevens-airport-
manager-excited-about-future-of-air-cargo/
Lectora, J. (2016, December 12). Submission 1: United Stated Senate Committee on Finance. Retrieved
from https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jeronimo%20Lectora%20
(Submission%201) EDITED.pdf
Lexicoon. (2017). Cabotaje. Lexicoon Online Edition 3.9. Retrieved fromhttp://lexicoon.org/es/cabotaje
Stevens, T. (2003-2004). S. Amdt.923 to S.824. Congress.gov. Retrieved from
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/108th-congress/senate-amendment/923
Villamil, J. (2014). Ley de Cabotaje beneficia solo a Estados Unidos y no a la Isla. Metro Online.
Retrieved from https://www.metro.pr/pr/economia/2014/01/30/ley-cabotaje-beneficia-
estados-unidos-no-isla.html
BQN Analysis Report 43