Airport Strategic Planning
Dr. Richard de Neufville
Professor of Engineering Systems and
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Outline
 The Vision
 The Context
 The Problem
Fixed Master Plan
 Management Commitment to Plan
 Inflexibility ; Losses

 The Solution: Dynamic Strategic
Planning
Recognition of Risk as Reality of Planning
 Analysis of Situation
 Flexible, Dynamic Planning

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
The Vision
A significantly improved approach
to Airport Systems Planning that
realistically accounts for rapid
changes
 in
the economy
 airline routes and alliances
 airport competitors (regional and local)
 and technology
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
The Context
 The Traditional Approach is a Master Plan


e.g.: US Federal Aviation Advisory Circular 150/5070-6A
Or: ICAO Airport Planning Manual, Part 1, Master Planning
 The development of a Master Plan involves



Defining the Forecast (pick one)
Examining Alternatives ways of development for THAT
FORECAST
Selecting a SINGLE SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT with no
examination of alternative scenarios
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
The Problem
 The Master Plan



does not anticipate RISK of possible changes in market
conditions, that is, of “trend-breakers”
thus does not provide insurance against those real risks,
is inflexible, and inherently unresponsive to the risks.
 Management furthermore may commit to
plan concept (if not timing…)

leading to resistance to change when it is needed
 The consequences are

losses or extra costs ; losses of opportunities
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Examples of the Problem
 New Denver
Management could not reduce initial size... Even
when airlines not committed => unnecessary
passenger building
 No back-up for failure of new technology (Bag
System)

 Dallas / Fort Worth
Gate Arrival Master Plan: No Provision for Transfer
passengers, and huge unnecessary costs
 No provision for failure of technological leap
(AirTrans)

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Forecast versus Actual
Operations after 5 years
Airport
Bangor, ME
Bedford, MA
Beverly, MA
Hyannis, MA (a)
Hyannis, MA (b)
Nantucket, MA
New Bedford, MA
Norwood, MA
Portland, ME
Providence, RI
Base Year
Forecast
Actual
F/A Ratio
1976
1980
1977
1977
1977
1977
1980
1977
1977
1979
113
363
176
174
143
70
97
255
147
256
85
228
174
108
108
66
82
205
103
245
1.33
1.59
1.01
1.61
1.32
1.06
1.18
1.24
1.43
1.04
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Forecast versus Actual
Operations after 10 years
Airport
Bangor, ME
Bedford, MA
Beverly, MA
Hyannis, MA (a)
Hyannis, MA (b)
Nantucket, MA
New Bedford, MA
Norwood, MA
Portland, ME
Providence, RI
Base Year
Forecast
Actual
F/A Ratio
1981
1985
1982
1982
1982
1982
1985
1982
1982
1985
150
530
220
244
183
87
116
295
188
274
71
244
105
145
145
104
102
168
78
203
2.11
2.17
2.10
1.68
1.26
0.84
1.14
1.76
2.41
1.35
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Forecast versus Actual
Projects after 5 years
Airport
Bangor, ME
Beverly, MA
Hyannis, MA
Nantucket, MA
New Bedford, MA
Norwood, MA
Providence, RI
Actual Projects
Base Year Proposed
1976
1977
1977
1977
1980
1977
1980
4
3
2
3
3
4
2
F/A Ratio
Forecast
New
Total
N/A
1
1
N/A
3
N/A
2
N/A
3
2
N/A
0
N/A
5
N/A
4
3
N/A
3
N/A
7
N/A
0.25
0.33
N/A
1.00
N/A
0.29
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Forecast versus Actual
Operations after 15 years
Airport
Bangor, ME
Bedford, MA
Beverly, MA
Hyannis, MA (a)
Hyannis, MA (b)
Nantucket, MA
New Bedford, MA
Norwood, MA
Portland, ME
Providence, RI
Base Year Forecast
1986
1990
1987
1987
1987
1987
1990
1987
1987
1990
215
755
271
309
223
99
136
375
231
308
Actual
F/A Ratio
114
244
152
176
176
150
119
136
120
207
1.89
3.09
1.78
1.76
1.27
0.66
1.14
2.76
1.93
1.49
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Forecast Unreliability Increases
for Longer Planning Horizon
F/A Ratio Characteristics
Planning Horizon
Years
Average - 1
Range
Std. Dev.
Error Range
Five
Ten
Fifteen
0.23
0.41
0.78
0.64 - 1.96
0.58 - 2.40
0.66 - 3.1
0.3
0.54
0.69
23%
34%
76%
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Forecast versus Actual
Projects after 10 years
Airport
Bangor, ME
Beverly, MA
Hyannis, MA
Nantucket, MA
New Bedford, MA
Norwood, MA
Providence, RI
Actual Projects
Base Year Proposed
1981
1982
1982
1982
1985
1982
1985
4
2
1
1
2
4
3
F/A Ratio
Forecast
New
Total
2
1
1
0
1
2
1
1
2
4
3
2
2
4
3
3
5
3
3
4
5
0.67
0.33
0.20
0.00
0.33
0.50
0.20
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Forecast versus Actual
Projects after 15 years
Airport
Bangor, ME
Beverly, MA
Hyannis, MA
Nantucket, MA
New Bedford, MA
Norwood, MA
Providence, RI
Actual Projects
Base Year Proposed
1986
1987
1987
1987
1990
1987
1990
5
2
1
3
1
3
3
F/A Ratio
Forecast
New
Total
3
2
1
2
1
0
1
1
3
3
4
2
2
4
4
5
4
6
3
2
5
0.75
0.40
0.25
0.33
0.33
0.00
0.20
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Outline of Solution
 Dynamic Strategic Planning
 3 Phases



Recognition of Risk as Reality of Planning
Analysis of Situation
Flexible, Dynamic Planning -- designed to track real
developments in air transport industry
 Compatible with Master Planning but



Examine plans under various forecasts
Analyze variety of development patterns, sequences
Reallocate analytic effort
• from in depth examination of an unlikely future
• to many quick reviews likely to include actuality
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Process of Dynamic
Strategic Planning
 Recognizes Risk


looks ahead at opportunities and threats of many scenarios
accepts that future levels and types of traffic cannot be known
 Examines Complex Possible Developments


“Pure” plans PLUS
combinations of these: “HYBRID” solutions
 Chooses Flexibility


Plans responsive to market, industry conditions
These are necessarily “HYBRID”
 Commits only one period at a time
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Chess Analogy
DYNAMIC STRATEGIC PLANNING IS LIKE
PLAYING CHESS AS A GRAND MASTER
-- YOU LOOK AHEAD MANY MOVES
BUT ONLY DECIDE ONE MOVE AT A TIME.
DYNAMIC STRATEGIC PLANNING COMPARES TO
MASTER PLANNING AS GRAND MASTER CHESS
COMPARES TO BEGINNER PLAY.
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Phase 1: Recognition of
Risk and Complexity
 Risk: Wide Range of Futures

The Forecast is “always wrong”
• Extrapolations of past cannot anticipate the surprises that
always occur somewhere
• Many extrapolations are possible for any historical record
 Complexity: Wide Range of Choices

Number of Choices is Enormous
• “Pure” solutions only 1 or 2% of possibilities
• Most possibilities are “hybrid”, that combine elements of
“pure” solutions
• “Hybrid” choices provide most flexibility
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Hybrid Designs
 Combine “Pure” Concepts

New York/LaGuardia: “Finger Piers” and “Gate Arrival”
Paris/de Gaulle: Gate Arrivals. Transporters, Finger, and
soon satellite buildings

Chicago/O’Hare (United): “Gate Arrival” and “Midfield”

 Are Inevitable -- The “Pure” concepts
become inadequate for actual conditions

Dallas/Fort Worth:
“Gate Arrival” => “Midfield” (Delta) + Central (American)

Washington/Dulles:
“Transporters” => + “Gate Arrival” => “Midfield”
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Phase 2: Analysis
 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,
Threats (SWOT)
 Identifying Risks
 Decision Analysis of Possibilities
 Identification of Initial Phase and Potential
Different Responses to Actual Events
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Phase 3: Dynamic
Strategic Planning
 The Choice


Any Choice is a PORTFOLIO OF RISK
Choices differ in their
• Likely benefits
• Performance over a range of futures
 The Plan




Buys Insurance -- by building in flexibility
Balances Level of Insurance to Nature of Risk
Commits only to immediate first stage decisions
Maintains Understanding of Need for Flexibility
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
The Best Choices
 Permit good Performance for range of futures
 Achieve Overall Best Performance by


Building in Flexibility to adjust plan to actual situation is later
periods -- this costs money
Sacrificing Maximum Performance under some circumstances
 “Buy Insurance” in the form of flexibility;
capacity to adjust easily to future situations
 Commit only to Immediate Period

Decisions later in should depend on then actual situation
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Strategic Planning for Miami
 Master Plan Completed in 1994 Obsolete
 “Accepted” but recognized as
• Overtaken by Changes in Airline Industry
• Insensitive to realities of Access Constraints
 Strategic Plan Started in 1995
 Focus on Key Decision points

Which are major “forks in road” that shape future
• State decisions on highways, rail access
• Arrangements with major Airline “Families”
 Focus on Providing for Alternative Futures

Space for New Megacarriers, Spine access system
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Example of Flexible Plans:
Paris/de Gaulle (Air France)
 Hybrid Design:

Gate Arrival that permits Transporters as Needed
 Anticipation of Future


Room for Expansion
Provisions for Rail Access
 Investment according to need

Easy to Change Design (as done)
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Example of Flexible Plans:
Sydney Second Airport
 Hybrid Strategy:


Maintain and Enhance Principal Airport
Acquire Major Site
 Anticipation of Future


New Site is Insurance against Need
Cost small compared to Major Construction
 Investment According to Need

Future Plans Easily Tailored to industry Structure,
Traffic Levels
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Example of Inflexible Plans:
New Denver
 Pure Design: Multi-Airline Super-Hub


But United Dominates
Phase-out of Continental
 Massive Immediate Commitment


Could not adjust to actual traffic
Disadvantages of High Costs per Passenger
 Reliance on Untested Technology

Failure of High-tech baggage system

No effective fall-back position
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Example of Inflexible Plans:
New York / Newark
 Pure Design: Unit Terminals, Satellites


Unsuited for actual Transfer, International Traffic
Use of 1950’s Terminal
 Premature Investments


Terminal C Boarded up, unopened for decade
Major changes required
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Recommendation
 Evaluate Situation


Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
Risks
 Analyze Possibilities


Major Attention to “Hybrid” Options
Match Physical Facilities to Industry Structure
• Current Major Clients
• Possible Future Clients
 Dynamic Strategic Plan


Define Initial Commitment
How Plan Can Develop to Meet Range of Possible
Future Market Conditions
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
The following slides are excerpted from presentation
made by Rob Blancheau at TRB in Jan 2007 and
supplied for class use. Full talk is posted on website.
Transportation Research Board
Session 513 - Lessons Learned from Large
Airport Development
“Orlando Airport Experience”
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Agenda

Airport Statistics and Background

Capital Improvement Plan

Lessons Learned

Planning & Design

Land Use

Other
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Actual passenger traffic compared to
forecast
2000-2014
Million Annual Passengers (MAP)
40.0
1,538,000 above
Master Plan Forecast
38.0
36.0
Actual Traffic
34.0
Actual +3.5%
32.0
2002 Master Plan
2002 Bond Issue (High)
30.0
2002 Bond Issue
28.0
2002 Bond +3.0%
2002 Bond Issue (Low)
26.0
24.0
9123 6 9123 6 9123 6 9123 6 9123 6 9123 6 9123 6 9123 6 9123 6 9123 6 9123 6 9123 6 9123 6 9123 6 9
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Actual +3.5%
34.6
34.8
36.1
37.3
38.6
40.0
2002 Master Plan
30.0
26.0
29.3
30.7
32.0
33.3
34.5
35.7
37.0
38.3
29.9
26.5
30.0
31.3
32.7
34.2
35.6
37.0
38.5
40.0
29.9
25.6
28.6
29.7
30.8
31.7
32.7
33.7
34.8
35.8
39.6
41.0
42.2
43.5
36.9
38.0
39.1
40.3
30.3
2002 Bond Issue (High)
30.3
2002 Bond Issue
2002 Bond +3.0%
35.8
30.3
2002 Bond Issue (Low)
29.9
24.4
26.8
27.5
28.1
Source: Actual-GOAA records, Forecast-Leigh Fisher Associates, John F. Brown Company.
28.8
29.4
30.0
30.6
31.2
Contact: GOAA Marketing
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Lessons Learned
Planning and Design
1.
FLEXIBILITY!
2.
Landside/Airside vs. Unit Terminal Concepts
3.
Evolution of the Airside Building
4.
Capacity Analysis
5.
Emerging Trends
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Lessons Learned
Planning and Design
1. FLEXIBILITY!

Land

Overbuild when economically possible


Three Level Terminal

Ability to add additional curb

Size of airsides have evolved

Security
Simple buildings targeted to be experienced from
interior. Exterior enhanced with landscaping.
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
One more reason to remain flexible!
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Hurricane Charley – August 13, 2004
7:30 PM
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Lessons Learned
Planning and Design
2. Landside/Airside vs. Unit Terminal Concepts

Landside/airside with APM’s used at MCO to place
airsides in stable soil locations, minimize walking
distance and to serve domestic O&D traffic

Double Bag Handling & Security Screening

South Terminal will offer hybrid concept with unit
terminal and landside/airside elements

Terminal A vs. Terminal B
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Double Bag
Handling
Airside 4 FIS



Opened in 1990
1,500 Pax per/hr
Modified once
since 1990
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Proposed
South Terminal
120 Gates
(ultimate)
48 Contact Gates
72 Gates by APM
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Complexity of Choices
 The Usual Error


Polarized concepts, simple ideas
“Pure” choices narrowly defined on a continuous path
 Examples of polarized concepts


Dallas/Fort Worth -- “Gate Arrival” Concept
Denver -- “Multi-Airline Super-Hub”
 Correct View: “Hybrid” plans that Combine
concepts. These



cater to different tendencies,
thus allow the greatest flexibility
and adjust easily to variety of possible industry futures
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Identifying Risks
 Competition


International Airports: Atlanta, Orlando...
Regional Airports: Hollywood/Ft. Lauderdale…
 Dependence on Major Client with Alternatives


Great financial demands -- US$ 3 Billion
Long-term commitment ?
 Change in Airline Industry Structure


Shifting Airline Alliances
New Airlines (JetBlue, etc)
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, & Threats
Miami example:
 At time of planning

Positive: Strengths
• Strong Traffic, Major Transfer Hub
• Profitable

Negative: Weaknesses
• Volatile Traffic, Dominant Client (American AL)
• Old Facilities, Limited Site
 Future

Positive: Opportunities
• Growth of South American Economies

Negative: Threats
• Competitive airports; Fickleness of Major Client
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Decision Analysis of Possibilities
 Simple way of defining wide range of
possible developments



Over several periods
Including Risks
Standard Method
 Expected Results:


NOT a Simple Plan: Do A in Period 1, B in Period 2, ...
A DYNAMIC PLAN: Do A in Period 1, BUT in Period 2
• If Growth, do B
• If Stagnation, do C
• If Loss, do D
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Phase 1: Recognition of
Risk and Complexity
 Risk: Wide Range of Futures

The Forecast is “always wrong”
• Extrapolations of past cannot anticipate the surprises that
always occur somewhere
• Many extrapolations are possible for any historical record
 Complexity: Wide Range of Choices

Number of Choices is Enormous
• “Pure” solutions only 1 or 2% of possibilities
• Most possibilities are “hybrid”, that combine elements of
“pure” solutions
• “Hybrid” choices provide most flexibility
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Forecast “Always Wrong”
 Reason 1: Surprises

Past trends always interrupted by surprises
• Major political, economic changes
• New airline alliances or plans
• Economic Booms or Recessions
 Reason 2: Ambiguity



Many extrapolations possible from any historical data
Many of these extrapolations are “good” to the extent that
they satisfy usual statistical tests
Yet these extrapolations will give quite different forecasts!
Example: Miami Master Plan Forecasts
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 
Rear View Mirror Analogy
“RELYING ON FORECASTS IS LIKE
STEERING A CAR BY LOOKING IN
THE REAR VIEW MIRROR...
SATISFACTORY FOR A VERY SHORT
TIME, SO LONG AS TRENDS CONTINUE,
BUT ONE SOON RUNS OFF THE ROAD.”
Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN 