Outlook opinion of the Committee of the Regions on "The capacity of regional airports"
Date: 2003-07-02
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: air transport, airport, common transport policy, regional development, transport capacity

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/47

Outlook opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The capacity of regional airports’

(2003/C 256/09)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the White Paper on European Governance which the European Commission presented
in 2001 and which urges the Committee of the Regions to ‘play a more proactive role in examining
policy, for example through the preparation of exploratory reports in advance of Commission proposals’;

having regard to the Protocol of Cooperation of September 2001 between the European Commission
and the Committee of the Regions which encourages ‘the Committee of the Regions to draw up strategic
documents reviewing matters which the Commission regards as important; these “outlook reports” shall
explore in greater depth problems in areas where the Committee of the Regions has the appropriate local
information resources’;

having regard to the letter of 10 September 2002 from Commissioner de Palacio to President Bore
suggesting that the Committee of the Regions ‘prepare the outlook and impact reports and outlook
opinions listed in the appendix to this letter’;

having regard to the letter of referral of 23 July 2002 from Commissioner Barnier to President Bore
requesting the CoR’s opinion on The implementation of programmes financed by the Structural Funds
and ways in which the management of cohesion policy could be simplified after 2006 (pursuant to Treaty
Article 265(1));

having regard to its opinion of 15 May 2002 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental
performance of the freight transport system (COM(2002) 54 final — 2002/0038 COD) (CdR 103/2002
fin) (1);

having regard to its opinion of 9 April 2003 on Territorial cohesion (CdR 388/2002 fin);

having regard to its draft outlook opinion (CdR 393/2002 rev.) adopted on 30 April by the Commission
for Territorial Cohesion Policy (rapporteur: Mr Bob Verburg, Vice-Governor of the Province of Noord-
Holland, NL-EPP);

unanimously adopted the following outlook opinion at its 50th plenary session on 2 and 3 July 2003
(meeting of 2 July).

INTRODUCTION

Based on the letter from the Commissioner, the following
issues are addressed in this Outlook Opinion:

In a letter of 10 September 2002, Commissioner Loyola de
Palacio requested an Outlook Opinion from the Committee of
the Regions (CoR) on the capacity of regional airports. This
document presents the position of the CoR on the development
of regional airports in Europe, in the wider scope of airport
capacity in general. The European Commission should be able
to use the CoR opinion when writing a Communication on
European airport capacity at the end of 2003. The CoR wishes
to underline the issues that require special care and attention,
either because they are of specific importance for regions
themselves or because regions have direct competencies to
address these challenges.

(1) OJ C 278, 14.11.2002, p. 15.

— What factors attract airlines to regional airports?

— Specialisation of aviation activity: what can regions expect
from specialisation of their airport in a specific segment
of the market (low cost airlines, cargo freight), and what
are the pre-requisites for further development?

— Economic and social impacts of regional airports: how to
turn a specific activity such as aviation into an economic
driver for the whole region? How to generate employment
and economic wealth without jeopardising the quality of
life of the residents?

C 256/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

— Regional airports’ roles in intermodal systems: how to
avoid ground congestion nearby the airports? How
realistic is it to expect to integrate regional airports into a
larger intermodal transport scheme?

— Ratio of departing or arriving passengers/transit passen-
gers. This would demonstrate whether the airport is just
a place where people, goods and wealth are passing
through or whether the airport is really a gateway.

— Financial characteristics of regional airports: how to
handle the issue of the profitability, whilst recognising
that in some cases it is in the public interest to maintain
a low-profit service to remote regions.

This paper is structured in four sections, each with its own
conclusions. Firstly, the opinion addresses the necessity of
having a definition of regional airports to help to define the
scope of further policies. Secondly, the interaction between
regions and their airports is analysed by addressing three
aspects: accessibility of the region, competitiveness of the
region and external effects of aviation activity. Thirdly, the
potential role of regional airports in various EU policies is
examined: such as the Trans-European Networks, European
Airport capacity and intermodal transport. Lastly, the situation
of regional airports within the internal market and the need
for financial information on airports is assessed. Furthermore,
a background paper and the results of a questionnaire complete
this paper.

THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE COR

1. How to define regional airports?

Within the wider debate on the capacity of European airports,
the role of regional airports must be examined. The CoR
believes that the relationship between hubs and regional
airports are a part of the same capacity problem.

Hence a real need for a clearer Europe-wide definition of what
a regional airport is. It is the CoR’s recommendation that any
definition should not be limited to traffic figures at the airport,
but must be based on a thorough analysis of the economic
and spatial functions of the airports within their territory.

Currently there is no widely recognised and accepted definition
of regional airports. Passenger and other traffic numbers are
helpful, but also other criteria need to be involved in the
definition, such as:

— Connections to national, EU and non-EU airports. This
would give useful insight into the gateway role played by
the airport. Does the airport help the region to be linked
to the rest of the world?

— Additional, less quantifiable criteria are also pertinent.
The case of peripheral, island and sparsely populated
regions within the EU and accession countries must be
addressed. For instance,
it has been suggested that it
should be possible to make a return trip from any region
in the EU to the major economic, political and research
centres within the Member State, and the European Union
in one day’s travelling time. For many remote regions,
this would mean that good air links are needed. Current
classification underestimates their public service function
of being the only link for the region with the rest of the
European Union and the world. A new definition for
regional airports should be wide enough to account for
this.

Conclusion

The forthcoming communication of
the Commission on
airports’ capacity in Europe should define policy guidelines for
the development of regional airports. Therefore the Com-
mission will have to provide a definition of regional airports.
The CoR believes that the definition should not be based only
on traffic-analysis (traffic volume and traffic split) but also on
an analysis of the functions met by the wide range of regional
airports.

2. The interaction between regions and their airports: a

regional perspective on airports

2.1. The accessibility of the region

From a regional point of view, regional airports are an asset:
they enable the region to have faster and easier access to the
major centres in the EU and the rest of the world. Regional
airports are critical access points to regions, especially in the
outlying regions of the EU where there is often no other
possibility to access the region. In the interests of economic
and social cohesion within the EU, it has been suggested that
it should be possible to make a return trip from any region in
the EU to the major economic, political and research centres
within the Member State, and the European Union in one day’s
travelling time. This is especially true for those regions on
islands, in Central and Eastern Europe and in the countries in
the periphery of the EU. Accessibility of these regions depends
on regional airports. But all regions in Europe nowadays feel
the need for being accessible easily, and for being connected
to the other regions efficiently.

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/49

2.2. The competitiveness of the region

— Congestion from ground access

The existence of an airport in a region provides an extra
incentive for businesses to locate in the region. New companies
will
locate in the region if it is easily accessible, existing
companies will develop their market share by being able to
reach other parts of the Member State, the EU, and the
world. As such, regional airports contribute to the overall
competitiveness of the European Union. This enhances the
economic development of regions.

Regions can also play a role in ensuring the airport remains
viable. As a guideline, an airport requires approximately one
and a half million passengers per annum in order to be
profitable (1), unless it is a converted airport. Many regional
airports are at best only marginally profitable, and in many
cases they make a loss. It should also be remembered that
airports are long term (20-25 year) investments. The economic
viability of a regional airport can be strengthened if commercial
activities can be attracted to the vicinity of the airport. Regions
can facilitate this process.

The CoR is aware that special rules must apply for converted
airports. Converted airports are those which were once used
for military purposes and which, after the withdrawal of
military units, may continue to be used for civilian purposes.
The discontinuation of military activity often leads to consider-
able employment and structural problems in the region
concerned. Such problems can be offset by converting basically
complete airport infrastructure to civilian use. However, this
may require additional measures to supplement the framework
conditions applying to regional airports.

2.3.

External effects

As with any other larger airport, regional airports have to fit
in their regional environment. Its external negative effects
should be minimised, complying with EU regulations. The
impacts of aviation on environment at regional
external
airports include mainly the following:

— Ecology,

landscape,

geology, hydrogeology, water

resources and energy management.

Several studies have shown that the annoyance of aircraft
noise imposed upon the residents living in the vicinity of an
airport increases exponentially as more aircraft operate from
that airport. On the other hand, the number of affected
residents around a regional airport is much less than around a
hub airport. Hence, aircraft operations would cause fewer
nuisances at a regional airport, compared to the same oper-
ation at a hub airport. Further reduction of noise nuisance can
also be achieved by various noise management measures,
such as noise abatement flight procedures, ground-operations
restrictions, night-flight restrictions as well as proper land-use
planning.

Both the engine emissions emitted from aircraft operations
and the emissions generated from ground access (mainly from
passenger cars) deteriorate air quality around an airport. With
regard to aircraft engine emissions, measures can be taken by
encouraging airlines using better aircraft engines through
differentiated landing charges or emission charges. The ground
emissions can be reduced by better public transport connection
to the airport or even by developing the airport as an
intermodality centre.

Residents living in the vicinity of an airport also have to bear
the third-party risk. Any major accident close to an airport
will raise fear and will pollute the environment. For a regional
airport, maintaining an effective fire service is expensive, but
essential. Especially if an airport is designated for large twin-
engined aircraft, full fire cover must be provided.
If any
introduction of environmental measures, e.g. noise-abatement
procedures, would jeopardise safety, those measures should be
banned. Safety always comes first. Hence, a proper balance of
measures for reducing environmental impacts of an airport
has to be found and maintained.

— Air and ground noise

Conclusion

— Air quality

— External safety

(1) As calculated with the Airport Business Model (RAND Europe,

2003).

Given the current and potential external effects of regional
airports, all EU airports should be treated equally with respect
to the general environmental effects, taking account of specific
circumstances in terms of ecology, topography, spatial plan-
ning and location policy. The CoR supports the EU in
developing guidelines (Lden, Lnight) for airport noise. Environ-
mental dumping, by locally undercutting guidelines and stan-
dards on noise, emissions and external safety, should be
avoided and prevented.

C 256/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

3. Regional airports: improving capacity for the Euro-

pean airport system

3.1. Airport capacity

Whereas regional airports are characterized by surplus capacity
in terminal space and runway utilization, hub and national
airports often lack the capacity to grow. However, as long as
the major airlines continue their hub and spoke strategies,
there is no solution to this apparent paradox. There are
signs from some airlines that they are now examining the
complementary role of point-to-point traffic.

There is a potential to develop point-to-point traffic at regional
airports. Recently we have seen this with low-cost airlines, but
this is not the only segment that can benefit from these routes.
Regions and airlines should work together to find the balance
identify the
between point-to-point and hub and spoke:
potential flows of traffic that could fly from the regional
airport without transiting through a hub. The CoR therefore
encourages cooperation between airlines and individual air-
ports operator and local authorities. The CoR does not believe
that a formal framework is needed but supports an exchange
of best practice on the matter.

Some regional airports play or can play a role in relieving
congestion at Europe’s major hub airports. The implemen-
tation of infrastructure at regional airports should then be
viewed from an airport systems’ perspective. This means that
the cost of relieving congestion is shared among the relevant
airports in the system.

3.2. Regional airports in the Trans-European Networks

Regional airports contribute to congestion at major airports,
but can also relieve congestion when traffic is diverted directly
to them through gate-to-gate strategies, and through the use
to improve regional airport
of other forms of transport
accessibility. The CoR does not see transferring passengers
from hubs to road transport as a congestion solution. This
would merely increase ground congestion, and increase air
and noise pollution. Instead, the CoR calls on Member States
to consider tackling this through the TENs. This could be done
in the following ways:

— inclusion of regional airports in airport planning in order
to reduce congestion at the larger airports. This is an
option for traffic arriving to hub airports, to go to

regional airports that are not at a high-speed train
distance from the hub. In that sense, it is desirable to
encourage point-to-point traffic, when there are sufficient
projected flows to feed such a route. Some companies
have already started investigating this possibility. It is
noticeable that such routes can provide a number of
advantages in energy — efficiency,
through airports
where traffic is lighter and therefore quicker, and in direct
benefit to the region by improving accessibility;

— inclusion of regional airports in bilateral air agreements.
In some cases the bilateral agreement limits traffic to hub
airports in countries. Open Skies agreements open up
regional airports for intercontinental traffic. This principle
should be further pursued in new bilateral
treaties
between EU Member States and other countries;

— revision of the train TENs in order to improve connec-

tions between the hinterland and major hubs.

3.3.

Intermodality

Most regional airports are near motorways and very few are
near or connected to rail tracks. It is currently unrealistic to
suggest that all regional airports should have good train
connections. However, access to regional airports can be
improved by other public transport connections to and from
the nearest train station. A major attraction of many regional
airports is easy landside access and nearby terminal parking at
reasonable rates. The current challenges for local authority
planners and regional airport operators include:

— linking the region by high-speed train to the nearest

major hub when it is possible;

— linking the regional airport to an efficient public transport
system throughout its hinterland. As an airport grows,
plans to reduce dependency on private cars and taxis to
and from an airport are essential. Convenient bus and
coach connections are a minimum requirement. The CoR
encourages employers in and around the airport to review
travel plans for employees and where possible to come
up with green travel plan solutions with assistance from
the local authority based on all modes of transport, use
of public transport, cycling, walking and car sharing;

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/51

— addressing the issue of cargo and express freight arriving
to the region directly by air and transferring it to efficient
platforms.

Conclusion

Intermodality for the regional airports’ regions means,
in
addition to connection to international coach routes, providing
efficient high-speed train to the nearest hub airport when it is
possible, making full use of public transport solutions, and
addressing the issue of cargo freight arriving into the region
by air.

3.4.

Specialisation of regional airports on a niche-market: a key
for the development of the region?

Traditionally, regional airports have been a home for the
following variety of aviation activities:

— Scheduled passenger services

— Passenger charters

— Business jets (general aviation)

— (Express) cargo

— Flying schools and training

— Aircraft maintenance.

Recently some regional airports have focused on one specific
segment of aviation activities. A regional airport can focus on
one or more of the following aspects (1):

— Business market

— Airport for business traffic

— Airport with business park

— Business park with air strip

— Cargo market

— All cargo airport

— Other

— Intermodal platform

— Maintenance and training centre

It can be seen that such specialisation can be successful.
Nevertheless, it raises some questions from the regions’ point
of view.

— The development of niche markets in the aviation
sector obliges airport operators and public authorities to
consider the role that their own airport can play within
global markets. Will the specialisation prevent the airport
from developing other functions? The required infrastruc-
tures are not the same for each specialisation (cargo
handling is quite different from flying schools). The goal
is for airports and their regions to be able to face the
from all
volatility of such markets, and to benefit
opportunities. A further concern is whether the long term
cost of operating and upgrading such specialised airports
is reflected in the user charges. Failing to do so might
jeopardize the longer term viability and growth of
regional airports or might lead to discussions concerning
distortion of markets and unfair competitive advantages.

In the case of very small airports (mainly E airports (2)) the
closure of the airport has been considered as a more realistic
option to specialisation. The land had a higher value than the
proposed specialisation. Trends show that specialisation has
recently been limited to either low cost scheduled operations
or express cargo. Specialisation in the other categories is
difficult as the business volume is not continuous over the
year. Charters vary seasonally; general aviation is erratic and
unpredictable, cargo is on demand only. Flying schools and
maintenance facilities do not usually generate enough airport
charges’ revenue. Although specialisation has created break-
even volumes for some airports, attention must be paid to the
volatility of the markets. Local authority plans around the
airport must be long term, and consider the future fortunes of
the airport, both in terms of growth and economic downturns,
or changes in the specialisation at the airport. The regions
must accompany the specialisation of their airport by active
economic development policy nearby the airport.

— Airport as part of airfreight-trucking concept

Conclusion

— Integrator home base

— Leisure market

— Low cost operations

— Air-road terminal (also buses)

— Recreation airport

Only few regional airports can benefit from specialisation,
which requires specific infrastructure, and skills within the
locally available workforce. The externalities are different
according to the choices that have been made. Specialisation
can only be considered as a starting point for further economic
development of the region and requires careful planning
around the airport.

(1) BCI, Regionaal-economische functies van regionale luchthavens,
1999 / BCI, Regional Economic Functions of regional airports,
1999.

(2) See Appendix 1 for airport categories.

C 256/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

4.

Internal market

accessibility of the region should be included with operating
revenues in any assessment of the added value of the airport.
The CoR wishes to underline the fact that public financial
assistance can be granted only in certain circumstances. The
development of infrastructure concerning accessibility and
green spaces is in principle a public task.

4.1. Ownership and financial transparency of airports’ finances

Airports in Europe are owned and controlled in various ways.
There are various models of ownership:

Conclusion

— In some countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway, Spain and
Portugal), all airports are controlled through one public
organisation, allowing the sharing of resources and cross-
financing of loss-making airports by the profitable ones

— Some major hub airports in Europe control one or more

regional airports

— Local and regional authorities

The CoR understands that in some cases the airports require
specific public support to operate, but this can be provided
only under specific circumstances. Moreover the CoR encour-
ages the operators and the public authorities hosting an airport
to exchange information on how to achieve a good balance
between operating revenues, and investment (including all
public support). The CoR believes that innovative partnership
between public authorities and regional airports could encour-
age the creation of new revenues such as catering services or
joint marketing of the region.

— Semi-private organisations (e.g. Chambers of Commerce)

RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE
REGIONS

— Privately owned business.

The variety of ownership in European airports makes compari-
son of this financial situation at each airport difficult. Regional
authorities need to have access to information regarding the
financial situation at the airport so that they can draw up
meaningful regional development plans. This is impossible in
the cases where one operator runs several airports, and
publishes only consolidated accounts for all the airports in
its network. The regions have to receive relevant financial
information in the light of cross subsidies. The Committee
asks the Commission to develop a framework for these data
where confidentiality for business reasons is to be taken into
account. It is suggested that it should only be used to finance
airports in difficulty when it is in the public interest, or when
alternative sources of finance are unavailable.

4.2. Defining partnership between public authorities and operators

The CoR recognises the importance of regional airports for the
the regions. Airport-related employment;
development of
levels of business generated around the airport and levels of
business in the region requiring an airport and the overall

The CoR calls on the Commission to provide a definition
1.
of regional airports. The CoR believes that the definition
should not be based only on traffic-analysis (traffic volume
and traffic split) but also on an analysis of the functions met
by the wide range of existing regional airports.

2.
The CoR recommends that the Commission promotes
cooperation and joint working between all stakeholders con-
cerned by airport development, notably when writing up the
regional economic development plans. The CoR does not
believe that a formal framework is needed but supports an
exchange of best practice on the matter. The development
plans will provide the necessary environment for the airport
to develop and support the competitiveness of the region and
hence of the EU. The CoR recommends that the Commission
promotes relevant research on the issue of regional airports and
their role in the region and European transport infrastructure.

3.
Given the current and potential external effects of
regional airports, all EU airports should be treated equally with
respect to the general environmental effects, taking account of
specific circumstances in terms of ecology, topography, spatial
planning and location policy. The CoR supports the EU
in developing guidelines (Lden, Lnight)
for airport noise.
Environmental dumping, by locally undercutting guidelines
and standards on noise, emissions and external safety, should
be avoided and prevented.

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/53

4.
The CoR believes that the role of regional airports in
relieving congestion at Europe’s major hub airports can
be investigated by the Commission. The CoR suggests the
Commission encourages the transfer of traffic from regional
airports close to hubs through greater use of high-speed trains.
For airports that are further away from main hubs, the CoR
suggests that
innovative gate-to-gate strategies should be
promoted. It is also in favour of optimising trans-European
rail networks and international coach routes to improve
connections between the hinterland and major airports.

The CoR calls on Member States to consider tackling air
5.
and ground congestion through the TENs. The CoR suggests
the inclusion of regional airports in a European airport scheme
in order to reduce congestion at the larger airports. The
Member States should also consider improving the rail connec-
tions between the hinterland and the major hubs.

6.
The CoR believes that intermodality and mobility are
also to be developed in the regions served by a regional airport.
This means addressing the issue of air cargo and express freight
through efficient platforms and improving the connections
when possible. This also means linking the regional airport to
an efficient public transport system throughout its hinterland.
Hence the CoR encourages the Commission to support the
definition and the implementation of travel plans from public
authorities, employers, operators, employers in and around
the airport. These plans ought to be based on all modes of
transport, use of public transport, cycling, walking and car
sharing.

7.
The CoR is well aware of new aviation trends, that
implies the specialisation of some airports in one segment of
the market of the other. Nevertheless the CoR advises the
Commission to pay specific attention to the volatility of these
markets when defining guidelines on the European airports’
capacity. The CoR wishes to underline that specialisation can
only be considered as a starting point for further economic

Brussels, 2 July 2003.

development of the region and requires careful planning
around the airport on the part of local authorities. Specialis-
ation should improve the long-term viability of regional
airports, including the financing of new infrastructure.

8.
The CoR believes that adequate financial information on
airports needs to be available for the regions to know the exact
situation of their airport. The CoR therefore encourages the
Commission to work on the availability and the transparency
of this information. The regions have to receive relevant
financial
information in the light of cross subsidies. The
Committee asks the Commission to develop a framework for
these data where confidentiality for business reasons is to be
taken into account. It is suggested that it should only be used
to finance airports in difficulty when it is in the public interest,
or when alternative sources of finance are unavailable.

9.
The development of infrastructure concerning accessi-
bility and green spaces is in principle a public task. The CoR
understands that in some cases the airports require specific
public support to operate, but this can be provided only under
specific circumstances. Moreover the CoR encourages the
Commission to support innovative partnership between public
authorities and regional airports, as well as the exchange of
information on how to achieve a good balance between
operating revenues, investment (including all public support),
and non-aviation related revenue.

The CoR is aware that special rules must apply for
10.
converted airports. Converted airports are those which were
used for military purposes and which, after the withdrawal of
military units, may continue to be used for civilian purposes.
The discontinuation of military activity often leads to consider-
able employment and structural problems in the region
concerned. Such problems can be offset by converting basically
complete airport infrastructure to civilian use. However, this
may require additional measures to supplement the framework
conditions applying to regional airports.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

C 256/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

APPENDIX 1

to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions

The five categories of European Airports

— Category A: represents the major hub airports (over 25 million passengers, 4 airports) and accounts for

approximately 30 % of European air traffic.

— Category B: represents the national airports (10 to 25 million passengers, 16 airports) and accounts for

approximately 35 % of European air traffic.

— Category C: is represented by 15 airports of 5 to 10 million passengers accounting for approximately 14 % of

European air traffic.

— Category D: is represented by 57 airports of 1 to 5 million passengers, accounting for approximately 17 % of

European air traffic.

— Category E: is represented by 67 airports of 200 000 to 1 million passengers, accounting for approximately

4 % of European air traffic.

Airports in categories D and E, as well as some airports in Category C, are classified as regional airports. For instance,
Birmingham International Airport is classified as a regional airport while it had more than 7,5 million passengers in
2001. On the other hand, Rotterdam airport, with less than 700 000 passengers in 2001, is also classified as a
regional airport. The group of regional airports is therefore very heterogeneous with respect to size, making it
difficult to develop European perspectives for the whole group of regional airports. The following table shows the
distribution of airports over the different categories. Category E, which encompasses 42 % of all European airports
with more than 200 000, only represents 4 % of all the passengers and 8 % of the movements.

Cat. A

Cat. B

Cat. C

Cat. D

Cat. E

4

16

15

2,5 %

10 %

9,5 %

222,7

259,6

107,6

30 %

35 %

14 %

57

36 %

130

17 %

2 112

3 328

1 578

2 208

21 %

33 %

16 %

5 277

2 807

1 003

22 %

994

67

42 %

30

4 %

771

8 %

146

52 %

109

58 %

27 %

10 %

9,5 %

1,5 %

80

71

61

41

60 %

53 %

70 %

47 %

Number of airports

Percentage category in total

Passengers (million)

Percentage category in total

Movements (million)

Percentage category in total

Freight (million tonnes)

Percentage category in total

Average number of passengers per flight

% growth 1988-1997

Table: Division of European airports into categories, 1997.

Source: EC, Study of alternative airport capacities, 1999.

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/55

APPENDIX 2

to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions

Bibliography

Airport Regions Conference — ALG Transport and Logistics in Airport Regions, September 2001

Airport Regions Conference — Assessment of Good Practices on Environmental issues — 2002

Airport Regions Conference — David Ramos Perez: Transporte Aero y cohesion territorial: mitos y realidades en la
construccion de una Europea de centros y periferias — Communication to 2002 Conference

Airport Regions Conference — Jordi Candela — European Skies skins — Communication to Gatwick conference —
2002

Airport Regions Conference — Future trends in airport-related employment — 2000

Institut d’aménagement et d’urbanisme de l’Île de France — airport Regions Conference — Quelles réponses à la
saturation des grands aéroports? 2000

Airport Regions Conference — Regions and airports partners for sustainable prosperity — 1999

BCI, Regionaal-economische functies van regionale luchthavens, 1999 / BCI, Regional Economic Functions of
regional airports, 1999

RAND Europe, Airport Business Model (2003).

C 256/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

APPENDIX 3

to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions

Questionnaire

OUTLOOK OPINION ON THE CAPACITY OF REGIONAL AIRPORTS

1. General information

Your region:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Your name:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Your function:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contact details:

Telephone:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fax:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E-mail:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Concerning the airport

Which airport(s) is (are) in your region?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How many passengers, cargo and movements were handled in 2002 (or 2001)? (please mention year)

Passengers:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cargo (tonnes):

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Movements (flights):

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Concerning the airport ownership structure

• Who are the owners of the airport(s) in your region (please specify the ownership structure)?

• Will this ownership structure change in the near future?

2. The relationship between regions and their airports

Regional airports can contribute to the overall competitiveness of the region if they successfully attract businesses.

Questions:

• What does your region do to attract businesses and to stimulate investments?

•

•

Does your region have a long term (20-25 year) investment plan for attracting businesses and does it include
the airport(s)?

Is/Are the airport(s) integrated in your region’s spatial planning policy and in its infrastructure development
plans?

3. Accessibility of the region

Clearly, regional airports enable the region to have faster and easier access to the major centres in the EU and possibly
the rest of the world. However, there are other means that could also increase the accessibility of the region, perhaps
with lower costs.

Questions:

•

•

•

Are there any alternatives to air transport for travelling from your region to major European centres or hubs?

Have you studied the accessibility of your region? If yes, which criteria have been used? If not, what would be,
according to you, the criteria for measuring accessibility?

How could you increase the accessibility of your region?

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/57

4. Encouraging airlines to call at regional airports

The majority of regional airports have the capacity to grow. This is clearly a competitive advantage of regional
airports, compared to hub and national airports.

Question:

•

How does your region assist the airport in attracting airlines?

5. Regional airports in the European policies

Regional airports could be integrated in the following European policies:

— Trans European Networks (TENs); intermodality

— EU Structural and Cohesion Funds

Question:

•

Please assess the importance of the above European policies for your region and the regional airport (please
circle one answer for each policy):

— TENs:

— EU Structural and Cohesion Funds:

High

High

Medium

Medium

Low

Low

•

Additional comments with respect to the above policies?

6. Specialisation of the airport

Depending on the nature and future development of regions, airports could specialise in a specific segment of the
market (e.g. low cost airlines, freight, charters, general aviation). However, various factors, such as the volatility of
markets (bankruptcy of airlines) and infrastructural provisions (regulation on night flights), influence the success of
specialisation.

Questions:

•

Is specialisation an option for further development of the regional airport in your region? If yes, in which
segment?

• What are the pre-requisites for this development?

7. Environmental issues

Methods to reduce the environmental impacts of an airport include restrictions (for example, on flight operations),
regulations, environmental management, financial incentives (charges), emission licences and land use planning.

Questions:

•

•

Does your region have a policy to reduce the environmental impact of your airport(s)?

How important is the environmental impact of your airport(s) compared to the economic and social benefits
related to increased operations?

8. Transparency of airport finance, and guidelines for cross subsidy and government subsidy

The financial situations of regional airports differ within Europe. Often, the financial information and the way in
which an airport operator finances less profitable airports (cross subsidy) are often not transparent. Therefore, it is
difficult to justify when government subsidy is appropriate and essential.

Questions:

•

To what extent do you think that the current European state-aid regulation restricts the development of your
(regional) airport(s)?

9. Definition of regional airports

The Commission should recognize different types of regional airports when defining policy guidelines for the
development of regional airports. The definition could be based on a combination of the following criteria (please
refer to the annex of this document for a potential classification of airports).

C 256/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

Questions:

• What criteria (or combination of criteria) would be appropriate to define and classify regional airports?

•

Based on the possible classification in the annex, which category, in your view, does your airport belong to?

10. Other issues?

Any views you may have on other issues concerned with the capacity of regional airports are welcome.

Appendix: A suggested classification of airports in the European Union

As discussed, the definition and classification of regional airports can be based on their traffic volume, traffic split,
functionality, geographical position and specialisation, or combinations of the above. The following table lists the
potential classification of airports and what functions they have.

Classification

Definition

Note

A. Hub airports

More than 25 million passengers;

* to be defined

Or, airports with International/intercontinen-
tal connections that are more than a certain
percentage (or a certain number)*

B. National airports

More than 10 million passengers;

* to be defined

Or, airports with International/intercontinen-
tal connections that are more than a certain
percentage (or a certain number)*

C. Regional airports: within the European transport networks; potential intermodality centres

C1. Specialised airports

C2. Reliever airports

C3. Airport-system airports

Specialised in express, cargo or low-cost
passenger scheduled operations

Relieve the traffic congestion of hub airports;
Secondary airports

Part of an airport system, either privately or
publicly owned

D. Regional airports: within regional networks; more regional focus

D1. Peripheral airports

Geographically remote airports (based on
their travel
time to the major European
business, political and research centres) or to
hubs

EC should study in which cases
state aid would be appropriate
for these airports under current
regulation

D2. Charter airports

Focus on charter operations

E. Other regional and local airports: (exist only if economic benefits are larger than costs)

E1. Independent

regional air- More than 200 000 passengers

ports

E2. Independent local airports

Less than 200 000 passengers

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/59

APPENDIX 4

to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions

Questionnaire results

To validate the statements made in this Outlook Opinion a questionnaire was developed to establish the needs of the
regions. The results of this questionnaire are discussed here.

1. Ownership structure

Most of the regions that
filled in the questionnaires stated that different governmental authorities like the
municipalities, states or central government own the airports in their region. Scotland indicated that two of their
airports (Glasgow Prestwick and Scatsta) are privately owned. The region Bolzano (Italy) indicates that the airport is
publicly-privately owned with a majority of the shares for the private shareholders. At most airports no major
changes are foreseen in the near future. There is however discussion on a possible change of ownership structure in
most regions.

2. Accessibility of the region

Only the regions that are in the periphery of Europe indicate that there are no alternatives to the air links. These are
the regions such as the north of Sweden and Puglia in the south of Italy. In the other regions there are alternatives to
the air links in the form of rail links (even High Speed Trains in some cases), highways and ferry services. The
accessibility of the region is studied in Sweden, Yorkshire & Humber and in Saarland. Scotland indicated that no
research has been done on the subject of accessibility. The other regions do not indicate if research has been done.
Except again for the north of Sweden and Puglia, the regions indicate that the accessibility of the region can be
increased through the improvement of rail links next to an improvement in air links. For the north of Sweden and
Puglia, the development of more air links is essential for its attractiveness.

3. Competitiveness of the region

All the regions have different forms of development plans for airports. This ranges from designing guidelines for the
airports to designing a comprehensive airport-strategy plan. The airports are included in the spatial planning policy
of the region but in most cases there are no long-term investment plans.

4. Encouraging airlines to call at regional airports

The encouragement of the regions mentioned is political support and the promotion of target routes through
subsidies. The Swedish government has purchased 10 domestic routes to maintain the accessibility to the remoter
regions in Sweden. At these routes the carriers will only fly if the government grants them a certain income.

5. Regional airports in the European policies

There is no consensus among the regions on the importance of inclusion of the regional airports in the TEN. The
opinions vary from low to high importance. There is also some debate on the Structural and Cohesion Funds. The
tendency here is to give the Funds a high importance. The issue of increased security is important for regional
airports. At smaller airports the requirements of increased security come at a very high cost in relation to the security
risk these airports poses on the community. On other issues the European regulation is not seen as a restrictive factor
in the development of regional airports.

C 256/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

6. Specialisation of the airport

Most regions do not see an opportunity for specialization. However, the south of Sweden and Denmark focus on
low cost operations.

7. Environmental issues

The environment is an attention point for all regions. Some regions have separate environmental plans for the
airports. Others regard airports as normal businesses for which the standard environmental rules apply. In general,
the environmental impacts are seen as relatively low and less than the economic benefits generated through the
airport.

8. Transparency of airport finance, and guidelines for cross subsidy and government subsidy

Although most regions find that there is hardly any restriction on the development of regional airports through the
current European state-aid regulation, it is mentioned that the current regulation impedes the development of new
routes in remote areas.

9. Definition of regional airports

Factors that should be included in the definition are:

— The number of passengers

— The number of movements

— The traffic type

— The catchment area.

The definition should be extended to also include airports with less than 200 000 passengers per year.

10. Other issues

Other issues concerned with the capacity of regional airports mentioned are:

— Encouraging technological improvement

— Joint military/civil use

— High costs of surface access provision relative to throughput.

Questionnaire response and contributions

Regions:

Salzburg, Austria

Tirol, Austria

Upper Austria, Austria

County of Aarhus, Denmark

Copenhagen City/Øresundregion, Denmark

County of North Jutland, Denmark

Ribe region, Denmark

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/61

Viborg County, Denmark

Picardie, France

Rhône-Alpes, France

Languedoc Rousillon, France

Saarland, Germany

Saxony, Germany

Saxony-Anhalt, Germany

Bavaria, Germany

Hamburg, Germany

Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany

Provincia autonoma di Bolzanoa, Italy

Marche, Italy

Puglia, Italy

Umbria, Italy

Comunidad de Madrid, Spain

Murcia, Spain

Girona, Spain

Svenska Kommun Förbundet, Sweden

Stockholm City, Sweden

East of England, United Kingdom

Scotland, the United Kingdom

Yorkshire & Humber, the United Kingdom

West Pomerania, Poland

Azores, Portugal