RESEARCH JOURNAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GDAŃSK

Transport Economics and Logistics Vol. 70 (2017) DOI 10.5604/01.3001.0010.5922

Dariusz Tłoczyński

Department of Transportation Market, Faculty of Economics, University of Gdańsk Dariusz Tłoczyński

CONNECTIVITY IN AIR TRANSPORT NETWORKS: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE POLISH AVIATION MARKET

Connectivity in air transport networks…

Abstract

Companies connected with air transport operate within a competitive envi- ronment and are, therefore, compelled to adjust their strategy in order to increase their competitiveness. One of the elements which has an effect on the level of competitiveness is accessibility, which is itself studied on different planes. Var- ious approaches to the issue of accessibility may be found in aviation literature. Accessibility of region, accessibility of air transport, and temporal accessibility are amongst those distinguished. Analysis of the above mentioned factors is of par- ticular importance with regards to launching new air links. The aim of this article is to discuss the issue of connectivity with regards to chosen Polish airports, taking into account the available network of connections with transit airports. Research discussed in this article may serve as grounds for a further complex study based on the use of advanced econometric methods for air traffic simulation. Keywords: transport economics, air transport, connectivity, airports

Introduction

Companies connected with air transport operate within a competitive envi- ronment and are, therefore, compelled to adjust their strategy in order to increase their competitiveness. One of the elements which has an effect on the level of competitiveness is accessibility, which is itself studied on different planes. Var- ious approaches to the issue of accessibility may be found in aviation literature. Accessibility of region, accessibility of air transport, and temporal accessibility are amongst those distinguished. 54 Dariusz Tłoczyński

1. Connectivity – theoretical approach

Connectivity is understood as a temporal accessibility indicator to the destina- tion airport. N. Dennis and R. Doganis define it as a number of indirect connec- tions which meet the requirements of a minimal and maximum time in regards to the service of passengers at an airport, including routing. Connectivity is inter- preted in a similar way by J. Veldhuis, G. Burghouwt and J. Veldhuis, J. Veeldhuis and E. Kroes, A. Danesi, P. Malighetti and S. Paleari and their teams. According to them connectivity is defined as a number of direct and indirect air links which allows a passenger to spend a sufficient amount of time at a connecting airport providing services at a suitable level. Airports Council International distinguishes two kinds of connectivity to a des- tination airport: – airport connectivity: a) direct links between two airports, b) indirect links with two airports using hub ports, – connectivity of hub airports – a connection between two airports with a stop at a hub airport. There is also a distinction made between connectivity between air links within Europe (medium haul) and on a global scale (long haul). The main factors influencing connectivity are: the accessibility indicator, the temporal coordination of airlines at an airport, flight duration, quality of service at a transit airport, type of connection, maximum number of stages of a journey, type of connectivity (via hub airport or other airports). A few methods of calculations of the connectivity coefficient can be found in specialist literature on the topic. P. Maligetti, S. Paleari and R. Redoni defined this index as a connectivity matrix for an airport:

where: CI – stands for the average number of flight connections between two airports, SPL – stands for the number of flight connections between two final airports, N – the number of possible transit airports.

The aforementioned matrix allows the average number of stages of a journey necessary in order to link two airports with the help of transit airports and a minimal waiting time at a transit airport to be evaluated. It takes into account data included in flight schedules for all operators and airports worldwide, especially: airport of origin; take off times; destination airport; landing and transit times; minimal transit window for a given airport; frequency of connections. ACI divided European airports into four categories in order to estimate their connectivity. Group 1 consists of the largest European airports (14) servicing more than 25 million passengers; group 2 consists of 23 airports servicing between 10 and 25 million passengers; and group 3 includes 34 airports servicing between 5 and 10 million passengers. Group 4 is made up of 390 airports which provide Connectivity in air transport networks… 55 services for less than 5 million passengers. The links between the largest airports and are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Available Seat Kilometres (ASK)1 from selected Polish airports to the European hub airports in 2013 Participate ASK in global No. Airport connectivity Gdańsk Katowice Kraków Poznań Wrocław [in %] 1. 13 1470 1400 3081 490 6193 1470 2. 8 216 – 288 – 5095 – 3. 8 – – 1092 – 6003 – 4. Istanbul 6 – – – – 1231 – 5. Munich 6 2212 770 2836 1918 3856 2034 6. - 4 – – – – 5026 – -Heathrow 7. Vienna 3 – – 1303 – 2950 – 8. Zurich 3 – – 360 – 2913 – 9. Moscow 3 – – 609 – 3364 – 10. Madrid 3 – – 567 – 994 – 11. Warsaw Below 1 3116 772 3402 1196 – 3238 Source: (IATA and ACI)

The majority of large, regional, Polish airports are linked with a worldwide network of connections only via hub airports in Frankfurt, Munich, and Warsaw. Only airports located in Kraków and Warsaw offer a wide choice of connections. This is an outcome of the economic development of individual regions as well as the tourism attractiveness of the selected Polish cities. Warsaw, being a capital city, generates a high share of business air traffic. It has to be noted that airports in Frankfurt, Munich, Warsaw, Istanbul, Vienna, and Zurich are connected operators who are members of the airline network. Therefore, it is not the brand of a transit airport that is of importance but the wait time at hub airports. Cooperation between airports and operators providing services to hub airports increase the transport accessibility of a region and airport. Moreover, connectivity influences competition between airports. Hub airports are set to offer the most attractive network of connections on a global scale, since a prolonged stay pas- sengers at the transit airport generate revenue from services other than aviation.

1 Available Seat Kilometres (ASK) measures an airline’s passenger carrying capacity. It is: seats available × distance flown. This number should be calculated per plane, but is (at least in an investment context) usually quoted per airline. A seat-kilometre is available when a seat that is available for carrying a passenger is flown one kilometre. Seats that are not usable for various reasons are excluded. 56 Dariusz Tłoczyński

2. Evaluation of transport accessibility by passengers using Polish airports

Research was conducted at Polish airports in 2013 based on an in-person ques- tionnaire. The respondents were chosen from among passengers prior to their passing through security. Over 23% of passengers were about to embark on a jour- ney involving connecting flights. The majority of them – 56%, were travelling outside the European continent; 43% were flying intercontinental routes and 1% domestic routes.

Figure 1. Handling passengers in Polish airports used the transfer travel Source: (own primary research)

In the majority of cases passengers were to take their connecting flight from Warsaw (39%) and Gdansk (20%). Beyond any doubt this result was influenced by the network of air links – Warsaw is the central airport of Poland, whilst con- nections from regional airports are based on airports in Frankfurt (24%), Munich (15%), Copenhagen (12%), and Warsaw (10%).

Figure 2. The main transit airports used by passenger origin Polish airports Source: (own primary research) Connectivity in air transport networks… 57

Passengers serviced at regional airport mostly completed their journey via transit airports within continental (65%), intercontinental (33%), and regional (1%) routes. Warsaw Chopin Airport was the transit airport for domestic flights.

Table 2. Characteristic selected Polish airports including transit airports Alternative Alternative Origin Numer of destination; Transit airport Segment other other airport dominant type of travel transport conections Gdańsk Munich (32%) 29; continental (89%) business (62%) No (92%) No (54%) Frankfurt (27%) 27; intercontinental business (51%) No (96%) Yes (68%) (51%) Copenhagen 20; continental (86%) business (68%) No (100%) Yes (64%) (19%) Kraków Munich (23%) 10; continental (100%) business (85%) No (100%) Yes (57%) Frankfurt (35%) 19; intercontinental business (59%) No (100%) Yes (77%) (91%) Warsaw (19%) 5; intercontinental (83%) business, No (100%) Yes (58%) family travel, turist (po 33%) Katowice Munich (5%) 2; continental business, Yes, No Yes, No and intercontinental turist (after 50%) (after 50%) (after 50%) (after 50%) Frankfurt (78%) 11; continental (100%) business (79%) No (100%) No (72%) Poznań Munich (56%) 16; continental (66%) business (65%) No (100%) No (51%) Frankfurt (2%) 1; continental (100%) family travel No (100%) Yes (100%) (100%) Copenhagen 13; continental (89%) business (76%) No (100%) Yes (64%) (37%) Wrocław Munich (63%) 21; continental (81%) business (81%) No (91%) Yes (59%) Frankfurt (18%) 2; intercontinental (75%) business No (100%) Yes (100%) (100%) Source: (own primary research)

At the majority of regional airports passengers flying to continental destinations use airports in Munich (81%) and Copenhagen (53%). Those travelling on inter- continental routes most often choose airports in Frankfurt (39%) and Copenhagen (47%). Passengers who travelled via Warsaw Chopin Airport as their transit airport were travelling mostly on transcontinental flights (55%). The passengers who took part in the study and travelled via a transit airport chose 73 destinations outside Europe and 102 destinations on the continent. Operators are, therefore, obliged to create an offer that matches the expectations of passengers in order to meet demand.

3. Analysis of connectivity at chosen Polish airports

Connectivity was analysed on the basis of air schedules of operators who are located within those Western European airports that were chosen most often 58 Dariusz Tłoczyński by passengers. In order to do so, the maximum number of air links from airports in Munich, Frankfurt, and Copenhagen was established. It was assumed that the time needed in on order to disembark from the aircraft and walk to the transfer zone amounts to 30 minutes. The analysis was exclusive of Warsaw Chopin Airport due to the theory that a large number of connections via transit airports in Western Europe will cause PLL LOT to launch direct connections from regional airports in Poland to other destinations.

Figure 3. Number of direct connections from Polish airports via Source: (www.munich.de [Accessed 15 February 2017])

Lufthansa offers the largest number of connections with Munich Airport from Gdansk, Wroclaw, and Poznan – 3 flights daily, each with 258 available seats – whilst from Cracow the airline uses a larger aircraft that has 398 available seats. The air schedule in which Munich was considered as a transit airport, resulted in Wrocław having the highest connectivity during early morning hours (until 8.00) – 50 connec- tions in a time isochrone2 of up to 60 minutes; 67 connections in the isochrone of up to 90 minutes; and 91 connections in the isochrone of up to 150 minutes. Wroclaw was also the airport with the highest connectivity in the morning and afternoon hours (from 8.01 to 17.00) – 63 connections in a time isochrone of up to 60 min- utes; 66 connections in the isochrone of up to 90 minutes; and 85 connections in the isochrone of up to 150 minutes. Poznan was the airport with the highest connectivity during the evening hours (after 17.00) – 51 connections in a time isochrone of up to 60 minutes; 67 connections in the isochrone of up to 90 minutes; and 88 connections in the isochrone of up to 150 minutes.

2 An isochrone is defined as a line drawn on a map connecting points at which something occurs or arrives at the same time. Such a map is sometimes termed simply an isochrone. In transportation planning isochrone maps are commonly used to depict areas of equal travel time. Connectivity in air transport networks… 59

Figure 4. Number of direct connections from Polish airports via Source: (www.munich.de [Accessed 15 February 2017])

From amongst the Polish airports analysed offers the highest number of connections via Frankfurt Airport from airports in Katowice, Kraków, and Wrocław – 3 flights daily with 300 available seats (258 from Wroclaw). Pas- sengers embarking on their journey in Gdańsk and Poznań were offered 2 flights daily by the same airline. The following airports were distinguished as those with the highest connectivity in the early hours of morning (until 8.00) on the basis of an air schedule where Frankfurt was considered a transit airport: 50 connections in a time isochrone of up to 60 minutes in Gdańsk; 77 connections in the iso- chrone of up to 90 minutes from Kraków; and 126 connections in the isochrone of up to 150 minutes from Wrocław. Wrocław was also the airport with the highest connectivity in the morning and afternoon hours (from 8.01 to 17.00)) – 56 connec- tions in a time isochrone of up to 60 minutes; 70 connections in the isochrone of up to 90 minutes; and 85 connections in the isochrone of up to 150 minutes. Kraków was also the airport with the highest connectivity in the hours of the evening (after 17.00) in the isochrone of up to 60 minutes – a combination of 54 connections. Poznań had the highest number of connections in the isochrone of up to 90 minutes (68), and Wrocław in the isochrone of up to 150 minutes (102 connections). From amongst the analysed Polish airports offers the high- est number of connections via from Gdansk Lech Walesa Air- port – 4 flights daily with a total of 486 available seats. This results from the location of Gdansk Lech Walesa Airport within the transport network. Scandinavian Airlines did not cooperate with southern airports (Kraków, Katowice) during the period analysed. Passengers embarking on their journey in the early hours of the morning had 32 connections available in a time isochrone of up to 60 minutes; 39 connections in the isochrone of up to 90 minutes; and 52 connections in the isochrone of up to 150 minutes. During the morning and afternoon hours (from 8.01 to 17.00) 60 Dariusz Tłoczyński the highest connectivity was established for Gdansk, also with two connections. Within the period analysed passengers in Copenhagen were able to travel to 28, 35, and 47 destinations worldwide; whereas in the hours of the evening (after 17.00) only passengers flying from Gdansk Lech Walesa Airport were able to travel to Copenhagen. In the isochrone of up to 60 minutes – 40 connections; in the isochrone of up to 90 minutes – 43 connections; and in the isochrone of up to 150 minutes – 44 connections.

Figure 5. Number of direct connections from Polish airports via Copenhagen Airport Source: (www.cph.dk [Accessed 15 February 2017])

Figure 6. Connectivity from Gdańsk, Kraków, Katowice, Poznań, Wrocław, via Munich, Frankfurt, Copenhagen Source: (www.munich.de, fraport.de, www.cph.dk Accessed 15 February 2017]) Connectivity in air transport networks… 61

In the early morning hours (until 8.00) the highest connectivity based on links via the transit airports of Munich, Frankfurt, and Copenhagen was established for Gdansk Lech Walesa Airport – 120 combinations in the isochrone of up to 60 minutes; 162 connections in the isochrone of up to 90 minutes; and 244 connections in the isochrone of up to 150 minutes. During other hours of the day the highest connectivity was still established for the airlines operating from Gdańsk. In morning and afternoon hours: 146 combinations in the isochrone of up to 60 minutes; 178 connections in the isochrone of up to 90 minutes; and 207 connections in the isoch- rone of up to 150 minutes. In the hours of late afternoon and evening there were 120, 162, and 238 connections available respectively for the aforementioned isochrones of time.

Conclusions

The following conclusions may be enumerated on the basis of the analysis of connectivity for the chosen airports: – passengers who choose to travel via air transport consider a number of factors which influence their choice of airline (duration of travel, costs, departure time and landing); – the transit airport does not influence the choice of airline; – passengers travelling from Polish airports via connecting flights most often embark on their journey in Gdańsk; – Munich, Warsaw, Frankfurt, and Copenhagen are the main transit airports for passengers flying out of Polish airports; – connectivity is influenced by an airport’s location and catchment area; – Gdansk Lech Walesa Airport has the best combination of connections via Munich, Frankfurt, and Copenhagen. Therefore there are some grounds for launching a few direct connections from regional airports that exclude connections via transit airports. Such decisions should be taken by PLL LOT. However, research into passenger needs as well as Scan of New Air Routes (SONAR3) simulations, inclusive of passenger segmentation, should be carried out in order to determine which routes will be profitable for the airline prior to any business decisions. Transit airports will certainly experience a loss due to the introduction of new, direct air links (lower revenues from airport taxes, duty free shopping, reduced employment, etc.). Nevertheless, regional airports in Poland will benefit from additional air operations, increased air traffic, increased revenues from air operations and other operations, as well as from the development of companies cooperating with a given airport.

3 For example: the airport under consideration, for each new potential destination, effects on the airport under consideration, www.mkm.de [Accessed 15 February 2017]. 62 Dariusz Tłoczyński

References Airport industry. Connectivity report (ACI) (2014). Burghouwt, G. and Redondi, R. (2013), Connectivity in Air Transport Networks. An Assess- ment of Models and Applications, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 47, Part 1. Burghouwt, G. and Veldhuis, J. (2006), The competitive position of hub airports in Trans- atlantic market, Journal of Air Transportation, 11(1). Danesi, A. (2006), Measuring timetable co-ordination and connectivity: definition of a new index and application to a sample of European hubs, European Transport, 34. Dennis, N. (1994a), Airline hub operations in Europe, Journal of Transport Geography, 2(4). Dennis, N. (1994b), Scheduling strategies for airline hub operations, Journal of Transport Management, 1(2). Dennis, N. and Doganis, R. (1989), Lessons in Hubbing, Airline Business, March. Fraport (n.d.). Available from fraport.de [Accessed 15 February 2017]. Københavns Lufthavne (n.d.). Available from www.cph.dk [Accessed 15 February 2017]. Malighetti, P., Paleari, S. and Redondi, R. (2008), Connectivity of the European airport net- work: “self-help hubbing” and business implications, Journal of Air Transport Management, 14(2), pp. 53–65. MKmetric (n.d.). Available from www.mkm.de [Accessed 2 February 2017]. Official Website for the City of Munich (n.d.). Available from www.munich.de [Accessed 15 February 2017]. Paleari, S., Redondi, R. and Malighetti, P. (2010), A comparative study of airport connectivity in China, Europe and US: which network provides the best service for passengers?, Transportation Research, 42(2). Veldhuis, J. (1997), The competitive position of airline networks, Journal of Air Transport Management, 3(4). Veldhuis, J. and Kroes, E. (2002), Dynamics in relative network performance of the main European hub airports, Proceeding of the European Transport Conference, Cambridge, 9–11 Sep- tember.

Corresponding author Dariusz Tłoczyński can be contacted at: [email protected]