European airport operating cost benchmarking, Quick reference guide

Transcription

1 European airport operating cost benchmarking, 00 Quick reference guide

2 About the European airport study This guide summarises a 05 study of European airport costs, revenues, and operations. It covers a select group of benchmarked operating companies for major European airports (shown at right). It is based on the latest available annual reports in most cases, those from 0. It can be difficult to make accurate and representative cost and revenue comparisons, because some European airports are operated by companies that also engage in other businesses and activities, such as real estate and global travel retail. Publicly reported accounts for these operators do not always split out the financial results for these peripheral nonairport activities. This study compensates for these effects by estimating the required operating cost adjustments. Comparisons of airport operating efficiency are also affected by factors specific to each location, such as labour and utility rates. This study corrects for these effects by estimating factoradjusted operating costs. All values are reported in euros using average 0 exchange rates. The changes in cost levels over time were calculated in local currency and adjusted for inflation. EdinburghEDI Dublin London Heathrow London Gatwick Manchester Stansted Luton Birmingham Oslo Paris Charles de Gaulle Group adjustments required BrusselsBRU Amsterdam Copenhagen Frankfurt MunichMUC Zurich Geneva Year end March Stockholm Arlanda Hamburg Vienna Athens Group adjustments required and year end March All other airports reported as standalone entities with Year End December. Passenger traffic by airport (0, millions) MUC BRU EDI Change in passenger numbers, 00 MUC BRU EDI % % % % 9% % 7% 8% 8% 8% % 8% 9% The benchmarked airports have experienced strong passenger growth, averaging 5 percent, between 00 and 0. However, this rise has been lower than total European passenger volume, which increased by percent (to.8 billion travellers per year) in the same period. Total global passenger volume grew higher still, rising by percent (to billion passengers/year).. ACI World Traffic Report, provisional 0 data.

3 Operating cost per passenger (0, ) MUC. 0 data;. 0 data Changes in operating cost per passenger (00 ) BRU EDI Operating cost performance at benchmarked airports varies widely. Expenses per passenger are influenced by each airport s macroeconomic environment and by differences in operating efficiency. Most selected European airport operators reduced operating costs per passenger in real terms over the fiveyear period. They did so, in part, by improving operating efficiency. Growth in passenger volumes also played a significant role. In contrast to operating cost per passenger, total operating cost increased for of the selected airports over this time period. % EDI MUC BRU % 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% % % % % %. Inflation adjusted;. 00 ;. 00 ;. 0. Factoradjusted operating cost per passenger (0, ) 7% Airport operating costs are affected by local factors, such as market prices. To compensate for these, we adjusted estimates for expenses related to personnel, contracted services, and energy and utilities, indexing everything to the United Kingdom. Figures for every nonu.k. airport except Athens were adjusted down, because of higher personnel and employment costs in these countries relative to the U.K., which outweighed the effect of cheaper energy prices.. Indexes calculated using Eurostat. Delta to unadjusted ( ) MUC. 0 data;. 0 data BRU EDI.5

4 Revenue per passenger (0, ) Airports with the lowest revenue per passenger had the fewest passengers and the lowest aeronautical revenue as a percentage of total revenue. Revenue per passenger was positively correlated with the percentage of transfer passengers, the percentage of premium passengers, and the number of runways. Larger, typically hub, airports have several advantages. Competition for landing space allows them to set tariffs that drive aeronautical revenue, and their larger terminal size can increase nonaeronautical revenue MUC BRU EDI. 0 data;. 0 data. Changes in revenue per passenger (00 ) 7% % %. Inflation adjusted;. 00 ;. 00 ;. 0. Few airports have significantly increased revenue per passenger over the period studied, with the notable exception of Heathrow, which has raised tariffs over the period to generate sustained revenue growth. % % % EBITDA per passenger (0, ) % Change 00 EBITDA per passenger varies greatly from airport to airport but has risen for most facilities since 00, with Heathrow making the largest gains. The EBITDA improvements have, for most airports, been driven by reductions in operating expense per passenger, rather than by increases in revenue per passenger.. 0 data;. 0 data.. Inflation adjusted;. 00 ;. 00 ;. 0. % BRU EDI MUC BRU MUC EDI % BRU MUC EDI 7% 8% % % % % 6% 9% 7% 7% % 9% % % % 8% % %

5 Summary financial benchmarking for selected European airports Airport Year of Latest Report Pax Total Revenue 0 5.9, BRU ,868 0., EDI , ,8., MUC 0 8.7, Note: All data converted to Euros using average 0 exchange rate. Source: 0, 0 and 0 Airports Annual Reports; Strategy& Analysis. Aeronautical Revenue NonAeronautical Revenue , Total Operating Cost , , Key characteristics of selected European airports EBITDA , Total Asset Value, ,058 7., N/A N/A 6, ,6 5.8, , , , ,9 6 5,97 9.5, ,68,89 8., Airport Passengers Transfer Premium Aircraft FTEs % Shorthaul % Long Scheduled Runways Terminals Terminal Pax (%) Pax (%) Movements haul Airlines Size (km ) (K) BRU EDI MUC % % 5 % 9% 7% % 7% % 8% 6% 6% ,878, N/A N/A,06,8 00 6, ,5 5, ,6 7,65 505,06,06,50 7% % 78% % 9% 87% 79% 8% 9 8% 8 87% 98% 8 77% 8% 6% 7% % % 6% 7% 9% % 9% 6% % , , N/A 00. Passengers travelling in premium cabins; ) FTE numbers depend on airport operating model and level of in/outsourcing ): % Shorthaul/Longhaul based on seat capacity. Gates Ownership (% Private) 8% 7 8% 6% 0 69% 9% % 6% 6 6%

6 Strategy& is a global team of practical strategists committed to helping you seize essential advantage. We do that by working alongside you to solve your toughest problems and helping you capture your greatest opportunities. These are complex and highstakes undertakings often gamechanging transformations. We bring 00 years of strategy consulting experience and the unrivaled industry and functional capabilities of the PwC network to the task. Whether you re charting your corporate strategy, transforming a function or business unit, or building critical capabilities, we ll help you create the value you re looking for with speed, confidence, and impact. We are part of the PwC network of firms in 57 countries with more than 95,000 people committed to delivering quality in assurance, tax, and advisory services. Tell us what matters to you and find out more by visiting us at strategyand.pwc.com. London contacts Andre Medeiros Partner Office: + (0) Mobile: + (0) andre.m.medeiros@strategyand.uk.pwc.com John Potter Partner Office: + (0) Mobile: + (0) john.potter@strategyand.uk.pwc.com 05 PwC. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity. Please see for further details. Disclaimer: This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors.