Land Development Surrounding Christchurch Airport and Competitiveness
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Confidential
Land Development Surrounding
Christchurch Airport and Competitiveness
Briefing Paper for
Christchurch International Airport
31 July 2013
Copyright Castalia Limited. All rights reserved. Castalia is not liable for any loss caused by reliance on this
document. Castalia is a part of the worldwide Castalia Advisory Group.
Confidential
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Competitive environment for airports 2
3 How do airports compete 6
4 How can an airport improve its competitiveness 7
5 Why development that assists airport competitiveness also
benefits the city 17
6 Conclusions 20
Tables
Table 4.1: Comparison of New Zealand and Australian Airports
and their Development Plans 13
Table 4.2: Conditions relevant to choosing airport model for
development 15
Figures
Figure 4.1: Examples of Relevant Literature 7
Figure 4.2: Determinants of Airport Competitiveness 8
Figure 4.3: Models of airport development 10
Figure 4.4: CIA location in the wider context of Christchurch City 15
Figure 4.5: Industrial employment and land uptake distribution in
Christchurch 16
Figure 5.1: Relationship between the Airport and Its Surrounding
Area 18
Boxes
Box 4.1: Examples of adopting a mixed airport model 11
2Confidential
1 Introduction
This Briefing Paper considers the role of industrial and commercial development at
Christchurch International Airport Ltd (CIAL) and associated land holdings in terms of
underpinning the competitive position of the aeronautical services at the Christchurch
International Airport (CIA). CIAL wishes to understand whether a strategy to improve
its competitiveness through land development is consistent with international experience
and compatible with the Christchurch City Council’s (CCC) City Recovery and the City
Plan.
CIA’s aim, like all international and domestic airports in New Zealand, is to recover the
costs of aeronautical services through charges to airport users. Revenue from commercial
development does not contribute to the costs of the core aeronautical services.
However, whilst commercial and industrial development of the surrounding areas of CIA
is not intended to cross-subsidise the provision of core aeronautical services, it is
nevertheless crucial to CIA’s competitiveness: that is, its ability to grow volumes and
recover aeronautical costs at reasonable charges.
Our key insight—both from our experience advising other airports and from the relevant
literature—is that CIA is not a passive recipient of origin-and-destination travel to the
Canterbury region. CIA competes in its own right, and has the ability to promote its
aeronautical services through developing an increasingly sophisticated commercial and
infrastructure offering in response to similar developments by its competitors.
In the rest of this paper we:
Establish, in Section 2, the analytical framework for considering the
competitive threats and opportunities facing an airport and apply this to CIA.
We show that CIA has to respond to competition from other airports such as
Auckland and the airports on the eastern seaboard of Australia
Explain, in Section 3, how airports compete with each other. We set out the
broad distinction between price and quality competition
Examine, in Section 4, how an airport can improve its competitiveness for a
given level of airport charges. We show the significance of spatial factors—
such as the commercial development around the airport—on competitive
positioning. We also consider the experience of major international airports
and the implications of that experience for commercial development around
CIA, including consistency with the City Recovery and the City Plan
Discuss, in Section 5, why development that assists airport competitiveness
also benefits the city. We make a distinction between the realisation of
agglomeration effects and optimisation of transport infrastructure
Present our conclusions in Section 6.
1Confidential
2 Competitive environment for airports
Airports have evolved over the last 20 years
The traditional view of airports as monopoly infrastructure passively serving origin-
destination demand generated by factors outside the airport’s control is no longer valid as
a general proposition, although it may still apply to some minor airports. Over the last
twenty years, there has been tremendous change in the aviation sector. Wide ranging
changes encompass deregulation of airline markets, more cost focussed airline business
models, and technological developments which have increased the operational
flexibilities of airlines as well as the information and choice available to passengers. These
changes, in turn, produced more commercially focussed airports, seeking to respond to
the challenges posed by the new competitive environment.
The development of low cost, point-to-point airline models has dramatically reduced the
“stickiness” between airlines and airports. In combination with aircraft technological
developments which have increased the flying options available to airlines (such as
reduced dependence on local weather through ground-based guidance), this has led to a
greater willingness by airlines to change their route structure in quick response to
economic incentives.
Growing incomes and lower airfares have also led to a fundamental change in how
people make their discretionary journeys: airline and airport services drive demand as
much as they respond to it. Many travellers make a two-step choice: the first decision is
to undertake a journey. The second choice—where they will go and how they will get
there—will often depend on airline prices and schedules. This has led to a fierce airline
competition for passengers, which has implications for airports too. Airports must now
compete with each other for both passengers and airlines which have significantly more
choice than in the past. The result is a more competitive and dynamic airport market.
This resulting competitive pressure on airports has to be seen in the context of the
economic nature of those businesses. Airport costs are largely fixed, partly as a result of
investment in infrastructure but also because of associated operating costs, including
those on safety and security, which vary little with scale of traffic. This gives airports a
natural incentive to attract traffic to defray those costs. To put it simply, airports are a
volume game: airports with small traffic volumes have costs that are only marginally
lower than airports with much larger volumes. Airports that seek to recover their costs
from small volumes end up with unsustainably high unit charges. In fact, few small
volume airports are financially viable.
Overall, airports are two-sided businesses, engaging in a commercial relationship with
both airlines and passengers. Airports, therefore, have to respond to increased passenger
and airline choice by competing to both retain and attract traffic.
The key question is what it is that airports can do to respond to more footloose airlines that
are willing and able to take their business elsewhere if service, price and market
conditions are more favourable and more footloose passengers making informed decisions
about their journeys.
The main response has been for airports to become more pro-active, offering a greater range of
commercial services. Every traveller is aware of the increased commercial services being
offered within terminals, and the importance of such services for the attractiveness of an
airport. However, the “arms race” between airports has spread well beyond the terminal.
Airports have become more than a terminal for air transport.
2Confidential
The success of an airport—and its ability to serve as a strategic asset for a region—has
increasingly become dependent on the ability of an airport to position itself as a hub in
the broadest sense: a hub for transport, commerce and industry.
Overall, there is an important inter-relationship between the attractiveness of a region
and the competitive positioning of an airport. Of course, the intrinsic attractions and the
population base of a region will create its own base-line of origin-destination travellers.
However, a competitive hub will generate additional traffic, which in turn, will lead to
greater frequencies and more competitive pricing by airlines. Such increased
connectedness will then make the region more attractive to travellers, creating a virtuous
cycle.
Competitive rivalry with other airports is a key challenge for CIA
CIA is not primarily an origin-destination airport for Christchurch and the Canterbury
region. The South Island visitor economy and production industry depends on CIA to
connect with international markets. In 2012-13, the airport was used by over 5.5 million
passengers and approximately 30,000 tonnes of goods were imported and exported.
Nearly 60 per cent of international visitors who arrived at CIA came for a holiday.1 CIA
is used by over 85 per cent of international visitors to the South Island.2
However, while CIA is the only commercial airfield in the South Island able to take long-
haul flights, it has no physical monopoly on the hub role:
Long-haul travellers are able to reach various points in the South Island by
connecting via Auckland, Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne
Travellers from Auckland have a variety of travel options for various South
Island destinations
Trans-Tasman travellers are able to choose direct flights to Queenstown.
To put these choices into context, we can look at competition faced by Christchurch to
act as a hub for traffic to Queenstown. Passengers destined to Queenstown can instead
fly directly from other competing airports:
7 daily flights from Auckland
3 daily flights from Sydney
2 daily flights from Melbourne
2 daily flights from Brisbane.3
In contrast, there are five (5) daily flights from Christchurch to Queenstown.
To provide a more systematic analysis of competitive pressures, we apply M.E. Porter’s
(1979) five forces framework of competitive analysis (see Figure 2.1).
1 International visitor Survey (IVS) of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).
2 www.nzairports.co.nz
3 Information sourced from various airport websites and search engines. The number of flights to Queenstown is
based on a one week sample for July 2013.
3Confidential
Figure 2.1: Porters Five Forces Framework
The framework draws upon industrial economics to derive five forces that shape
competition in an industry. Below we consider these forces for CIA (where relevant):
Threat of new entrants—Threat of new competing airports is generally low
because of the large investment which is needed for new infrastructure and
because of the stringent planning and regulatory processes which have to be
followed before approval of any new development is given. While completely
new airports are unlikely, significant investment in an existing airport can be
thought of as new entry. For example, the upgrade of the Queenstown
Airport effectively created a new entrant in the South Island market. If
Wellington Airport proceeds with investment to enable long-haul flights, it
would also become a competitor
Threat of substitutes—Other transport modes represent substitution
threats. With respect to leisure passenger traffic, CIA both compliments and
competes with land transport. Travellers who wish to explore the South Island
by car have the option of commencing and terminating their journey at a
number of South Island airports, as well as the ferry terminal in Picton. Sea
and road transport may be substitutes for air freight
Power of buyers—The relative strength of airlines can vary significantly. This
power may influence the charging practices of the airport. Airlines do not only
open and close individual routes. They also open and close bases – or vary
their size – at individual airports. An airport can strengthen its commercial
position with respect to airlines by deepening commercial links with the
region, and enabling the airlines to benefit from such links
Rivalry amongst existing airports—The amount of rivalry varies
considerably. If the airport is focused on point to point traffic, such rivalry
may be limited. However, if the airport is also competing for hub or transit
traffic, the degree of rivalry will be intense. CIA falls into the latter category.
In its role as the Gateway to the South Island, Christchurch competes with
Auckland, Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney. As the gateway to the South
Island, it effectively competes with Queenstown, Dunedin (which is seeking to
4Confidential
expand its trans-Tasman connectivity) and Nelson (which is well linked to the
North Island and provides an attractive entry/exit point on a land journey
encompassing the West Coast and Queenstown).
On Porter’s five forces framework, CIA comes out as being tightly constrained by
competition. This has significant implications for CIAL’s commercial strategy, and in
turn, for deciding what investments CIAL should be allowed to make.
5Confidential
3 How do airports compete
Airports compete on price and service. Service can cover elements such as the location,
accessibility, quality and size of the aeronautical, as well as the surrounding commercial
or industrial facilities.
Airports set aeronautical charges to recover efficiently incurred costs and earn a
reasonable return on investment. However, pricing by an airport is also constrained by
competitors—an airport that does not offer a competitive product, or is not able to
attract sufficient volume of traffic to utilise its facility, may need to charge below full cost
recovery charges to stay competitive. This competitive tension is particularly relevant
when one airport competes with another rather than subsidise prices, such as Dubai, or
Malaysia Airports that have held landing and parking charges constant for the last 19
years.4
The level of airport charges depends on the scale of the airport. If quantities can be
increased, price can be maintained or made more competitive. Therefore, CIAL needs to
create an environment for increasing traffic volumes.
One way to do this is to improve the service quality. In section 2 we described how
airlines have a choice of airports and routes they can service and this is no different at
CIA which is competing against Auckland and Australian airports. For a given level of
aeronautical charges, other factors, such as the quality of the overall airport service
including development of areas around the airport, affect the attractiveness and
competitiveness of the airport in terms of attracting airlines, and accordingly passengers
and freight.
In other words, improvement in the overall airport product—that is price and quality of
services—leads to a virtuous cycle: increase in traffic allows airport charges to be lowered
(or to be kept from rising) as costs are spread over higher traffic or passenger volumes.
This, in turn, contributes to airport competitiveness, and hence leads to further growth in
volume.
This means that retaining existing—and attracting new—traffic is not the passive
outcome of an airport just being there, but rather is an outcome of competitive strategy
that includes actions to improve the price and the quality of the product.
Such a strategy may result in an increase in non-aeronautical revenues. Aeronautical
services are not isolated from non-aeronautical revenues—airport experience (such as
leisure or retail) is essential to the quality of an airport.
4 Amadeus, “Reinventing the Airport Ecosystem”, May 2012
6Confidential
4 How can an airport improve its competitiveness
What makes an airport more or less competitive?
Various studies around the world have shown that there is no one single determinant of
this. There is an existing body of research and analysis regarding what determines the
connectivity and competitiveness of airports—Figure 4.1 provides a few examples. The
key point is that the studies in the literature can be divided into spatial and temporal as
well as into local hub and global network analyses. The spatial approaches consider only
whether connections exist and not when it is offered. Temporal examinations take into
when connections are made. Local hub analyses take the perspective of the analysed
airport with its incoming and outgoing flights. The global network perspective however
takes the whole air traffic network into account.
Figure 4.1: Examples of Relevant Literature
One of the few studies that cover an area beyond a single country is an analysis of the
competitive strengths of eight major international airports in Asia (Park, 2003). This
study used a multi-decision criteria approach for the analysis. Deriving from Porter’s
‘Five Forces’, Park examined five core-factors that determine the competitive advantage
of an airport. Park identified spatial factors, facility factors, demand factors, service
factors and managerial factors5:
Facility factors—The facility at an airport is the most visible attribute of its
competitiveness. Airports are competing to build new facilities and are
investing in strong marketing highlighting their state-of-the-art facilities. There
are two types of infrastructure associated with airports: air-side and ground
infrastructure. Air-side infrastructure includes the facilities which are directly
controlled by the airport such as aircraft parking stands, runways, terminals
and so on. Ground infrastructure consists of the transportation networks
which connect the airport to the metropolitan areas in the region
5 Park, Y. (2003): An analysis of the competitive strength of Asian major airport. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol
9.
7Confidential
Demand factors—The level of origination-destination (O-D) demand and
that of transit and transfer traffic may be influenced by the economy within
which an airport is situated. Relevant factors may be social (such as popularity
of the destination), legal (air transport liberalization), or economic (country
GDP and metropolitan population)
Managerial factors—Economic considerations such as airport costs and
efficiency
Service factors—This covers levels of service to users, types of aircraft
operations, and levels of charges. For passengers, the customer experience at a
hub airport may form part of the decision-making process when selecting a
travel route. Similarly, airlines will consider the hourly capacity and efficiency
of gate departure and taxi departures. Another significant factor when
considering the competitiveness of a hub airport are the various charges
associated with the airport. Charges need to be set at a level which maximises
profit and revenue for the airport but also increase the number of airlines and
passengers which use the airport as a hub
Spatial factors—The level of regional development around the airport, such
as international trade zones, logistics and convention centres, aviation-related
industrial complexes and other facilities.
This is illustrated in Figure 4.2 below.
Figure 4.2: Determinants of Airport Competitiveness
Source: Based on Park (2003)
It can be seen that there is no simple answer to the question of what makes an airport
more or less competitive. Demand for airport services comes from a complex interaction
of origin-destination demand, the quality of the transfer product and the interaction
between the airport and the performance of the key airlines.
8Confidential
Spatial factors have now become critical differentiators
As airport competition intensified over the last 20 years, airports have increasingly
responded by improving their core product—terminal services—to meet expected
standards. The initial wave of airport responses to competition focused on designing
attractive terminals, including the standard duty free shop, and providing a range of car
parking facilities. The second wave added a diverse range of retail shops within the
terminal. This was followed by an expansion of the variety of retail, leisure and
accommodation at, or adjacent to, the terminal.
As most hub airports responded to competitive pressure in a similar way, the core
offering has become increasingly difficult to differentiate. With the opening of the new
terminal, CIA has responded to the need to provide expected core product quality, rather
than succeeding in differentiating itself from its competitors.
Having exhausted the traditional strategies, airports are now using spatial development as
a key competitive differentiator. This is evidenced by a further wave of airport
development. Increasingly, we see the traditional airport infrastructure—terminals and
runways—being surrounded by a range of additional business and retail facilities, such as
business parks, industrial centres, conference facilities, hotels, sporting facilities and the
like.
In this latest wave of competition, airports increasingly find themselves in a race to gain
the first mover advantage and to introduce innovative approaches to these developments.
Major airport hubs, including CIA’s competitors in Australia and New Zealand, are
progressing with their plans to develop land around the airport for industrial and
commercial use.
Spatial factors have influenced two main models of airport development
The focus on the spatial factors has influenced academic thinking about airport business
models. The literature differentiates two archetypal models: Efficient Gateway and
Aerotropolis (or Airport city). The key difference between these two fundamental
conceptions is the degree of reliance on spatial development around the airport. In
reality, no airport follows a pure archetype. However, the two distinct concepts are useful
for understanding the role of commercial and industrial development surrounding the
airport in airport competitiveness.
The Efficient Gateway Model—exemplified by Frankfurt and Zurich—focuses on
designing and managing transport infrastructure so that travellers are drawn to the
attraction of the city or region rather than the airport and its surrounding areas. The
airport is just the gateway to the city. In this model the attractiveness and
competitiveness of an airport relies on the competitiveness of the city or region.
Therefore, policies regarding the development of airports are reliant on the development
strategies of the whole region.
The Aerotropolis concept—(see John Kasarda6)—focuses on airport’s own strategy and
attractiveness, and has been adopted by leading airports in Asia such as the hubs in
Singapore, Hong Kong, Bangkok and Seoul. An Aerotropolis consists of an airport core
which is surrounded by aviation-linked and other businesses, much like a central city core
and its commuter-linked suburbs.
Figure 4.3 shows the distinction between these models. The airport area defines the
boundary of the airport that strictly covers the aeronautical services. A narrow Efficient
6 Centre for Air commerce, Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill.
9Confidential
Gateway Model would result in the focus purely on developing efficient transport links
between the airport and the main city or region. The Aerotropolis focuses on developing
a sub-metropolitan area around the airport to improve both urban and airport
competitiveness.
Figure 4.3: Models of airport development
While Frankfurt and Singapore can be thought of as relatively “pure” representations of
the respective models (see Text Box 4.1), the trend has been towards combining the
elements of both. It is critical to emphasise, however, that the trend has been one way: all
airports have been moving towards adopting commercial and industrial development
strategies.
10Confidential
Box 4.1: Examples of adopting a mixed airport model
Frankfurt Airport—Efficient Gateway adopting aspects of Aerotropolis model
The airport initially applied the Efficient Gateway Model as it was surrounded by forest to
its location in the Frankfurt City Forest. This meant that the area was predominately
dominated by aeronautical activities. Thus a majority of the investment into redevelopment
and expansion by the city of Frankfurt is spent on the city itself, further developing and
maintaining its position as one of the largest financial districts in Europe.
Such infrastructure includes its highly developed train and road systems which allow quick
and easy access to the airport: the high-speed network of German Rail (Deutsche Bahn),
regional and metropolitan train services and Germany's most important motorway
interchange at the intersection of the A3 and A5 superhighways.
However, Frankfurt airport has seen a shift towards the Aerotropolis model with the
development of the Sheraton Hotel & Conference Center, the office and conference
facilities of the Frankfurt Airport Centers, the Airport City Mall and plans for further
commercial development, such as the Gateway Gardens to be completed by the year
2020—this site will host offices, services, hotels, conference, trade show and exhibition
space, recreational facilities, bars and restaurants, and retail outlets.
Further development plans include new logistics and a distribution park for forwarders,
logistics companies and aeronautical-related businesses. Lastly, the expansion of the
CargoCity South over the next few years will allow it to maintain its position as Europe’s
largest cargo hub.
Changi Airport—Aerotropolis adopting aspects of Efficient Gateway model
Changi airport is a major airport hub and the fifteenth busiest airport, in terms of
passengers, in the world as well as the fifth busiest in Asia in 2012. Furthermore, it is the
twelfth busiest cargo hub, handling over 1.8 million tonnes of cargo in 2012.
The airport adopted the Aerotropolis Model to support the government’s focus on
maintaining a good connection between water and air-based transportation along with its
specialisation in business and trade industries. However, as the airport is a significant
contributor to the Singaporean economy and due to the minute size of Singapore, the
entire country has been planned to facilitate the Aerotropolis status.
Nonetheless Singapore’s policy has also focused on efficient ground transport from Changi
Airport to the existing CBD. Several modes of transportation (including public buses and
public trains—MRT) enable travel to the CBD within 30 minutes.
Overall, we believe that the emerging pattern is economic development built around an
axis stretching from a more or less dense cluster of airport-related activities plus
commercial and industrial development around the airport to the core commercial and
industrial areas of the surrounding city.
11Confidential
There is a race to promote development of land around airports
The importance of spatial factors is currently playing out in a kind of arms race as many
airports have either already strengthened their competitive position by promoting
surrounding industrial and commercial developments, or have produced master plans to
do so.
Key hubs in Asia—which set the pattern for other airports—have undertaken major
investments in commercial districts:
The Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) is undergoing significant
developments through the construction of three commercial districts which
are adjacent, or close to, the HKIA’s terminal and runways. The first of these
districts is composed of logistic facilities. Features of this district include some
facilities constructed and operated by an international consortium of Asian
and European Partners, the facilitation of the world’s largest stand-alone air-
cargo and air-express facility and a mixed-use freight-forwarding warehousing
and office complex. The second commercial district is being developed as an
office park, targeting regional and air travel-intensive professionals. The third
and largest district is known as SkyCity. The district intends to be a destination
for working, shopping, entertainment, meetings, and trading
Incheon Airport in South Korea currently hosts several non-aeronautical
businesses within and beyond the airport area. Such businesses include a golf
course, casino, spa, ice skating rink and the Museum of Korean Culture.
However the airport’s operator is further expanding and developing such
infrastructure through the airport’s “Air City.” This feature of the airport
includes several office buildings, logistics and manufacturing zones, shopping
centres, hotels, entertainment and tourist districts, housing and essential
services for airport staff and residents
Kuala Lumpur International Airport has developed, in addition to retail and
office developments, motor sports, an automotive hypermarket and leisure
venues to attract both the locals and tourists, creating a dual based market.
The Beijing Capital International Airport master plan includes non-
aeronautical infrastructure such as shopping and entertainment complexes,
education facilities, sports and leisure facilities, logistic and light
manufacturing zones, finance and trading districts and housing areas.
Table 4.1 looks in more detail at how airports in Australia and New Zealand have
embraced the concept or principle of developing land for commercial and industrial use
around airports.
In particular, Auckland International Airport—the key competitor to CIA within New
Zealand—explicitly sees itself developing into an Aerotropolis through its business
district.
The Auckland Airport Business District is a commercial hub, which is growing rapidly.
The district includes warehouse and logistic facilities, recreation and heritage attractions,
an office complex with hotel accommodation and retailers for passengers and airport
workers, an entertainment, retail and education district and two cargo centres. All of
these facilities are linked to major transportation services. The expansion and
development of this business district is part of a long term Masterplan by the airport,
with the aim of improving its competitiveness and attractiveness.
12Confidential
Table 4.1: Comparison of New Zealand and Australian Airports and their Development Plans
Auckland Brisbane Canberra Perth
Population 1,397,300 2,189,878 367,000 1,897,548
Runways 1 2 2 2
Terminal 3 2 1 3
Airlines 22 26 3 28
Destinations 56 72 7 51
Air movements 165,515 184,288 142,079
Passengers Per Year 14,160,640 21,017,060 3,065,893 12,632,800
Int 7,697,657 4,483,094 0 3,492,160
Dom 6,462,983 16,516,320 3,065,893 9,140,640
Total Land Area (ha) 1,500 2,700 436 2,105
Total land area for 64 Hectares 1,000 Hectares 12 Hectares 997 Hectares
development
Development Zones Passenger: Terminal Precinct Brisbane Domestic: Commercial office, SouthWest Precinct: Airfreight services, Precinct 1 – 196 ha:
including transport, car hotel, retail catering services, maintenance, fuel Commercial, industrial, short
parking, hotels, shopping, Brisbane International: Office, commercial, facilities, retail, office, industry, stay accommodation,
entertainment, office, and hotel, retail, cargo/ freight, warehouse hotel/motel, warehouse warehouse/showroom,
short stay accommodation Banksia Place: Freight, aviation, food North-West Precinct: Transport, recreational
Central: Serviced land bound processing, business, commercial, hotel. freight, industry, retail support, office Precinct 2 – 238 ha:
by major arterial roads and Number 1 Airport Drive: Retail, office, golf support Commercial, industrial, short
serviced by the northern course, visitor centre, hotel, business, DFO, North-East Precinct: Transport, freight, stay accommodation,
expressway homemaker centre, tourism, health centre, industry, community facilities, support recreational, warehouse, aviation
Northern: freight and dining facilities facilities to public/tenants/staff, commercial
logistics. Export Park: Freight, education facilities, commercial accommodation, Precinct 3 - 141 ha: Industrial,
workshops, conference facilities, function single/multi-unit dwellings. warehouse, showroom
rooms Precinct 4 - 42 ha: General
Airport Industrial Park: Light and General commercial, industrial
Industry. Precinct 5 - 76 ha: Natural
environment conservation
13Confidential
Auckland Brisbane Canberra Perth
Aerotech Park: Aviation based maintenance Precinct 6 - 73 ha: General
facility. commercial,
warehouse/showroom,
industrial, short stay
accommodation
Precinct 7 - 233 ha: Recreational,
conservation.
Further Development The rapidly growing Auckland Plans to significantly improve its airport area Majura Park will be the only Airport
Information Airport Business District such as the expansion of its domestic airport precinct, external to the passenger
includes warehouse and and a new parallel runway terminal retail area, with a shopping
logistic facilities, recreation Plans to create a commercial hub from centre. This precinct will form a
and heritage attractions, an Airport Village to the Domestic Terminal commercial hub for Canberra Airport.
office complex with hotel and beyond over the next decade The vision for this precinct is for a
accommodation and retailers The new Property Development Master mixed use area, capitalising on the retail
for passengers and airport Plan foresees the construction of 25 new and office opportunities that exist for
workers, an entertainment, buildings in the next 5 years which includes the precinct.
retail and education district the construction of hotels, commercial and The Fairbairn precinct: Will be
and two cargo centres some retail space, as well as sites for developed as a diverse mixed-use zone
All of these facilities are industrial and mixed industry and business with a large variety of different uses.
located near major use. Part of the vision for Fairbairn is to
transportation services. The attract major security, Defence, public
expansion and development and private sector and other tenants
of this business district is part requiring such infrastructure, along with
of a long term Masterplan by other office tenants who may be
the airport and will improve attracted to the precinct. An office and
its competitiveness and mixed use zone will be developed.
attractiveness. Glenora precinct: This essentially
undeveloped area adjoins the access
road to Fairbairn precinct. It plays an
important role in terms of air navigation
facilities and the fire station. There is
significant opportunity to develop a
mixed use zone, which will incorporate
a wide range of uses including a general
aviation area, along with small scale
retail and office uses.
14Confidential
CIA must respond to retain its competitiveness
CIAL is well positioned to respond to the emerging competitive threats through
industrial and commercial development that enhances CIA’s competitiveness while
contributing to City Recovery.
In Table 4.2 we consider conditions which the literature indicates may drive the choice of
the archetypical airport business model:
distance from the CBD
land use restrictions (or availability)
quality of the road transport between the CBD and the Airport
availability of high quality public transport between the CBD and the Airport.
It is clear that CIA is well-suited to a mix of the two models: development of both a
commercial and industrial hub to complement connectivity to the thriving CBD.
Table 4.2: Conditions relevant to choosing airport model for development
Conditions Efficient Gateway Aerotropolis
Distance from CBD Near (10-20km) Far (>20km)
Land use Possibly restricted due to Land available for industrial
environmental considerations and commercial development
(green belt or forest) or proximity
to population centre
Road highway Excellent Good
Public Rail/Underground Critical Not required
connecting CBD to airport
While there is no doubt that CIA must continue to serve as an efficient gateway, it can
strengthen its position as a hub by anchoring air links into a growing commercial and
industrial area around the airport.
Figure 4.4: CIA location in the wider context of Christchurch City
Source: CIA Strategy Property Vision, prepared by Urbis, 2007
15Confidential
Other than planning restrictions, physical features and the availability of land around the
airport provide a basis for efficient commercial and industrial development.
A hybrid plan would be consistent with City Recovery and Plan objectives
A hybrid approach would not only allow CIAL to respond to pressure from competitors,
but also enable the City and its businesses to benefit from agglomeration effects and
optimised transport.
It would also facilitate the development of a business and transport corridor from the
airport to the CBD, leveraging the current growth of business activity in western
Christchurch—Figure 5.5 shows that there has been a significant movement of industrial
employment and take-up of vacant industrial land, towards western Christchurch.
Figure 4.5: Industrial employment and land uptake distribution in Christchurch
Source: Plan Change 84, SPAZ Business Land Study for Christchurch City Council, Property Economics, July 2013.
Overall, given the prominence of spatial factors in airport competitiveness, the lack of
industrial and commercial development around CIA would lead to lost opportunities in
what is clearly an “arms-race” between airports. It would also mean lost opportunities for
the city and the region. The experience of competing airports shows that the
“Aerotropolis” developments do not come at the expense of linked CBDs. Rather, they
tend to strengthen the agglomeration effects along an increasingly efficient transport
corridor. We discuss this in more detail below.
16Confidential
5 Why development that assists airport
competitiveness also benefits the city
Industrial and commercial development around CIA can realise agglomeration
effects
Airport-related activities have a direct relation to air-freight and air-passenger
movements—such as industrial parks to increase freight, logistics and distribution
activities, or hotels and conference facilities. In terms of air freight, airlines attempt to
maximise efficiency by combining passengers and freight.
Airport-oriented activities choose the airport because of the image of the airport and its
typically excellent ground accessibility. The price of land and surface connectivity are the
key factors in determining those activities locating in the airport area.
For both these associated activities, the business can range from hotels, air-cargo
facilities, offices and business parks, warehouses and logistic parks, retail/wholesale
market places and recreational and entertainment districts.
There are a number of drivers which have spurred the development and creation of these
activities. One important driving force is the ability of airports such as CIA to attract
landside business development. An array of businesses have benefited from locating
closer to airport areas as airports provide significant value to these businesses by offering
quick distance market connectivity.
Locating close to CIA can be a very attractive location for a variety of companies. Being
near the airport and benefitting directly from its operation can attract further corporate
customers who benefit from relocating within the vicinity of the airport. For example,
such business locations benefit from well-developed infrastructure leading to the airport
and therefore minimize commute times/distances for its customers (for example
conference centres).
On the other hand, there are companies that benefit from the associated traffic volumes.
Their operations, therefore, become easily accessible. Airports can also attract companies
just looking for industrial development independent from the airport. This is because a
CBD is not an appropriate site for industrial businesses. Therefore, they have a choice of
location when seeking to locate their business. Locating near an airport is advantageous
because of the agglomeration effects and transport and logistics infrastructure at the
airport.
We provide three examples of the types of business located around an airport to benefit
from the agglomeration effects:
Logistics facilities on site are often not able to completely satisfy the scale and
complexity for air cargo. Several airports have built airport logistics parks in
the vicinity to provide more support. The logistics parks help to promote
quick turnaround and value-added logistics activities that are often ideal for
high technology, high value products and fulfilment of orders through
electronic commerce. The existence and development of nearby logistics parks
become another influential factor when airlines, for example, select a cargo
hub.
Time-sensitive goods processing industries, such as manufacturing, have also
reaped the benefits of locating themselves near airports. A manufacturer’s
ability to meet the needs of a customer is dependent upon the existence of a
comprehensive ground-to-air shipping network of air cargo carriers, trucking
17Confidential
companies, freight forwarders and logistics providers. Due to close proximity
of an airport a ground-to-air network is established which allows the
manufacturer to minimize their inventories, shorten production-cycle times
and allows them to quickly access innovative inputs for custom products
which in hindsight create additional value.
Providers of commercial services such as retailers, hotels, entertainment
facilities, health and fitness centres and so on. Not only can they attract
employees of various businesses operating at the airport, but travellers too,
thus establishing a dual customer base.
These types of businesses can reciprocate the benefits which they have gained by
generating additional passengers and cargo for the airports through this improvement in
business. This symbiotic relationship improves the airport’s competitiveness and
attractiveness.
Figure 5.1 represents this process. The core “airport” consists of aeronautical
infrastructure (runways and terminals) as well as and the most immediately airport-related
businesses such as retail shops, and car parking. The airport’s accessibility, quality of
infrastructure, and connectivity to customers helps attract businesses around the airport.
In turn, those businesses can generate an increase in both passengers and cargo which
contributes to the airport’s attractiveness and competitiveness on a local and global scale.
Figure 5.1: Relationship between the Airport and Its Surrounding Area
This demonstrates that agglomeration benefits can be achieved from co-locating
industrial and commercial development and the airport’s key activity. As a logistics hub,
the airport will increase the efficiency of the businesses located in its vicinity, while the
existence of a significant commercial and industrial development on the edges of an
airport increases its efficiency as a transport hub.
Industrial and commercial development around CIA can optimise transport
infrastructure
There are significant infrastructure efficiencies from co-locating industrial and
commercial development with the core airport activities. In order to remain competitive,
18Confidential
an airport requires high quality reliable access. However, if that infrastructure only serves
airport’s core needs, it is likely to be under-utilised.
By co-locating industrial and commercial development with an airport, a region can
minimise its infrastructure investment requirement and maximise the value of high
quality infrastructure:
An airport is itself a key transport corridor and incorporates major local
transport corridors
Development around an airport is most likely to integrate land use and
infrastructure benefits
Such developments provide a buffer between communities and airport noise.
For example, Auckland is currently investigating an airport rail link. Such a link is not
feasible only to carry airport users. However, due to the commercial and industrial
development around Auckland airport, a rail link that serves both the airport users and
workers in the surrounding area is likely to be feasible.
19Confidential
6 Conclusions
Significant changes in the aviation sector have led to fierce airline competition for
passengers. This has implications for airports—airports must now compete with each
other for both passengers and airlines which have significantly more choice than in the
past.
CIA is no different. It competes with Auckland and Australian airports for long-haul
traffic, with through connections to other South Island entry points. Queenstown, in
particular, is a direct competitor as an entry point into the South Island.
The competitive pressure on CIA has to be seen in the context of the economic nature
of the businesses. Airport costs are largely fixed, partly as a result of investment in
infrastructure but also because of associated operating costs, including those on safety
and security, which vary little with scale of traffic. This gives airports a natural incentive
to attract traffic to defray those costs.
Although there is no single factor that can improve CIA’s competitiveness,
standardisation of airports over time (around a generally high level of service) has
increasingly required airports to focus on other competitive factors.
In CIA’s case, commercial and industrial development can provide a key competitive
differentiator. For example, commercial and industrial development around the airport
can help anchor wide-bodied services which rely both on passengers and freight. Such
services will encourage airlines to promote Christchurch as the gateway to the South
Island, and will discourage them from cannibalizing these services by encouraging
alternative gateways.
More broadly, such development appears compatible with CCC’s City Recovery and City
Plan. We expect there to be a virtuous circle between airport industrial and commercial
development and the CBD. As increased frequency of services into CIA becomes
underpinned by the industrial and commercial development in the surrounding area,
increased promotion of Christchurch as a destination will feed into CBD development.
While industrial and commercial activity can locate anywhere on the edges of the city,
there are advantages to locating it around the airport. There are significant infrastructure
efficiencies from co-locating industrial and commercial development with core airport
activities. In order to remain competitive, an airport requires high quality reliable access.
However, if that infrastructure only serves an airport’s core needs, it is likely to be under-
utilised. By co-locating industrial and commercial development with an airport, a region
can minimise its infrastructure investment requirement and maximise the value of high
quality infrastructure (and more to the point, enable the development of such
infrastructure).
As competing airports implement their development plans, CIAL faces a stark choice to
either take part in this race to maintain its competitiveness or be left behind.
The consequences of being left behind are decreased competitiveness and lower growth
potential, foregoing the benefits of agglomeration effects and optimisation of transport
infrastructure. It also significantly increases the risk of losing business of footloose
airlines and reduces the ability to tap into the lucrative routes, such as the Chinese
market.
20T: +1 (202) 466-6790 F: +1 (202) 466-6797 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 12th Floor WASHINGTON DC 20006 United States of America T: +61 (2) 9231 6862 F: +61 (2) 9231 3847 36 – 38 Young Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 Australia T: +64 (4) 913 2800 F: +64 (4) 913 2808 Level 2, 88 The Terrace PO Box 10-225 WELLINGTON 6143 New Zealand T: +33 (1) 45 27 24 55 F: +33 (1) 45 20 17 69 7 Rue Claude Chahu PARIS 75116 France ------------- www.castalia-advisors.com
You can also read
