DOCSLIB.ORG

Case Study: a Comparison Between Barcelona and Malpensa De-Hubbing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Case Study: a Comparison Between Barcelona and Malpensa De-Hubbing Case Study: A comparison between Barcelona and Malpensa de-hubbing. Andrea Giuricin PhD. Student In “Istituzioni, Amministrazioni e Politiche Regionali” three years scholarship, jointly organised by Pavia University, Catholic University, Milan University and Politecnico di Milano, Specialization in Public Economy and Transport Economics. Lecturer in Public Finance, Faculty of Economics, University Milano Bicocca. Fellow at Bruno Leoni Institute and author of the book “Alitalia, the never-ending privatization” and other publications on transportation's sector. Abstract In April 2008, Alitalia implemented a new industrial Plan, which aimed at reducing cost and redefining the network. These applied on a new strategy of Alitalia from a multi-hub system to one- hub system. SEA, Milan airport’s operator, decided to react in two directions. First, changing strategy from hub&spoke to a point to point network model. Second, lobbing national Government to liberalize bilateral agreements. This paper examines these two strategies and the results that were achieved. The Spanish flagship carrier Iberia made an important de-hubbing in the second airport of Spain, Barcelona. In these two cases, there are some similarities but also differences. Malpensa and Barcelona made agreement with low cost carrier Easyjet to substitute national flagship carriers. They have a similar competition by a secondary airport in the catchment area, where main airline is Ryanair. However airport operator is managed by AENA, a state-owned company, while Malpensa is managed by SEA, controlled by municipality of Milan. This paper analysed data from AENA and internal data from SEA. This availability allows a statistical comparison between the different reaction’s strategies. The goal of this paper is to make a comparison between the airport operator’s reactions face to dehubbing. In Malpensa’s case an individualized one, and a centralized in Barcelona’s case. I study how these different strategies have impact on type of carriers that invested in the airport to substitute flagship carrier and on new network model after dehubbing. Case Study: A comparison between Barcelona and Malpensa de-hubbing. Introduction European air transport, fully liberalized on 1st of April 1997, has gone under a very important evolution, or revolution. (Oum, 2009). Market growth has reached over 100 per cent in many European states, Spain and Italy between them. Both countries achieved to catch the air traffic, in particular low costs' one. Low cost companies has become essential players in the air transport field, and actually two of the four main European companies, in terms of carried passengers, are low cost carriers. The flagship carriers of those two countries, Iberia in Spain and Alitalia in Italy, had to face difficulties in a new competition situation, but reacted in a different way. The Spanish flagship carrier has deeply reorganised and has been privatized by the Government between the end of the nineties and the beginning of 2000. The same didn't take place in Italy, where the different Governments, centre-left winged and centre-right winged, have been keeping on giving public funds – more than 4 billion Euro between the 1996 and the 2008 – to save Alitalia. Even so the Italian carrier underwent bankruptcy in 2008, as it was not able to compete anymore in a market getting more and more competitive, despite of a business reorganization attempt tried with the so called Piano Prato, enacted in the end of March 2008. The air sector needs the companies, in order to withstand the competitive pressure, to have an extreme flexibility. In this, Iberia succeeded, as during the last years it has been reorganizing completely. This reorganization involved its own operative type, being the company focusing over Madrid's airport Barajas and with the creation of a low cost subsidiary, ClickAir, which has been able to feed the regional traffic in a hub&spoke network. Alitalia, instead, even suggesting five industrial plans between 2001 and 2007, has never been able to enact them. The insistences coming from politics and syndicates (Ponti, 2007), exerted over a company controlled by a public main shareholder (Ponti and Boitani, 2004), Economy and Finance Minister, kept the company stuck in a continuous loss status. Between 2003 and 2008 the flagship company overstake losses higher than 3,5 billion Euro. The carrier has been keeping since the beginning, a double hub structure, with Milan Malpensa and Rome Fiumicino, tough owning only 24 long range aircraft. The reorganization took place with the Piano Prato, from the name of Alitalia's CEO, which removed the double hub structure and focused the traffic over Rome Fiumicino. This strategy was headed to attract the incoming air traffic from abroad to the Rome hub, instead leaving the outcoming traffic generated over Milano Malpensa unprotected. Those two flagship carrier's strategies had important consequences both on Barcelona’s hub and Milan Malpensa’s one, which underwent a dehubbing process. This paper's aim is to analyse first the dehubbing process in the two different European hubs enacted by the two national carriers, started, anyway, from two extremely different regulations conditions of the airport's branch. Than I take account of the existing competition of other airports in the same catchment area, in particular the one made by the two regional airports Girona and Bergamo Orio al Serio. The low cost carriers growth in regional airports situated near the main hubs played an important role. The different regulation and properties between the Italian airport system and the Spanish one had stimulated different reactions from the airport operators after the dehubbing process. Reported data aims to show the different reactions strategies of the hubs, if they took place. 1 Regulatory framework and air transport market evolution European air market underwent a strong growth over the last decade thanks to liberalization. On consequence the airports fronted a quick traffic growth. In particular, secondary hubs had developed, thanks to the coming of the low cost companies. Not all of those carries decided for a development model focused on regional hubs. In fact, Easyjet, the second European low cost company, mainly makes use of principal hubs and this is the case for Barcelona's and Milan Malpensa's airports. The Milan hub is the second European airport for the British company, which in 2009 will carry about 5 million passengers from and to this hub. Ryanair, the main European low cost company, with almost 70 million customers in 2009, makes instead use of secondary hubs, and in the particular case of Barcelona and Milan, utilised airports are Girona and Bergamo Orio al Serio. Low cost companies introduced some competition in the European panorama, even the business remaining characterised by an almost monopoly positions. If the competition is necessary, as underlined also in the London area by the English Office of Fair Trading1, it is important to highlight that there is an issue regarding the argument of the airport subsidies or the companies' ones from the Local Institutions. European Commission had faced this problem in the well know verdict about Brussel's Charleroi airport on the 12th of February 2004, where it was traced which could be the aids in a new route start-up. However a judgement of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 revoked the Commission Decision 2004/393/EC of 12 February 2004 concerning advantages granted by the Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the airline Ryanair in connection with its establishment at Charleroi. Thus the problem remains unsolved and, maybe, the most problematic cases stand in the Spanish case. In fact, in Spain all the airports are managed by an unique State-owned Enterprise, AENA, which applies the same fares in every hub in the Spanish country. In 2009 has been introduced the possibility to lower the airport fares of a 20 per cent for those companies which in 2009 increased the number of carried passengers compared to 2008. This decision should be a benefit for Ryanair, which is one of the few companies able to increase the offer and the carried passengers in Spain. Probably, after the merger between Clickair and Vueling, even this new company, majority share- held by Iberia, could profit by this fares advantage. 1 In April 2007 the Office of fair Trade formally referred BAA to the Competition Commission and invited the Competition Commission to investigate the supply of airport services within the UK under section 131 of the Enterprise Act 2006 Airports in the Barcelona catchment area, Girona, Reus and the city hub, show a strong presence of both Ryanair and the Iberia's low cost company. Thus the effects of this Government measure will show even on those airports. Thus, AENA, which applies the same fares for every company and for every airport, doesn't allow a competitive management of the airports. In addition the structure is strongly focused on Madrid, so Barcelona's airport manager can't search for agreements with any air company in order to develop the traffic over his hub. The problem is really relevant as any airport, in Spain, can't manage its own customer base and can't look the market for eventual operators which would like to invest on a certain airport. AENA management, strongly centralized, over the last years seems to have been focusing its own interests on the development of Madrid Barajas, the main Spanish hub with almost 50 million carried passengers in 2008. The Spanish capital's airport is the hub of the flagship company Iberia and over this hub the investments have been focused during the last years. The persisting lack of competition issue between the Spanish airports and the lack of a direct administration from the management of a certain hub is, thus, a serious limit.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction This Publication Contains Facts and Figures on Schiphol Group for the Year 2008
    Introduction This publication contains Facts and Figures on Schiphol Group for the year 2008. The information has been grouped into three categories: ‘About Schiphol Group’, ‘Amsterdam Airport Schiphol’ and ‘Airport Network’. More information on Schiphol Group can be found on the Internet. Please visit www.schipholgroup.com Information on Amsterdam Airport Schiphol can also be found on the Internet. Please visit www.schiphol.com, or telephone +31 (0)20 - 794 0800. Published by Schiphol Group Corporate Affairs P.O. Box 7501 1118 ZG Schiphol The Netherlands 1 Contents About Schiphol Group Airport Network Financial Results 6 Rotterdam Airport 29 Investments 8 Eindhoven Airport 30 Business Areas 9 Lelystad Airport 30 Aviation Business Area 10 Terminal 4, John F. Kennedy Airport, New York (USA) 31 Consumers Business Area 11 Brisbane Airport, Australia 31 Real Estate Business Area 12 Alliances & Participations business area 13 General Information History 14 Marketing AirportCity Products 33 Did you know…? 34 Amsterdam Airport Schiphol Other Publications 35 Airport Zone 15 Telephone numbers, addresses, websites 35 Capacity 16 Shops and Catering Outlets 16 Ten Major European Airports 17 Traffic and Transport 18 Passengers Profile 24 Employment 25 Miscellaneous 27 Awards 28 2 3 About Schiphol Group Schiphol Group is an airport operator headquartered in the Netherlands. Our aim is to create sustainable value for our stakeholders by developing AirportCities and by positioning Amsterdam Airport Schiphol as most preferred airport in Europe. Our ambition is to rank among the world’s leading airport companies. An AirportCity is not only an efficient, multi- modal hub for air, rail an road transport, it is a dynamic hub integrating people and businesses, logistics and shops, information and entertainment offering its visitors and locally-based international businesses all the services they require on a 24/7 basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Alitalia Announces the New Milan-Shanghai Route (3)
    PRESS RELEASE Alitalia returns to China and announces the new Milan-Shanghai route. Milan Malpensa-Tokyo flight frequencies increased. Milan, May 4, 2015 – The Chairman of Alitalia, Luca di Montezemolo, and the Chief Executive Officer, Silvano Cassano, today introduced the new intercontinental non- stop service Milano Malpensa – Shanghai, which marks the return of the Company in China and a further stage in the development of Malpensa airport’s intercontinental connections. Shanghai is the first city of the Republic of China in terms of population, and it is considered the economic capital of the country. The flight, launched with the inauguration of Expo Milano 2015, represents another major investment of Alitalia in Milan, following the introduction of the direct flight to Abu Dhabi last March 29. With these new connections, Alitalia further strengthens its range of intercontinental routes departing from Milan and from the North of Italy. In addition to the new flights to Shanghai and the daily flights to Abu Dhabi, Alitalia has also strengthened its connections on the Milan – Tokyo route, which are now daily as daily are the flights to New York’s JFK airport. Today Alitalia has become the leading airline out of Malpensa by number of intercontinental destinations and, over the next three years, the Company aims to increase by 130% the number of passengers on intercontinental flights departing or arriving at Milan Malpensa airport. To promote incoming tourism from Shanghai, Alitalia is working with Italy’s local representatives: the Italian Consulate, ICE (the Italian Trade Promotion Agency) and the Italian Chamber of Commerce in China, cooperating to promote Italy and Expo Milano 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • American Airlines in Europe American Operates up to 434 Weekly Flights Between Europe and the United States
    American Airlines in Europe American operates up to 434 weekly flights between Europe and the United States. Overview • From its hubs in the United States, American offers connections to nearly 350 cities in over 50 countries worldwide, with approximately 6,700 daily flights. • American now offers up to 62 daily flights between Europe and Chicago O’Hare (ORD), Charlotte (CLT), Dallas Fort Worth (DFW), Los Angeles (LAX), Miami (MIA), New York (JFK), Philadelphia (PHL) and Raleigh/ Durham (RDU). • American has dedicated sales offices in Amsterdam, Dublin, Frankfurt, London, Madrid, Milan, Paris, Rome and Zürich. • American has a dedicated reservations center in Liverpool, England, handling European reservations queries, AAdvantage customers, special assistance and ticketing. • American has dedicated Admirals Club lounges in London Heathrow, Terminal 3 (LHR) and Paris Charles de Gaulle, Terminal 2A (CDG American also has a Flagship First Class lounge and an Arrivals Lounge in Heathrow Terminal 3, the only one of its kind in the airline’s network. • Beginning May 6th, 2017, American will launch new seasonal services from Rome Fiumicino Airport (FCO) and Amsterdam Schiphol Airport (AMS) to Dallas/ Fort Worth and from Barcelona El Prat Airport (BCN) to Chicago O’Hare. Leadership in Europe • Olympia Colasante, Managing Director – London Heathrow • Andy Kynoch, Director – European Operations • Ivonne Brauburger, Director – European Sales • Mark Danis, Manager – UK Corporate Sales • Tim Isik, Manager – UK Channel Sales • Isabelle Gannoun, Manager – Sales France • Jose Blazquez, Regional Manager – Sales Spain & Portugal • Roberto Antonucci, Regional Manager – Sales Italy & Southeast Europe • Markus Boecker, Regional Manager – Sales Germany & Switzerland • Caitriona Toner, Manager – Sales Ireland • Javier Equisoain Blanco, Manager – Regional Sales Benelux Updated Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of Transportation Federal
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ORDER TRANSPORTATION JO 7340.2E FEDERAL AVIATION Effective Date: ADMINISTRATION July 24, 2014 Air Traffic Organization Policy Subject: Contractions Includes Change 1 dated 11/13/14 https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/CNT/3-3.HTM A 3- Company Country Telephony Ltr AAA AVICON AVIATION CONSULTANTS & AGENTS PAKISTAN AAB ABELAG AVIATION BELGIUM ABG AAC ARMY AIR CORPS UNITED KINGDOM ARMYAIR AAD MANN AIR LTD (T/A AMBASSADOR) UNITED KINGDOM AMBASSADOR AAE EXPRESS AIR, INC. (PHOENIX, AZ) UNITED STATES ARIZONA AAF AIGLE AZUR FRANCE AIGLE AZUR AAG ATLANTIC FLIGHT TRAINING LTD. UNITED KINGDOM ATLANTIC AAH AEKO KULA, INC D/B/A ALOHA AIR CARGO (HONOLULU, UNITED STATES ALOHA HI) AAI AIR AURORA, INC. (SUGAR GROVE, IL) UNITED STATES BOREALIS AAJ ALFA AIRLINES CO., LTD SUDAN ALFA SUDAN AAK ALASKA ISLAND AIR, INC. (ANCHORAGE, AK) UNITED STATES ALASKA ISLAND AAL AMERICAN AIRLINES INC. UNITED STATES AMERICAN AAM AIM AIR REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AIM AIR AAN AMSTERDAM AIRLINES B.V. NETHERLANDS AMSTEL AAO ADMINISTRACION AERONAUTICA INTERNACIONAL, S.A. MEXICO AEROINTER DE C.V. AAP ARABASCO AIR SERVICES SAUDI ARABIA ARABASCO AAQ ASIA ATLANTIC AIRLINES CO., LTD THAILAND ASIA ATLANTIC AAR ASIANA AIRLINES REPUBLIC OF KOREA ASIANA AAS ASKARI AVIATION (PVT) LTD PAKISTAN AL-AAS AAT AIR CENTRAL ASIA KYRGYZSTAN AAU AEROPA S.R.L. ITALY AAV ASTRO AIR INTERNATIONAL, INC. PHILIPPINES ASTRO-PHIL AAW AFRICAN AIRLINES CORPORATION LIBYA AFRIQIYAH AAX ADVANCE AVIATION CO., LTD THAILAND ADVANCE AVIATION AAY ALLEGIANT AIR, INC. (FRESNO, CA) UNITED STATES ALLEGIANT AAZ AEOLUS AIR LIMITED GAMBIA AEOLUS ABA AERO-BETA GMBH & CO., STUTTGART GERMANY AEROBETA ABB AFRICAN BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATIONS DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF AFRICAN BUSINESS THE CONGO ABC ABC WORLD AIRWAYS GUIDE ABD AIR ATLANTA ICELANDIC ICELAND ATLANTA ABE ABAN AIR IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC ABAN OF) ABF SCANWINGS OY, FINLAND FINLAND SKYWINGS ABG ABAKAN-AVIA RUSSIAN FEDERATION ABAKAN-AVIA ABH HOKURIKU-KOUKUU CO., LTD JAPAN ABI ALBA-AIR AVIACION, S.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Diapositiva 1
    Numbers Italian Airport Industry Association - ATI SHORT PROFILES OF AIR TECH ITALY COMPANIES Welcome to the Italian Airport Industry Association Air Tech Italy (ATI) is the leading Trade Association representing Italian companies specialized in supplying products, technologies and services for airports and air-traffic control. We are the first hub for international clients looking for top-quality Italian companies. We have divided the companies into six main segments AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION & SERVICES ENGINEERING & CONSULTANCY IT TERMINAL Main Segment: IT Numbers 17+ 14 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE PRODUCT PORTFOLIO 46 8 AIRPORTS SERVED SALES AND TECHNICAL WORLDWIDE SUPPORT CENTRES Products & Services Top Airports served • A-DCS Departure control system • Milan Malpensa MXP • A-WBS Weight and balance system • Milan Linate LIN • A-CUBE Multi CUTE Client • Gaborone GBE • A-MDS Message Distribution System • Teheran IKA • A-ODB Airport Operational Database • Istanbul IST • A-SCHED Flight Schedule • Verona Catullo VRN IT Solutions Provider for Airports, Airlines and Ground • A-FIDS Flight information display system • Rome Fiumicino FCO Handlers A-ICE provides value-added IT solutions and • A-MIS Multimedia information system • Tel Aviv TLV integrated applications to Airport, Airlines and Ground • A-SCP Security check point • A-HDB Handling database • Bangkok BKK Handlers, with specific experience in the implementa- • A-CAB Contract and billing • Bari BRI tion and support of mission critical systems. • BRS Baggage Reconciliation System A-ICE relies on its strong relationship with the Air • A-VMS Vehicles Maintenance System Transport community, addressing and anticipating the • CLOS Cooperative Logistics Optimization System needs as they evolve. Company associated with Via dei Castelli Romani, 59, 00071 – Pomezia (RM) ITALY Tel.
    [Show full text]
  • Milan Linate Airport Closure from 27 July to 27 October 2019: Alitalia Will
    MEDIA RELEASE Milan Linate airport closure from 27 July to 27 October 2019: Alitalia will transfer its flights to Milan Malpensa airport Italian airline will also start additional Bergamo-Rome services Rome, 10 October 2018 – Due to the closure of Milan Linate airport, which will stop operations for works on runway from 27 July to 27 October 2019, Alitalia has arranged a plan to minimise customer inconvenience. During the three months when the Milan city airport will be closed, the Italian airline will transfer to Milan Malpensa airport its flights to all national and international destinations served by Linate. This means, on average, about 200 flights per day that normally operate to and from Milan Linate airport. Customers of the Milan Linate-Rome Fiumicino route can opt for travelling to and from Milan Malpensa airport, where Alitalia will offer 9 daily services with Rome Fiumicino, or to and from Bergamo Orio al Serio airport where the Italian airline will start 4 additional daily services with Rome Fiumicino. Travelers already holding tickets for flights to and from Milan Linate airport between 27 July and 27 October will have the opportunity to choose whether to be rebooked on the flights to and from Milan Malpensa without penalty, or asking for ticket refund. For further information and assistance, passengers can contact Alitalia at the toll-free number 800.65.00.55 (within Italy), at +39 06.65649 (from overseas), or the travel agency where the ticket was bought. For media information: Alitalia Media Relations T. +39.06-65638950 Email. [email protected] About Alitalia Alitalia - Società Aerea Italiana (alitalia.com) is the Italian largest airline.
    [Show full text]
  • Airline Alliances
    AIRLINE ALLIANCES by Paul Stephen Dempsey Director, Institute of Air & Space Law McGill University Copyright © 2011 by Paul Stephen Dempsey Open Skies • 1992 - the United States concluded the first second generation “open skies” agreement with the Netherlands. It allowed KLM and any other Dutch carrier to fly to any point in the United States, and allowed U.S. carriers to fly to any point in the Netherlands, a country about the size of West Virginia. The U.S. was ideologically wedded to open markets, so the imbalance in traffic rights was of no concern. Moreover, opening up the Netherlands would allow KLM to drain traffic from surrounding airline networks, which would eventually encourage the surrounding airlines to ask their governments to sign “open skies” bilateral with the United States. • 1993 - the U.S. conferred antitrust immunity on the Wings Alliance between Northwest Airlines and KLM. The encirclement policy began to corrode resistance to liberalization as the sixth freedom traffic drain began to grow; soon Lufthansa, then Air France, were asking their governments to sign liberal bilaterals. • 1996 - Germany fell, followed by the Czech Republic, Italy, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Malta, Poland. • 2001- the United States had concluded bilateral open skies agreements with 52 nations and concluded its first multilateral open skies agreement with Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore. • 2002 – France fell. • 2007 - The U.S. and E.U. concluded a multilateral “open skies” traffic agreement that liberalized everything but foreign ownership and cabotage. • 2011 – cumulatively, the U.S. had signed “open skies” bilaterals with more than100 States. Multilateral and Bilateral Air Transport Agreements • Section 5 of the Transit Agreement, and Section 6 of the Transport Agreement, provide: “Each contracting State reserves the right to withhold or revoke a certificate or permit to an air transport enterprise of another State in any case where it is not satisfied that substantial ownership and effective control are vested in nationals of a contracting State .
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Level Co-Ordination in the Development of Milan-Malpensa Airport
    Multi-level co-ordination in the development of Milan-Malpensa Airport Country case: Multi-level co-ordination in the development of Milan-Malpensa Airport Description Public Procurement Malpensa, the main airport of Milan and the second largest Italian Principle: Efficiency, airport, was between 1998 and 2007 the main hub of Alitalia. It is Integration located approximately 50 km northwest of Milan, at the western border of a wide and economically active area with 3.9 million Procurement Stage: inhabitants, being inversely cone-shaped between Milan and the All phases Alps. The other airports in the metropolitan area are Linate, 7 kilometres east of Milan’s centre, and Bergamo Orio al Serio, about Audience: Policy Maker, 50 km east of Milan. Procuring Entity The airport was included in the 1983 regional transport planning (Regione Lombardia, 1983), although with a limited geographical role. In 1985, the airport franchisee, SEA, produced a new Master Plan for its development, based on traffic forecasts of 12 million passengers. On the basis of this, two national laws allocated resources for construction. In 1986 the General Transport Plan of Italy included the development of Malpensa to make it a ‘‘large airport for Northern Italy’’. The Malpensa 2000 project was approved by Lombardy Regional Council and later in 1987 by the Italian Ministry of Transport. The success of Malpensa airport has been at least partially dependent on better surface access, in which sub-national governments had a significant contribution. From the beginning surface access was seen as a potential weakness and cause of constraint for the project development.
    [Show full text]
  • Consolidation in Turbulent Times
    Consolidation in turbulent times Lufthansa carried a total of 70.5 million passengers last year and was ranked number one by IATA (International Air Transport Association) for having carried the most number of passengers on international scheduled routes, leaving number two Air France lagging some 20 per cent behind. The airline also made headlines when it made a the team’s achievement ‘on the playing field' and I’m number of strategic moves last year, such as confident they will rise to the challenge when the establishing Lufthansa Italia, a market-specific chips are down. network in Italy; buying a stake in American carrier JetBlue Airways; and exercising an option on bmi, In addition to our people are our robust financial giving it the second most number of slots after base and our expertise and experience in dealing British Airways at London Heathrow, Europe’s with difficult situations. busiest airport. A major contribution to the stabilisation of the It also took a leading role in consolidating in Europe group’s profitability as a whole in this environment by taking over Swiss International Air Lines and is made by our portfolio of business segments. Austrian Airlines (subject to regulatory approval by Thanks to the different cycles in the individual the European Commission), and acquiring a 45 per segments, they decisively support the sustainable cent stake in Brussels Airlines with an option to development of the group. Equally decisive, acquire the remaining 55 per cent of the company in however, is the fact that all business segments in 2011 (again, subject to regulatory approval by the themselves have a significantly lower volatility European Commission).
    [Show full text]
  • How Amsterdam Airport Schiphol Transformed the Region
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Air, Money and Space: How Amsterdam Airport Schiphol Transformed the Region El Makhloufi, Abdel and Davids, Karel VU University Amsterdam November 2013 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/74595/ MPRA Paper No. 74595, posted 18 Oct 2016 11:36 UTC Air, Money and Space: How Amsterdam Airport Schiphol Transformed the Region1 Abdel El Makhloufi* and Karel Davids** *. **. VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Arts Dept. Social & Economic History De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam The Netherlands Abstract This paper explores and analyses the change in collective arrangements, such as the changing organizational structure and form of the airport, and its effects and consequences on the spatial and economic development of the airport itself and its surrounding areas at the metropolitan level. We use Schiphol airport as case study, and focus our analysis on three main analytical levels: air (development in the aviation sector), money (economic performance), and space (airport spatial expansion and urban planning). The paper show that new collective arrangements may lead to a radical shift in the position and the power of local actors and hence on the decision making concerning the spatial and economic development of localities (in this case the Schiphol and Schiphol region) and the metropolitan regions. JEL Code: R10, R11, R38, R40, R58, N94, O21 Keywords: urban nebula, airport development, collective arrangements, spatial and economic transformation. 1 This paper is published in the co-edited book titeld: Megastructure Schiphol; design in spectacular simplicity. NAi Publishers, 2013. ISBN. 978-90-5662-852-9. 1 A New Form of Management The year 1957 was a decisive moment in the history of Schiphol.
    [Show full text]
  • Solutions for Airports
    Solutions for Airports Cleared for take off. Siemens Airports Flight security – currently the topic on everyone’s lips and a highly controversial one at that. Safety on the ground and in the air is top of every list of priorities. And a lot of hard work is going on behind the scenes to guarantee it. All over the world, airport security regulations are stricter than ever before. Complying with them demands a partner who is thoroughly familiar with all the ins and outs of air traffic. A partner with the expertise to integrate all essential activities in a powerful network. Proof that safety and cost-effectiveness in the aviation industry are not mutually exclusive. Siemens Airports – your partner for airport solutions A task that we are glad to shoulder at Siemens Airports. Firmly embedded in Siemens, we can provide you with all the benefits of one of the world’s leading suppliers of electrical engineering and electronics technology while being able to tap into the huge potential that a global organization has to offer. This potential as well as the innovativity and the extensive know-how of Siemens Airports benefits all aspects of airport ground traffic. As an experienced and capable partner, we know all the technical and logistical aspects of airport solutions and have been equipping airlines, airports, and flight safety authorities for decades. For projects large or small, we can assume turnkey responsibility for the construction of a complete airport or supply just the runway lighting system. Or the flight safety technology. Or the information technology. Or the communications technology.
    [Show full text]
  • 1St Interim Report January – March 2009 ­­­Lufthansa ­­­Group Overview
    1st Interim Report January – March 2009 ­­­Lufthansa­­­ Group overview Key figures Jan. – March Jan. – March Change 2009 2008 3) in % Revenue and result Revenue €m 5,015 5,588 – 10.3 - of which traffic revenue €m 3,813 4,467 – 14.6 Operating result €m – 44 172 EBIT €m – 205 94 EBITDA €m 255 452 – 43.6 Net profit/loss for the period €m – 256 44 Key balance sheet and cash flow statement figures Total assets €m 24,468 22,790 7.4 Equity ratio % 26.1 28.7 – 2.6 pts Net liquidity 1) €m 46 888 – 94.8 Cash flow from operating activities €m 708 741 – 4.5 Capital expenditure €m 664 808 – 17.8 Key profitability and value creation figures Adjusted operating margin 2) % – 0.6 3.2 – 3.8 pts EBITDA margin % 5.1 8.1 – 3.0 pts The Lufthansa share Share price at the balance sheet day € 8.17 17.13 – 52.3 Earnings per share € – 0.56 0.10 Traffic figures Passengers thousands 15,033 15,994 – 6.0 thousand Freight/mail tonnes 375 485 – 22.7 Passenger load factor % 74.0 77.2 – 3.2 pts Cargo load factor % 54.9 66.5 – 11.5 pts Available tonne-kilometres millions 7,887 8,155 – 3.3 Revenue tonne-kilometres millions 5,155 5,872 – 12.2 Overall load factor % 65.4 72.0 – 6.6 pts Number of flights 187,738 195,677 – 4.1 Employees Employees as of 31.3. number 106,840 106,307 0.5 1) Long-term securities serving as liquidity reserves and cashable at short notice have been included in the calculation of net liquidity.
    [Show full text]