Key challenges for MXP Development Francesco Raschi Head of Real Estate Department 9th NETLIPSE Network Meeting: Vienna, 26 ° - 28 ° September '10'10 Summary 1. Company overview 2. The development plan 3. The “challenges” 2 1. Company overview SEA shareholders and activities Municipality Province Other minor of Milan of Milan shareholders 14,56% 84,56% 0,88% SEA SpA Design, construction, maintenance and development of the airport infrastructures: passenger and cargo terminals, runways, aprons and taxiways (State/SEA agreement up to 2041) Management of the centralized airport services: airport operations, baggage sorting, information system and information to the passengers, safety and security Supply of commercial services in the airports through concession agreements with third parties Study and realization of infrastructural plans for other airports in Italy and all over the world 4 SEA subsidiaries and affiliated companies SEA Group Airport operators Retail Handling Utilities Other activities Cosorzio SACBO SEA Malpensa Malpensa Bergamo 31,0% Dufrital SpA 40,0% Handling 100% Energia 100% 51,0% Constructio SpA SpA SpA n Aeropuertos Consorzio CID Italia Argentina 10,0% 40,0% MLE SpA 25,0% Disma SpA 18,8% Milano 10,0% SpA 2000 SA Sistema 1) GESAC SEA Romairport 5,0% 30,0% 0,2% Napoli SpA Services Srl Srl SITA Soc. Cooperativa 1 quota arl 1) Dismission process in progress Source: SEA Group Balace sheet , 2009 5 Malpensa is located Lombardy, the richest Italian region in the heart of Europe Switzerland (Canton Ticino) Current %on Italy Main indicators catchment total Area (km 2) 52.128 17,3 Population 14.075.036 23,4 VERONA N. of companies 1.103.781 20,8 MILANO VENEZIA TORINO GDP (EUR Mio) 411.771 26,4 Iceland Employees 5.258.363 22,5 GENOVA Finland BOLOGNA Exports (EUR Mio) 110.366.636 30,7 Sweden to Russia Norway Imports (EUR Mio) 130.667.579 37.3 Estonia Latvia Denmark Lithuania Belarus Ireland United Kingdom Netherlands Poland Belgium Germany Czech Ukraine Republic Luxembourg Slovakia Moldova Austria Switzerland Hungary France Slovenia Romania Croatia MXP Jugoslavia Bosnia and Herzegovina Italy Bulgaria Macedonia Turkey Portugal Spain Albania Greece Current Malpensa catchment area 6 Lombardy is at the crossroad of main primary European “corridors” “Blue banana” area and Trans European Network links "Two seas" Corridor I London corridor area Baden- Ile de Wurtemberg Lisbon – Kiev (Corridor V) France Lombardy Rhone Alpes Corridor VIII Bari – Varna (Corridor VIII) Catalunia Rotterdam – Genova ("Two seas" corridor) Corridor V Berlin – Palermo (Corridor I) South Europe sea "highways" Key facts concerning Lombardia: • Third EU27 region in terms of GDP and of per capita GDP, after London and Paris • One of the areas of the “Blue Banana 1) ” (with London, Ile de France, Baden Wurtenberg, Rhone Alpes and Catalunia) which will boost economic growth in Europe in the next future • One of the main logistics platform in Europe • Strongly involved by the development of TEN ( Trans European Network ) multimode links • Generates, with Northern Italy, the 5.2% of EU GDP 1) Blue Banana is the area where European production and consumption are mostly concentrated 7 Malpensa and Linate handle 20% of Italian passenger traffic and 50% of Italian air cargo PASSENGERS % ON TOTAL CARGO (tons) % ON TOTAL 2009 ITALY 2009 ITALY Northern Italy 55,540,317 43 579,583 75 Milan 1) 25,643,441 20 361,074 47 Lombardy 32,987,053 26 497,498 64 Central Italy 44,383,644 34 168,529 22 Southern Italy 29,114,632 23 27,928 3 TOTAL ITALY 129,038,593 100 776,040 100 1) MXP + LIN Source: Assaeroporti 8 Malpensa airport: existing facilities T1 T2 Tot. Cap. Aircraft apron (sqm) 912,000 306,000 1,218,000 Terminal area (sqm) 250,000 79,000 329,000 Check-in counters 200 58 258 Boarding gates 60 23 83 Aircraft stands 90 32 122 Loading bridges 26 5 31 Cargo (sqm) 44,000 15,000 59,000 9 A strong traffic recovery after MXP dehubbing is already in place – high growth expected for next years • Traffic growth from 2009 levels will be Mio. pax Expo 2015 constant, although SEA will need at 45 in Milan least four to five years to get back to pre-dehubbing traffic levels 40 50 Mio. Dehubbing in 2022 • The recovery of transfer traffic lost 35 AZ after Alitalia dehubbing in 2008 2007 traffic requires the startup of operations by a 30 (pre-dehubbing) new Hub Carrier and therefore takes time before full effects become visible 25 Economic crisis • The Expo 2015 in Milan will generate 20 two to three Mio. additional pax for the SEA system 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 10 Traffic recovery and future growth will be driven by new business model across the three SEA terminals SEA defined a balanced business model across the three terminals managed (Linate, Malpensa T1, Malpensa T2), based on: – a clear path to bring Malpensa T1 back to its role of intercontinental airport with the role of Multi-Carrier Hub , also through a possible innovative model that could see the integration of feeding Low Cost Carriers and network carriers on long-haul – the consolidation of Malpensa T2 as “Low Cost airport”, with a dedicated commercial offer – the development of Linate as City Airport for the Milan business community, based on the current access regulation for which no revision is expected 11 SEA video-presentation SEA Milan Airports.lnk 12 2. The development plan Malpensa development plan foresees a relevant capacity increase both in pax and cargo facilities Cargo capacity : + 150% 1.500,000 tons (current ~550,000) Pax capacity : +60% (future > 50 Mio, actual ~30 Airport site: + 35% 1.657 ha ( current 1.224) Annual Movements Capacity : +33% Terminal area: + 70% (future > 400,000 vs current ~300.000) (future 569.000 sqm vs current 329.000) 14 SEA plans a 1,4 EUR Bn investments in the mid term Investment plan – Main elements [EUR Mio.] 473 1.370 Up to 2016 SEA will 382 invest an average of 3,4 EUR/pax: in terms 378 of investments per 137 pax, it is a value in line with the major 2008-2009 CAA Contract 2014-2016 After 2016 Total Program competitors (eg. 2010-2013 Munich 3,7 EUR/pax ) Main Third Third third Completion First part realizations third and startup third RWY new terminal, third RWY BHS Tx Third third 15 3. The “challenges” The approval procedure of the Master Plan is a complex process that involves a plurality of bodies Master plan approval procedure – Macro-process simplified diagram 6 months Involvement of territorial • Preparation of the bodies (Region, Master Plan Project Province, Parco del SEA and the EIS • Decision Ticino, Municipalities,…) (Environmental meeting (of all Impact Study) involved administrations) • Technical Civil Aviation for town planning testing and compatibility Authority issue of its (CAA) advice • Carrying out of EIA Ministry of (Environmental Impact Environment Assessment) and issue of Decree 12 months • Acknowledgement of EIA Ministry of Decree • Issue of “Development consent” Transports for the approval of the New Master Plan 17 The approval procedure of the master plan is a complex process that involves a plurality of Bodies (II) Environmental Impact Assessment Bodies to be involved as by Law Decree n. 4/08: •Ministry of Environment ( Competent Ministry ) •Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and competent superintendent authorities •Region: Lombardy and Piedmont •Province: Varese, Milano, Novara •Lombardy Ticino Park, Piedmont Ticino Park •Municipalities (Arsago Seprio, Besnate, Cardano al Campo, Casorate Sempione, Castano Primo, Ferno, Gallarate, Golasecca, Lonate Pozzolo, Nosate, Robecchetto con Induno, Samarate, Somma Lombardo, Turbigo, Vanzaghello, Vergiate, Vizzola Ticino, Marano Ticino, Oleggio, Pombia, Varallo Pombia) •… Decision Meeting Bodies must be activated as by Law. 340/00: •Ministry of Transport ( Competent Ministry ) •Lombardy Region •Province of Varese •Ticino Lombardy Park •Local Municipalities ( Somma L., Vizzola T., Ferno, Lonate P., Cardano, Samarate, Casorate S.) •Other Bodies ( ENAV, ANAS, A.M., FNM, ENEL, …..) •Prior to the issue of “Development consent”, the EIA Decree must be obtained 18 Why it’s a “challenge”? In Italy experience shows that for LIPs there are relevant extra cost High-speed cost implementation - Comparison (2007 EUR Mio per KM) 12 32 Extra costs: A. “Objective reasons ”: - orography characteristics 10 - anthropization rates - technological choices (ERMTS) 10 B. “Political reasons ”: - tender procedures - High speed/High capacity - line site (parallel Highway France/ A B Italy system) Spain Source: Press January 2010 19 Why it’s a “challenge”? For LIPs timing is a critical factor: more than 10 years on average! Italian infrastructures: implementation time for order of economic amount and procedural phase Design Tender Works >100 4,4 0,9 5,1 10,4 50-100 4,4 0,9 3,9 9,2 20-50 4 0,8 3,4 8,2 10-20 3,5 0,8 3 7,3 Millions 5-10 3,1 0,6 2,7 6,4 1-5 2,5 0,8 2,1 5,4 <1 2 0,4 1,2 3,6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Years Source: Ministry of Economic Development 20 “War” has already started! 21 What we offer “in exchange”? “Transport interchange point” Surface connectivity” for the airport neighbour area (Highspeed train to/from MXP, new roads, …….) Economical development - traffic (people/freight) as driver of local development : – Shopping centres/commercial services – Jobs direct, indirect and induced – Local “Taxes” + utilities, …………. – Airport-centered urban development: (Airport city, Airport corridor, Aerotropolis) clustering of economic functions at and around the airport IsIs itit enoughenough ?? ThisThis isis thethe challengechallenge 22 Thank you for your kind attention! 23.