Sunteți pe pagina 1din 724


Airport Development
Reference Manual
9th Edition
Effective January 2004

International Air Transport Association


DISCLAIMER. The information contained in this

publication is subject to constant review in the light
changing government requirements and
regulations. No
subscriber or other reader should act on the basis of
such information without referring to applicable
laws and
regulations and/or without taking appropriate
advice. Although every effort has been made to
accuracy, the International Air Transport Association
not be held responsible for loss or damage caused
errors, omissions, misprints or misinterpretation of
contents hereof. Furthermore, the International Air
Transport Association expressly disclaims all and
liability to any person, whether a purchaser of this
publication or not, in respect of anything done or
and the consequences of anything done or omitted,
by any
such person in reliance on the contents of this
Opinions expressed in advertisements appearing in
publication are the advertiser's opinions and do not
necessarily reflect those of IATA. The mention of
companies or products in advertisement does not
that they are endorsed or recommended by IATA in
preference to others of a similar nature which are

Airport Development Reference Manual

Ref. No: 9044-09
ISBN 92-9195-086-6
© 2004 International Air Transport Association. All rights
Montreal — Geneva


Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................. vii

Chapter A — Introduction
Section A1: lATA's Role................................................................................................................... 3
Section A2: Purpose of the Manual ................................................................................................. 5

Chapter B — Planning
Section B1: Major Planning Processes............................................................................................ 11
Section B2: The Planning Process .................................................................................................. 37

Chapter C — Master Planning

Section C1: Principles ..................................................................................................................... 43
Section C2: Forecasting................................................................................................................... 88
Section C3: Land Use Planning ....................................................................................................... 98
Section C4: Control Towers ............................................................................................................ 103

Chapter D — Airport Economics

Section D1: Airport Management..................................................................................................... 109
Section D2: Airport Cost Structures and Revenue Sources............................................................. 114
Section D3: Airport Investment Decisions and Financing................................................................. 116
Section D4: Aeronautical Charge Policies ....................................................................................... 120
Section D5: International Cost Variations ........................................................................................ 130

Chapter E — Environmental Issues

Section E1: Main Issues................................................................................................................... 137
Section E2: Social and Political Considerations .............................................................................. 141
Section E3: Noise............................................................................................................................. 146
Section E4: Emissions ..................................................................................................................... 152
Section E5: Waste Management...................................................................................................... 155

Chapter F — Airport Capacity

Section F1: Capacity and Level of Service....................................................................................... 159
Section F2: Capacity Definitions ..................................................................................................... 161
Section F3: Airport Systems............................................................................................................. 162
Section F4: Planning Schedule ....................................................................................................... 165
Section F5: Runway Systems ......................................................................................................... 166
Section F6: Taxiway......................................................................................................................... 171
Section F7: Apron ........................................................................................................................... 173
Section F8: Aircraft Stand ............................................................................................................... 174
Section F9: Passenger Terminal Facilities....................................................................................... 178
iATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Section F10: The Airport Scheduling Process ................................................................................. 213
Section F11: Computational Fluid Dynamics.................................................................................... 216

Chapter G — Airport Flight Operations Issues

Section G1: Aircraft Characteristics ................................................................................................ 221
Section G2: Visual Aids.................................................................................................................... 234
Section G3: Non-Visual Aids............................................................................................................ 239

Chapter H — Airport Security

Section H1: General Principles ....................................................................................................... 245
Section H2: Passenger Operations.................................................................................................. 246
Section H3: Cargo Operations ........................................................................................................ 260

Chapter I — Airport Access

Section 11: Roads ........................................................................................................................... 269
Section 12: Rail ............................................................................................................................... 277
Section 13: Intermodality and Airport Access .................................................................................. 282

Chapter J — Passenger Terminal

Section J1: Outline of Principle Functions ....................................................................................... 289
Section J2: Categories of Passenger Terminal ............................................................................... 301
Section J3: Small Airport Terminals................................................................................................. 318
Section J4: Common Systems CUTE & CUSS ............................................................................... 320
Section J5: Airline Communications Networks ................................................................................ 325
Section J6: Passenger Processing Facilities Planning .................................................................... 331
Section J7: Concession Planning..................................................................................................... 340
Section J8: Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 344
Section J9: Check-In ....................................................................................................................... 348
Section J10: People Mover Systems ............................................................................................... 356
Section J11: Passenger Boarding Bridges ...................................................................................... 362
Section J12: Signage ...................................................................................................................... 370

Chapter K — Passenger Facilitation

Section K1: Principles ..................................................................................................................... 385
Section K2: Roles and Responsibilities of Governments/Airlines..................................................... 386
Section K3: Immigration Processes ................................................................................................ 388
Section K4: Customs Processes...................................................................................................... 392
Section K5: Simplifying Passenger Travel ...................................................................................... 396
Section K6: Disabled Passengers and Staff..................................................................................... 400
IATA Table of Contents

Chapter L — Aircraft Parking Aprons
Section L1: Current and Future Aircraft Types ................................................................................ 407
Section L2: Physical and Functional Requirements ........................................................................ 409
Section L3: Gate Stands and Remote Stands.................................................................................. 419
Section L4: Ground Handling Equipment......................................................................................... 426
Section L5: Service Roads & Storage Areas.................................................................................... 433
Section L6: Distributed Electrical Power & Air.................................................................................. 438
Section L7: Aircraft De/Anti-lcing Facilities ...................................................................................... 445

Chapter M — Aviation Fuel Systems

Section M1: Safety Issues................................................................................................................ 453
Section M2: Delivery to Apron ......................................................................................................... 456
Section M3: Storage Distribution Facilities & Processes.................................................................. 458

Chapter N — Contingency Management

Section N1: Aviation Crisis Management......................................................................................... 463

Chapter O — Cargo & Separate Express Facilities Terminal

Section 01: Planning Principles........................................................................................................ 469
Section 02: Forecasting and Sizing.................................................................................................. 471
Section 03: Flows and Controls ....................................................................................................... 487
Section 04: Expedited & Express Cargo Processing........................................................................ 492
Section 05: Perishable Cargo........................................................................................................... 501
Section 06: Mail Faciltities................................................................................................................ 507

Chapter P — Airport Support/Ancillary Facilities

Section P1: Aircraft In-Flight Catering Facilties ............................................................................... 513
Section P2: Aircraft Maintenance..................................................................................................... 516
Section P3: Hotels and Business Centers ....................................................................................... 519

Chapter Q — Landside Facilities

Section Q1: Road System and Curb Arrangements......................................................................... 525
Section Q2: Traffic Studies & Parking ............................................................................................. 530

Chapter R — Airport Commissioning

Section R1: Checklist for the Successful Opening of a New Airport................................................. 537

Chapter S — Future Technologies & Miscellaneous

Section S1: Future Technology Systems......................................................................................... 549
Section S2: Developing & Adopting Future Technology................................................................... 551
Section S3: Interfaces — People & Cultural Issues ........................................................................ 553
iATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Chapter T — Airport Processes
Section T1: Terminal Processes ..................................................................................................... 557
Section T2: Apron Processes........................................................................................................... 560
Section T3: Support Processes........................................................................................................ 562

Chapter U — Airport Baggage Handling

Section U1: Baggage System User Requirements........................................................................... 567
Section U2: Departures Systems .................................................................................................... 573
Section U3: Transfer Systems ......................................................................................................... 613
Section U4: Early Baggage Processes............................................................................................ 618
Section U5: Arrivals Baggage Systems ........................................................................................... 622
Section U6: Control Systems .......................................................................................................... 631
Section U7: Management Information Systems (MIS)..................................................................... 634
Section U8: Oversized Baggage...................................................................................................... 638
Section U9: Sort Allocation Computer (SAC) .................................................................................. 641
Section U10: Baggage Hall Design.................................................................................................. 647
Section U11: Hold Baggage Screening ........................................................................................... 651
Section U12: Passenger & Hand Baggage Screening .................................................................... 659

Chapter V — IATA Airport Project Process

Section V1: Concept/Feasibility/Detail Design/Commissioning/Handover....................................... 669
Section V2: Project Cost Management............................................................................................. 677
Chapter W — Anti-Terrorism and Police Facilities
Section W1: Terminal Building Considerations................................................................................ 685
Section W2: Pier Area Considerations............................................................................................. 688
Section W3: Airfield Area Considerations........................................................................................ 690
Section W4: Airport Police Facilities ................................................................................................ 692

Chapter X — Airport Fire Services

Section X1: Fire Response Category............................................................................................... 697
Section X2: Fire Response Services & Equipment ......................................................................... 699

Chapter Y — Networks
Section Y1: Frontline Operational and Security................................................................................ 705
Section Y2: Building Services ......................................................................................................... 710

IATA gratefully acknowledges the technical assistance and input provided by IATA
Members and the
IATA Members Document Review Panel:
Air France Ms. Catherine Lafond
American Airlines Mr. Eduardo Juranovic
British Airways Mr. John Conlon
FEDEX Mr. Jim Sartin
KLM Mr. Hans Smeets
LOT Polish Airlines Mr. Dariusz R.Sawicki
Northwest Airlines Mr. Bob Lamansky & Ms. Yasuko
Qantas Hashimoto
Swiss International Air Lines Ltd. Mr. Derek Sharp
Mr. Davor Frank
Text and Diagram Contributions:
Airbus Industries
Airport Design Associates (ADA) Mr. Sebastien Lavina
APS Aviation Inc. Mr. Rick Stevens & Mr. Alan Clayton
ARINC Mr. Jean Valiquette & Mr. John D'Avirro
Boeing Aircraft Corp. Mr. Edward King
Davis Langdon Everest Mr. Brad Bachtel
Fabricom Airport Systems Mr. Tony Potter
HDP Group Mr. David Reynolds & Mr. Chris Owens
International Air Rail Organisation Mr. David Langlois & Mr. Jeremy Hill
Mott MacDonald Consultancy Mr. Andrew Sharpe
Netherlands Airport Consultants B.V. Mr. Chris Chalk
(NACO) Mr. Huib Heukelom
Norman Shanks Associates International Mr. Norman Shanks
Ove Arup & Partners Mr. Graham Bolton & Mr. Tony Barker
SITA Mr. Graham McLachlan &
Mr. Peter Dalaway & Mr. Rene Azoulai
Swiss International Air Line Ltd. Mr. Davor Frank
Sypher Mueller Mr. Gordon Hamilton
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual


Chapter A — Introduction
Section A1: lATA's Role
A1.1 IATA......................................................................................................... 3
A1.2 IATA Airports Activities ............................................................................ 3
A1.3 Other IATA Airports Activities................................................................... 4
Section A2: Purpose of the Manual
A2.1 Scope of the Airport Development Reference Manual ............................ 5
A2.2 How to Use the Manual............................................................................. 6

ÊATA Airport Development Reference Manual



International air transport is one of the most dynamic and fastest-changing industries in the world. It
needs a responsive, forward-looking and universal trade association, operating at the highest
professional standards. IATA is that association.
Originally founded in 1919, IATA brings together approximately 280 airlines, including the world's
largest. Flights by these airlines comprise more than 98 percent of all international scheduled air
Since these airlines face a rapidly changing world, they must cooperate in order to offer a seamless
service of the highest possible standard to passengers and cargo shippers. Much of that cooperation
is expressed through IATA, whose mission is to "represent, lead and serve the airline industry".
Continual efforts by IATA ensure that people, freight and mail can move around the vast global airline
network as easily as if they were on a single airline in a single country. In addition, IATA helps to
ensure that Members' aircraft can operate safely, securely, efficiently and economically under clearly
defined and understood rules.
IATA is pro-active in supporting the joint industry action essential for the efficient development of the
air transport system. lATA's role isto identify issues, help establish industry positions and communicate
these to governments and other relevant authorities.
The Airports and Infrastructure Consultancy Services section of IATA, positioned in the SO&I Division,
works to put this theory into practice.


IATA Airports and Infrastructure Consultancy Services is responsible for influencing airport planning
and development projects worldwide to ensure that airline requirements are met with respect to
appropriateness, efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
It produces guidelines on airport planning and design, such as this manual, and actively promotes
airline user requirements to airport authorities through Airport Consultative Committee (ACC) activity
and commercial airport consultancy services on airport projects worldwide.
The section works to assist airlines in the development of airport facilities that will meet airline
requirements in a cost-effective manner. The mandate of the section is:
To take a leadership role in influencing airport planning and development worldwide in order to
achieve safe and efficient, capacity balanced, cost-effective, functional and user-friendly airports.
Major activities of the section are defined within subsequent clauses A1.2.1 through to A1.2.3 inclusive.

A1.2.1 Airport Consultative Committees

Consultation with airport authorities via the Airport Consultative Committee (ACC) mechanism brings
together the airlines' airport planning expertise, together with the IATA secretariat, in meetings with
airport authorities worldwide. ACCs serve as a focal point for consultation between airlines and airport
authorities concerning the planning of major airport expansions or the development of new airports.
The airports selected for such intervention are determined by Regional Airport Steering Groups in
Asia/Pacific and Europe.

iATA Airport Development Reference Manual

A1.2.2 Airport Consultancy Services

IATA offers a wide range of Airport Planning and Development Consultancy services. It brings a
global perspective to the projects it undertakes, drawing on its extensive in-house expertise and its
unique access to airline experts and other specialists. Typical clients include airport authorities, private
airport owners, airlines, governments, manufacturers, suppliers to the industry, consulting firms and
other parties involved in airport infrastructure decisions.
IATA can act as an independent consultant or provide a review of detailed work undertaken by
specialised consulting firms.

A1.2.3 International Industry Working Group

The IIWG brings together IATA, Airports Council International (ACI) and the International Coordinating
Council of Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA). The IIWG was founded in 1970 and its main
goal is to review airport/aircraft compatibility issues which might improve the development of the air
transport system.


In addition to the Airport Planning and Development activities of IATA, which this Manual addresses,
IATA is active in many other Airport related areas such as User Charges, Fuel, Ground Handling,
Security, Passenger Services and Environment.
For more information on the full range of lATA's Airport related activities, please visit
Consulting enquiries should be addressed to:
IATA Introduction



The IATA Airport Development Reference Manual (ADRM) is the industry's most important guide for
airlines, airports, government authorities, architects and engineering consultants who are either
planning new or extending existing airport facilities. The ADRM's information is an invaluable
consolidation of best industry practice with respect to the development of world class airports through
better design. Its content represents the consolidated recommendations of world-renowned industry
specialists and organizations seeking to promote the development of world-class airport facilities.
The ADRM has been completely revised since the previous (8th) edition. These revisions and new
content additions reflect recent changes within the civil aviation industry, and include entirely new
chapters dedicated to security and anti-terrorism issues in particular. In addition to this, specific
commercial issues have been discussed and recommended practices for running airport projects
have been developed. These address the need for authorities to run projects efficiently as they seek
to create unique airport environments through world class design. Environmental issues have also
been updated, primarily to promote savings in operational costs for airports which would then be
passed-on to lATA's member airlines.
This latest evolution of the ADRM also incorporates IATA Recommendations (IRs) at the end of each
content section. These recommendations have been included to focus the airport operator and
designer on lATA-determined best practice design principles, and to help convey the expectations
of the world's major airlines with respect to the development or refurbishing of airport facilities.
To foster overall ease-of-use and help the airport planner to locate key information within the ADRM,
the six chapters of the previous edition document have now been divided into twenty five more concise
content sections.
The following new chapters with multiple sections have been included to broaden the coverage and
scope of the publication and provide further essential airport planning guidance:

• Airport economics.
• Contingency management.
• Airport commissioning.
• Future technology & miscellaneous items.
• Airport processes.
• IATA airport project process.
• Anti-terrorism and police facilities.
• Airport fire services.
• Networks.

MTA Airport Development Reference Manual


This ADRM should be used by airport planners worldwide as the primary source of best practice
airport design guidance. In certain instances specified within the relevant clauses of this ADRM, it is
advised by IATA to refer to further external supplementary international or national publications to
aid the airport planner. Seeking additional guidance from the sources listed below will help the airport
planner to ensure that best and safe practices are adhered to and built into the airport design and
that national standards are observed and implemented where appropriate.
IATA recognizes that national standards will vary from region to region across the world. While the
ADRM should be the initial source of design guidance for airport developments, the airport designer
should seek to clarify national mandatory standards and decide appropriately on any potentially
conflicting standards. Professional engineering and architectural guidance should be used to assess
and resolve areas of conflict between the ADRM standards stated herein and any supplementary
national standards.
In the event that professional guidance is not sought and used for this adjudication, which is not a
recommended course of action, then the designer should seek to use the higher more onerous
standards in areas of uncertainty. Particular reference should be made to national air transport and
nationally recognized design standards, as well as to any pertinent national legislation or construction
codes, as deemed applicable within the region.
The ADRM should be used in conjunction with the national legislation pertaining to the country where
the airport resides. Examples of typical national legislation for consideration for the countries of
Canada, United States of America and the United Kingdom include:
• International and national government aviation and security authorities, to include (but not limited
International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO), European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC)
Federal Aviation Authority-Transport Security Administration (FAA-TSA), United Kingdom
Department for Transport (DfT) and Transport Canada-Canadian Air Transport Security
Authority (CATSA).
• National and international legislation defining best design engineering practice to include (but not
limited to) standards published by:
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), British Standards Institute (BSI), International
Standardization Organization (ISO).
• Engineering Standards Codes of Best Practices published by:
Architectural: Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA).
Engineering: Institute of Civil Engineers, Institute of Structural Engineers (IStructE), Institution
of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE).
Building Services: The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE).
Fire Mitigation Engineering: Institution of Fire Engineers (United Kingdom/Canada).

IATA Introduction

For general information regarding the standards defined within this manual please refer to:
Mike O'Brien
Director, Airport Development and Infrastructure Consultancy Services
International Air Transport Association (IATA)
800 Place Victoria, P.O. Box 113
Montreal Quebec Canada.
airportdev @
Fax+1 (514) 874 2662
For consultancy assistance please refer inquiries to:
Chris Mirfin
Director, Infrastructure Consultancy Services
International Air Transport Association (IATA)
800 Place Victoria, P.O. Box 113
Montreal Quebec Canada.
Fax +1 (514) 874 2662

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Chapter B — Planning
Section B1: Major Planning Processes
B1.1 Airline Participation................................................................................. 11
B1.2 Airport Consultative Committee (ACC) ..................................................... 11
B1.3 Key Planning Items .................................................................................. 15
B1.4 "World-Class" Airports .............................................................................. 23
B1.5 Typical Features of World-Class Hub Airport ............................................ 24
B1.6 IATA Global Airport Monitor ..................................................................... 31
B1.7 IATA Facilities Planning Questionnaire..................................................... 32
B1.8 IATA Recommendations............................................................................ 36
Section B2: The Planning Process
B2.1 National Planning Considerations ........................................................... 37
B2.2 Regional Planning Considerations ........................................................... 38
B2.3 The Airport Master Plan ............................................................................ 38
B2.4 Local Community Issues .......................................................................... 39
B2.5 IATA Recommendations............................................................................ 39

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual




As airlines are the primary users of airports and are a major source of revenue for airport authorities,
it is essential that their requirements in respect of airport development projects are met effectively
and at an acceptable cost. Experience has shown that the most useful and mutually beneficial course
of action when considering airport development projects is to establish full, joint consultation between
the airlines and an airport authority and its consultants. This should be undertaken as early as possible
in the planning and design process, in order to allow operational impact assessments and/or cost
benefit analysis to be determined and, if required, alternative solutions to be presented and discussed.
The IATA forum for this consultation is the Airport Consultative Committee (ACC).
IATA has forecast that passenger traffic will double in the next 12-15 years and it is estimated that
over $400 billion will be spent worldwide to expand and upgrade airport facilities. The IATA ACC
process is effective in ensuring that as many new airport facilities as possible are efficient, capacity
balanced, cost effective, functional and user-friendly. In 2003, about two dozen ACCs were active
mainly in Europe and Asia Pacific.
IATA strives to obtain information as soon as possible regarding any proposed international airport
development projects from Airline Operators Committees (AOC), Board of Airline Representatives
(BAR), and other sources. Upon receipt of such information, IATA will contact the national airline and
the planning specialists of the major airlines operating to that airport to determine if there is sufficient
interest in the proposed airport project. If there is sufficient interest, IATA will endeavour to obtain
the agreement of the airport or government authority concerned for consultation with the airlines on
all aspects of the proposed development. Once the principle of joint consultation has been agreed,
an ACC will be established.
If it is not practicable to establish a formal ACC, the principle of airline and airport authority consultation
on a local level are still valid. In such consultation, the principles and practices outlined in this manual
should still be followed.


B1.2.1 ACC Objective

The objective of an ACC is to consolidate airline views and to provide a focal point for consultation
between the airlines and the airport authority concerning the planning of a major airport expansion
or a new airport in order to input airline functional requirements.
The ACC will consolidate airline views and provide a focal point for consultation between the airlines
and airport authorities concerned in the planning of major airport expansion projects or new airports
in order to input airline considerations. When considering proposals for new or additional airport
facilities, ACC members must constantly bear in mind that capital and subsequent maintenance and
operating costs of airport developments will be ultimately reflected in user charges. Furthermore,
airline operating costs are often adversely affected by inefficient airport design orterminal construction.
In the analysis of an airport development project, the ACC will ensure that it provides additional
capacity to meet present and projected demand in a cost-effective manner.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

B1.2.2 ACC Formation

An ACC will normally be formed under the guidance of IATA in consultation with the Regional Airports
Steering Group (RASG) and the Regional Co-ordinating Group (RCG — where flight operations
related matters are concerned, e.g. a new runway or new airport). If there are only one or two airlines
interested in the development of a particular airport, an IATA Mission may be conducted to the specific
location instead of convening an ACC. Normally, IATA will participate directly in ACC meetings and
will maintain close contact with its activities at all times.
It should be noted that ACC activity must be separate from AOC activity because of the scale of the
projects involved and the facility planning expertise required.

B1.2.3 ACC Membership

Membership on the ACC is open to all airlines serving the airport involved. Airline Headquarters will
be invited to nominate either a suitably qualified planning specialist or their local representative to
participate in ACC meetings. The level of expertise required will be dependent upon the scope of the
project concerned. If the number of airline representatives attending an ACC meeting is very large,
the Committee may elect a limited number of delegates to meet with the airport authority and act on
behalf of all carriers.
Today, nearly all airlines are engaged in some form of partnership, code share, or marketing
agreement. These have led to the formation of alliances among the world's major carriers. Four or
five global alliances dominate the airline industry, each with a need to rationalise its requirements to
create the most efficient airport operations possible. In order to best achieve their needs, global
alliances may consider the appointment of a single representative to oversee the needs of that
To ensure that local airline views and requirements are included in the ACC proposals and effect
appropriate co-ordination, the AOC will be invited to nominate a representative to participate in all
ACC meetings. It will be the duty of this AOC representative (usually the AOC Chairman) to keep
the full AOC informed of all ACC deliberations. At airports with multiple terminal operations, individual
terminal AOC Chairman will be invited to participate.
The local Board of Airline Representatives (BAR) will be invited to nominate a representative to
participate in all ACC meetings.
Because the ACC is the primary forum for consultation with the airport authority on all aspects of
airport expansion programs, it may be necessary to obtain participation of airline representatives from
other related disciplines where specific problems exist, as follows:
• Facilitation — Facilitation representatives may be requested to participate regarding Customs
and Immigration matters that affect airport terminal design and passenger/cargo flow.
• Security — A security advisor is assigned to an ACC early in the terminal planning process to
provide input on security matters, which may affect terminal design.
• Flight Operations — If ACC discussions are likely to involve flight operations matters (e.g. new
runway, taxiways, docking guidance systems, etc.), the respective IATA Regional Coordinating
Group will be requested to nominate a suitably qualified representative to participate in ACC
meetings. A specialist working group of the ACC may be formed to undertake detailed studies
of flight operational matters.
• Fuel — Efforts in this area are directed at monitoring jet fuel costs world-wide and trying to secure
reductions — particularly in cases where costs are inflated by local supply or handling monopolies,
or by government taxation.
IATA Planning

• Cargo — Expertise is available pertaining to all air cargo areas.

• User Charges — As airport development projects normally impact on airport user charges, a
representative of the User Charges Panel (UCP), may be requested to participate in the early
planning stages of major airport projects. Airport Development and User Charges staff jointly
liaise regarding locations where UCP participation is appropriate.

• Air Transport Action Group (ATAG)

The Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) is a coalition of organisations from the air transport
industry, formed to press for economically beneficial aviation capacity improvements. ATAG is a
leading proponent of aviation infrastructure development, advocating the economic benefits of
air transport, the industry's excellent environmental performance, and the need for major
improvements in airport surface access and air traffic management capacity.
ATAG's worldwide membership includes airlines, airports, manufacturers, air traffic control
authorities, airline pilot and air traffic control authorities, chambers of commerce, tourism and
travel associations, investment organisations, ground transport and communication providers.
Recognising that its goals need to be consistent with environmental expectations, ATAG:
• Emphasizes the air transport industry's progress in minimising environmental impact.
• Promotes the environmentally responsible growth and development of air transport.

B1.2.4 ACC Scope

The ACC is mainly concerned with airport infrastructure developments, strategic planning issues and
the associated capital expenditure (CAPEX) programme of the airport. These include, but are not
limited to:

• Airport Master Plan — includes airport layout and land use.

• Aircraft Parking Apron — aircraft layout and related docking guidance systems.
• Passenger Terminal — planning and design of new terminals or major expansions of existing
• Airside and Landside Infrastructure & Surface Access Systems.
• Cargo Terminal Developments — air freight and air express facilities.
• Airport Support Facilities — e.g. cargo terminals and flight kitchens.
ACCs will concentrate on achieving a rational balance between:
• The level of service provided for both passenger and cargo in their respective terminal areas and
fields of operation.

• The long term facility footprint and land area requirements for all parties operating at an airport.
• The need for efficient, cost-effective ground handling operations and the increased facility,
resource and equipment requirements to support multiple handlers.

• Increasing demand and airport capacity improvement programmes.

• The impact and need to allocate global airline alliances within a single operating area or terminal.
• The proposed capital investment and the resultant operating cost to airlines over an agreed
• The need to increase concession areas and resulting revenues, and the potential impact on
passenger flows and airline operations.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

• The differing needs of international carriers compared with those of domestic carriers, charters
and emerging low-cost carriers (LCCs).
ACC activity will include an assessment of the capacity of existing facilities and a comparison against
current and projected demand. The ACC will seek as much financial information as possible to
facilitate an economic assessment of various planning options in terms of layout, space requirements,
labour, equipment, etc.

B1.2.5 ACC Method of Operation

Once consultation between the airlines and airport authority has been agreed, IATA will request
copies of the proposed airport development plans to circulate to participants in advance of the first
ACC meeting. If this is not possible, then the initial ACC meeting with the airport authorities includes
a detailed presentation of the proposed plans.
The ACC will then meet independently to analyze the plans and develop an airline position including
alternative proposals regarding the proposed project. The ACC recommendations, which reflect the
majority point of view, are presented verbally to the airport authority following the internal closed
session. Every effort is made to resolve airline differences of opinion and to agree to a joint unified
position. Presentation of the airline position is made by a suitably qualified spokesperson or if desired,
by the IATA representative. The ACC recommendations are subsequently confirmed to the airport
authority in writing by IATA.
ACC meetings normally take place at the location of the proposed project. In certain circumstances,
it may be preferable for a working group meeting to be conducted at an alternative site, which is
convenient to a majority of participants. The dates of all proposed ACC meetings are usually co-
ordinated to ensure adequate airline representation.
The ACC shall decide if and when specialist ACC working groups, and/or sub-consultants should be
employed to study and resolve detailed problems. This is particularly important where very large
airport development projects are concerned (i.e. new airports) and specialist expertise is required for
specific subject areas (i.e. terminals, apron/operations, baggage handling and cargo working groups).
Each working group is expected to develop its own routine and procedures, however it is responsible
to the full ACC and must report to the ACC through the Chairman and IATA . IATA will only participate
where this is felt to be necessary to progress activity. If working group proposals vary significantly
from that approved by the ACC, details and reasons for such must be substantiated by the group to
the next ACC so that they may discuss and resolve differences of opinion. These WGs will be dissolved
when a solution is found or when a satisfactory answer to a problem cannot be found.
IATA can employ ACC Project Managers on behalf of member airlines to more effectively monitor
airport authority Capital Expenditure programmes. This position recognises the need for continuous
airline consultation, as distinct from what may be limited consultation provided by formal and infrequent
ACC meetings. The airlines may request the creation of an ACC PM position through the ACC, who
will discuss the arrangements for airline funding and the budget to be allocated for the position.

B1.2.6 Regional Airports Steering Groups (RASG)

IATA Regional Airports Steering Groups are multi-disciplinary bodies of airline representatives
established in Europe and Asia/Pacific. They meet twice a year to review airport developments within
their regions. The review includes:
• Review of airport development activity in the region.
• Updating the Core Document, which contains a profile of the main airports in the region.
• Status report of ACC activity within the region.
• Review of proposals for new ACCs.
• Determining the need for an IATA Mission as a first step in establishing an ACC.

IATA Planning

• Determining the need for airport traffic forecasts.

• Setting the priorities for future ACC activity in the region.

Membership of the RASG meetings is taken from active participants in the regions' ACC activities.
This includes representation from airport planning, operations and scheduling disciplines. In addition,
the RCG Chairman, User Charges Panel (UCP), Facilitation, Fuel, Environment and Security
disciplines, and selected industry working groups such as ATAG, may also be invited to participate.

B1.2.7 Co-ordination with Other Groups

The User Charges Panel is responsible for representing the IATA airlines in negotiations with airport
authorities regarding the charges for the use of the airport, including but not limited to landing
fees, terminal building charges, passenger-related elements, lighting charges, air traffic control and
monopoly-type user charges. It is therefore very important that the activities of ACCs and the UCP
are closely co-ordinated so that the UCP is fully aware of costs emerging from ACC discussions to
assist them in future negotiations with airport authorities regarding user charges.
Airport authorities often misunderstand the difference between an ACC and an AOC. For information
on the establishment of an AOC please see the guidelines for the establishment of the AOC in the
IATA Airport Handling Manual AHM 073. These committees are concerned with the day-to-day
operation of the airport for which they are established. Usually, information concerning a proposed
airport development is first received from the airport authority at AOC meetings
Liaison between the AOC and ACC is continuous and therefore the chairman or a representative of
the AOC is invited to be a member of the ACC and participate regularly in all ACC meetings. ACC
representatives must ensure that their local airport managers are fully briefed regarding the work
covered at each ACC meeting and the planned action for future meetings.


This section provides an initial overview of the main considerations in any airport planning and
development activity. Further detail on each of these elements is provided in later sections of the
manual. These items impact the airport layout and the passenger terminal design and are considered
to be of major importance by the airlines. These key planning items include:
1. Runway/Taxiway Layout.
2. Road/Rail Access.
3. Terminal Design.
4. Check-in Hall.
5. CUTE.
6. Signage.
7. Security.
8. Baggage Handling System (BHS) including Hold Baggage Screening (HBS).
9. Airline Offices.
10. Airline CIP Lounges.
11. Terminal Retail Space.
12. Departure Gate Lounges.
13. Baggage Claim Hall.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

1. Meeter/Greeter Hall.
2. Apron Layout.
3. Aircraft Servicing Installations.
4. Location of Support Facilities.

B1.3.1 Runway / Taxiway Layout

Runway capacity is the most critical component at an airport. It largely depends upon the number of
runways and their layout and spacing, the runway occupancy times of successive aircraft and the
approach spacing applied by ATC to successive aircraft in the traffic mix.
The key items that affect runway capacity are a combination of:
• Availability of exit taxiways particularly Rapid Exit Taxiways (RETs) to minimise runway occupancy
• Availability of a dual taxiway system.
• Appropriate taxiway, holding bays and access.
• Aircraft mix/performance.
• ATC procedures and wake vortex approach spacing.
• Availability of A-SMGS systems during low visibility operations.
Where there are two or more runways, capacity is critically dependent upon the following aspects of
the utilisation and configuration:
• The spacing between parallel runways.
• The mode of operation; i.e. segregated or mixed.
• The intersecting point of intersecting runways.

B1.3.2 Access to the Passenger Terminal

The public road system and the non-public or service road system should be planned carefully in
order to avoid congestion near the passenger terminal. Traffic for the support facility areas of the
airport should be handled on a separate road system so that truck traffic can be kept away from the
main road to/from the passenger terminal.
All public roads should be clearly signposted. Clearly visible signs should be positioned on the roads
and on the terminal curbside areas well in advance of desired destinations to allow drivers to make
the necessary adjustments without abrupt changes. Signs should be properly lighted for night use
and lettering and background colours should enhance clarity and visibility. Messages should be
concise, quickly identifiable and easily understood. Colour coding for multi-terminals, airlines, car
parks, etc. is recommended.
Car park locations should be close to the passenger terminal. The connection between the car park
and the terminal should have weather protection and provide a safe environment with adequate
Arrival and departure curbside should provide large weather protected areas for passengers getting
out of and into vehicles. It should provide dedicated areas for taxis and buses. Curbside check-in
facilities may be required in some airports.

IATA Planning

High speed rail systems should be considered for airport access. The increasing use of rail systems
should be encouraged by making it as widely available and as attractive as possible in terms of
relative speed, reliability, price, convenience, safety and comfort. The airport rail station should be
above ground, if possible.
If the airport is located close to the city centre and the city already has a subway system, then
consideration should be given to extending it to connect the airport to the existing public transportation

B1.3.3 Basic Considerations of Terminal Design

The design of passenger terminals must be related to the runway/taxiway system, apron configuration
and the airport access system. The extent and location of these areas are governed by the master
plan of the airport.
Certain basic criteria should be observed in the planning of passenger terminals and the selection
of a terminal concept. All terminals should be interconnected to allow for horizontal passenger flows,
and where walking distances may be too long for fast transfers then provision of powered walkways
or other people mover systems should be considered.
Provision for multi-alliance hubbing should be respected, allowing for different alliances to be located
strategically under a one-roof terminal concept. As alliances are not a stable element in planning, an
appropriate factor of flexibility will need to be incorporated into any terminal space planning. In
situations where future growth or even the diminution of a terminal's size can be accommodated,
tremendous advantages in operational continuity will be seen.
Other terminal design criteria include:
• Easy orientation for the travelling public approaching the terminal and within the buildings (self-
explanatory traffic flow and human dimensions).
• Shortest possible walking distances from car parks and rail station to the terminals and more
importantly, from passenger/baggage processing facilities to the aircraft and vice versa.

• Minimum level changes for passengers within the terminal buildings.

• Avoidance of passenger cross-flows.

• Shortest possible distance for the transportation of passengers and their baggage between the
terminals and the aircraft parking positions when walking is not possible.
• Compatibility of all facilities with existing aircraft characteristics and built-in flexibility to accept
future generations of aircraft, as far as possible.
• Design should be modular to cope with future expansion of each subsystem, or to allow evolution
in regulations and changes in the nature of passenger flows and alliance groupings.

• Terminal design must meet all regulations for handling disabled persons.

B1.3.4 Check-in Hall

The passenger terminal layout is largely influenced by the check-in concept, which is designed and
installed by the airport authority. It is essential therefore that airlines and handling agents be consulted
at an early stage in the planning process.
The airlines' acceptance of passengers and their checked baggage takes place at the check-in facility, 25
which consists of a number of check-in counters with appropriate outbound baggage conveyance
facilities. Check-in counters may be either of the frontal type or of the island type. Within each of the
two main types of counters, several variants exist.
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Frontal type counters may be arranged in an uninterrupted, linear layout or be spaced so as to allow
passengers to pass between the counters after check-in (pass-through layout).
Island type counters are suitable for centralised check-in. Each island, the axis of which is orientated
parallel to the flow of passengers through the terminal concourse, may consist of up to 16-18 individual
check-in counters. The number of check-in counters per island can be doubled if two main baggage
conveyor belts are installed in parallel back to back. Normally 26m separation (face-to-face) between
adjacent islands is recommended.
The distance passengers must carry their baggage to the closest terminal check-in point should be
kept to a minimum.
Baggage trolleys should be available on the curbside, in the car park and at the railway station.
Departure flight information displays must be available within the check-in area as well as information
Consideration should be given to the latest automatic self-service check-in kiosks with a view to
maximising security, using biometrics, and minimising passenger check-in wait times.

B1.3.5 CUTE (Common Use Terminal Equipment)

Common Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE) is an airline industry term for a facility, which allows
individual users to access their host computer(s). The basic idea of the CUTE concept is to enable
airlines at an airport to share passenger terminal handling facilities. This includes such areas as
check-in and gate counters on a common use basis, enabling airlines to use their own host computer
applications for departure control, reservations, ticketing, boarding pass and baggage tag issuance,
etc., at such counters. CUTE may also be installed in airline offices (if cost justified).
CUTE provides potential savings to the airlines and airport authorities by increased utilisation of
check-in counters and gate space, thus lessening the need for airports to build additional counters
and gates. It may also permit an airline to automate its check-in and departure control functions when
costs of installing its own equipment would be either too high or precluded by another system or
equipment already installed, or not permitted by the airport authority.
The CUTE vendor should be selected in cooperation with the airlines. The system may be provided
either by the airport authority or directly to the airlines.
A Flight Information Display System (FIDS), connected to an Airport Operational Database (AODB)
should be provided and should be connected to the airlines host computer in order to provide all the
users at the airport with accurate real time information.
A powerful Local Area Network (LAN) infrastructure should be provided to allow data, video and voice
transmission in both public and administrative areas of the passenger terminal.

B1.3.6 Signage
A well-conceived signposting system will contribute considerably to the efficient flow of passengers
and traffic at the airport. It is therefore essential to consider the signposting system in the early
planning and concept evaluation stages. The signage system may be a combination of fixed (boards,
panels) and dynamic (monitors) signage. The signage system should be clearly separate from
Airline brand name and logos should be clearly visible, allowing passengers to easily find the airline
check-in or ticketing facilities.
Ideally, the passenger terminal building should incorporate self-evident passenger-flow routes through
the building, but where signs are required they must provide a continuous indication of direction.

IATA Planning

The primary purpose of an airport signposting system is to move the travelling public through a myriad
of roadways and corridors using a concise and comprehensible system of directional, informational,
regulatory, and identification messages.
Consistent use of standard terminology in airports (including pictograms) will simplify the process of
making the transition from the ground mode to the air mode (and vice versa) for the travelling public.
It is important for signposting systems to adhere to a basic guideline of copy styles and sizes,
consistent terminology, recognisable and universally acceptable symbols, and uniform colours for
standard functions. Message content must be understandable by the unsophisticated as well as the
sophisticated traveller. Signposting should be in "mother tongue" and English.

B1.3.7 Security
Security requirements must be taken into account in all new development, re-development and
refurbishment of airports, as stated in ICAO Annex 17. To do this, it is necessary to have clear
government security standards which can be used by airport planners in such a way as to maintain
the integrity of the local security programme, yet allow sufficient flexibility for them to be matched to the
circumstances of each airport and its operations. Security requirements must be realistic, economically
viable and allow for a balance to be made between the needs of aviation security, safety, operational
requirements and passenger facilitation.
Airlines and airport authorities should take note of the latest information on this subject in the IATA
Security Manual and should ensure that due allowance for the related requirements, including costs,
is made in all airport terminal and apron development plans.
A centralized or semi-centralized passenger and carry-on baggage security check point design is
favoured. They must be properly sized, and manned, in order to avoid long queues.
The design of the outbound baggage handling system must account for 100% Hold Baggage Screening

B1.3.8 Baggage Handling System

Baggage handling has become such a significant element of passenger processing that the baggage
system is of major importance to a smooth airline operation at the airport. The baggage handling
system must be able to sort large numbers of bags quickly and with a high degree of performance
reliability. With larger capacity aircraft anticipated in the next few years, the automated baggage
system will become the most critical system in the airport terminal.
The baggage system to be installed must be considered early in the passenger terminal design
process. Certain terminal concepts may require highly automated and costly systems, while others
may need only simple conveyor belts. Where automated distribution and sorting systems are
contemplated, it is generally desirable to select the baggage handling systems supplier early in the
project. This will enable the baggage handling supplier to participate in the system and facility design
process, thereby avoiding expensive redesign and time consuming delays during construction and
The following principles will contribute to an efficient baggage handling system:

• Baggage flow should be rapid, simple and involve a minimum number of handling operations.
• Baggage handling arrangements within the building should be consistent with apron arrangements
and with the type and volume of traffic expected.
• Baggage handling systems should incorporate the minimum number of turns and level changes
as is practicable within the terminal design.

• Baggage flow should not conflict with the flow of passengers, cargo, crews or vehicles.

fATA Airport Development Reference Manual
Provision should be made for the forwarding of transfer baggage to the departure baggage sorting
Flow on the apron should not be impeded by any form of physical control or check.
Space for 100% HBS should be provided.
Facilities for oversized baggage must be provided.
Check-in take away conveyors should be provided at each counter.
Plans for fallback handling in case of failure should be provided with all baggage handling systems.

B1.3.9 Airline Offices

Airline passenger processing support offices are required in close proximity to the check-in counters.
The amount of space required by each airline and/or handling agency will vary depending upon such
factors as volume of traffic ortype of handling service performed. Airlines will also require administrative
and additional offices located in other areas of the terminal with convenient access to the passenger
processing areas. Airline support offices are also required in the airside concourses close to their
aircraft operation areas. The individual airline space requirements may be obtained using the
questionnaire and procedure shown in Figure B1.3 at the end of this section.

B1.3.10 Airline CIP Lounges

At many international as well as domestic airports, the airlines have a marketing requirement to
provide special lounges to accommodate their Commercially Important Passengers (CIP). This airline
requirement has grown significantly in recent years to become a major customer service element in
the way airlines handle their CIP passengers and set themselves apart from their competitors. Most
airlines will require generously sized spaces for their exclusive use lounges. These lounges should
be located on the airside of the terminal building and preferably on the departures level, with convenient
access to the airlines' departure gates.
Larger airlines will tend to combine their exclusive requirements into multiple function rooms
differentiated by passenger categories (First Class, Business Class and others). These larger spaces
normally require their own exclusive toilets and showers, and access by elevators and/or escalators.
Also it should be noted that with the growth of airline alliances many future CIP mega-lounges will
be shared by several airlines. Details of the airline space requirements for such lounges at a specific
airport may be obtained using the questionnaire and procedure shown in Figure B1.3.

B1.3.11 Terminal Retail Space

Recent surveys on airports show that passengers want, and expect to see, shopping facilities at
airports where they can browse when they have sufficient time. At some larger airports up to 10-12%
of the terminal area is now dedicated to airport shops. With passengers willing to spend large amounts
of money on airport shopping, concession revenues can provide the airport with up to 50-60% of
their total airport revenues. The airlines support the airport authorities in their plans to expand airport
concessions provided:

• The commercial revenue earned by the airport authority is used to reduce aeronautical charges.
• The accessibility and accommodation for these facilities must be arranged so that maximum
exposure to the passenger and visitor can be accomplished without interfering with the flow of
passenger traffic in the terminal. 70-80% of retail concessions should be located airside.

IATA Planning

B1.3.12 Departure Gate Lounges

The departure gate lounge area should be an open area, allowing passenger circulation. There
be seating in the area for 70% of passengers. This includes seating at F&B (food & beverage)
concessions. It should be a quiet environment, with an apron view, where passengers can relax,
work or enjoy themselves. It should include facilities such as working positions with modem/internet
and power connections, TV sets, smoking areas, children's play areas and retail and food

B1.3.13 Baggage Claim Hall

The baggage claim hall is the area in the terminal where passengers reclaim their baggage off
flights. Claim units of a re-circulating type allow the passengers to remain stationary, while their
are delivered to them. Separate claim units should be available for over-sized baggage.
Passengers have high expectations that baggage delivery will be efficient and they will not have to
wait an unreasonable amount of time to collect their bags. Once the first bag is delivered on the
carousel or racetrack, passengers expect a steady flow of bags until the last bag is delivered on the
claim unit.
An 11-13m separation between baggage claim units is recommended to allow enough space for
passengers, trolley storage and circulation. A sufficient number of baggage trolleys should be
at the entry to the baggage claim hall.
When passengers off international flights leave the baggage claim hall, they will pass through
inspection. Customs should use red/green channels to speed up the flow of exiting passengers.

B1.3.14 Meeter Greeter Hall

Once passengers have claimed their bags and passed through Customs formalities, they enter the
Meeter/Greeter Hall where they can get organized before leaving the terminal. A well-designed
entranceway or corridor out of Customs in to the Meeter/Greeter Hall is required to allow arriving
passengers to avoid the congestion of greeters around the exit doors. Once in the hall, arriving
passengers may purchase local currency before proceeding to the curbside, car park or the train
station. Many arriving passengers are welcomed on arrival by friends or family and a meeting point
should be part of the design for the meeter/greeter hall. Important features of the meeter/greeter hall
• Meeting Point.
• Toilets.
• Currency Exchanges.
• Food and Beverage (F&B) facilities.
• Car Rental counters.
• Hotel and Tourist Information counters.
• Bus and Rail Information counters.
• Clear signage to taxis, buses, rail station and car parks.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

B1.3.15 Apron Layout

The key aspects of aircraft stand availability are:
• The number of stands provided for different types/sizes of aircraft.
• The availability of these stands as influenced by occupancy times.
• The flexibility of stands to handle different types/sizes of aircraft throughout the day.
• The ease of aircraft circulation and manoeuvring, including push back.
Other important issues, relating to service standards, are:
• Which terminal(s) are served by the aircraft stands.
• Whether the aircraft stands are terminal contact or remote.
Increasing importance is placed by airlines upon terminal gate stands because they provide for
rapid and comfortable handling of passengers, avoid the need for buses, and enable faster
and shorter connection times.
Service roadways should be clearly marked, with the width of each lane able to accommodate the
widest piece of ground equipment.
Areas such as equipment staging and parking must also be clearly marked.

B1.3.16 Aircraft Servicing Installations

Fixed aircraft servicing installations reduce apron congestion and permit shorter servicing periods.
However, where the apron is used by a variety of aircraft, and with wide variations in aircraft
points, it is recommended that only the basic services catering to the majority of aircraft be
Initial installation cost and the difficulty in adapting to changes in aircraft design preclude more
comprehensive installations, except possibly in the case of certain aircraft stands used exclusively
by one airline.
Hydrant fuelling systems are preferred over mobile tankers, as they permit faster turnarounds.
However, a decision to install any fixed aircraft servicing system should take place only after a
and comprehensive appraisal of the economic (return on investment) prospects has been made.
economic viability of such systems depends on a large variety of operational factors and should be
assessed only in close co-operation and agreement with the headquarters specialists of the airlines
serving the airport.
The following is a list of fixed aircraft servicing installations:
• Hydrant fuelling system.
• Electric power system (400 Hz).
• Electric power system (50/60 Hz).

IATA Planning

In the provision of fixed installations, the following should be borne in mind:

• Cables/hoses between the aircraft and the installation should be as short as possible and should
not cross one another.

• Operation of the fixed installations should in no way impede other aircraft servicing functions.
• Pits, hydrants and other facilities connected with the fixed installations should not impede the
flow of apron traffic.
• Fixed service installations should, as far as possible, be located close to the corresponding outlets
on the aircraft and there must be close liaison between the airlines, the airport authority, the
fuelling companies and other suppliers concerning all aspects of design and installation.

B1.3.17 Location of Support Facilities

Cargo terminals, flight kitchens, and aircraft maintenance facilities should be located close to the
terminal apron area so that service vehicles will travel relatively short distances. The location of
support facilities must take into account future expansion plans of the airport as shown in the airport
master plan.

B1.4 "World-Class" AIRPORTS

The IATA Global Airport Monitor (see section B1.6) and several other Passenger Surveys, which are
published annually, show how passengers have rated major airports around the world. The top rated
airports usually have airport layouts that allow for efficient airline operations and passenger terminal
designs that are passenger-friendly. These airports are called "World-Class" Airports.

B1.4.1 Key Characteristics of a World-Class Airport

A world-class airport should meet the needs of its customers — the passengers and the airlines. The
following lists show the items that passengers and the airlines consider important when rating an

B1.4.2 A Passenger Viewpoint:

1. Easy access to/from the airport by road and rail.
2. Short walking distances from curbside to check-in and from check-in to aircraft gate, with no level
changes. Similarly short walking distances from the aircraft to the baggage claim area and then
from Customs to the curbside or the rail station.
3. Attractive architecture and landscaping to provide a pleasant, relaxing atmosphere.
4. Short queues at all check points such as check-in, security, passport control and boarding.
5. Good aircraft on-time departure performance.
6. Fast baggage delivery and ample baggage trolleys.
7. Clear and concise signage.
8. Good variety of retailers.
9. Attractive CIP lounges conveniently located near the aircraft gate.
10. Good selection of moderately priced eating establishments.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

B1.4.3 An Airline Viewpoint:

1. A master plan that optimises the location of key functions on the airport and allows for orderly
2. A runway layout that maximises runway capacity and allows adequate space for apron and
terminal expansion.

3. A runway and taxiway layout that minimises aircraft taxing distances.

4. An apron layout with energy efficient aircraft ground support equipment, sufficient and well-located
staging areas for baggage, cargo and ground equipment with enough space for several ground
handlers, and no cul de sacs (dead ends) that impede aircraft manoeuvring.
5. An attractive work place for airline staff, but with a terminal that doesn't put architectural design
ahead of an efficient airline operation and a terminal that provides sufficient and suitably located
airline accommodation space including the needs of alliance airlines.
6. A passenger terminal building with an efficient outbound/transfer baggage sortation system that
also supports short MCTs (minimum connecting times).
7. A passenger terminal that allows 90% of passengers to use passenger boarding bridges, with
aircraft parking on remote stands using buses to meet peak demand, and short walking distances
for commuter aircraft.
8. Excellent airport shopping for airline passengers that doesn't interfere with passenger flows
between the check-in area and the aircraft gate, and yet provides the airport with commercial
revenues that help reduce airline user charges.

9. An airport with reasonable user charges.

10. An airport authority that can see the mutual benefits of working with the airlines in planning major
facility changes.


It should be noted that for an airport to become a world-class airport more than just good facilities
are required. The airport staff should be friendly and the public areas of the passenger terminals,
especially toilets, must be clean. Also, airline and government processes must allow passengers to
move quickly through the terminal building, from the departures curbside to the aircraft door and from
the aircraft door to the arrivals curbside.
To guide airport authorities towards becoming a world-class hub airport, the following is a checklist
of generic criteria that must be met:

B1.5.1 Geographic / Political Location

• A medium to large sized airport with international, regional and domestic traffic.
• Regionally competitive in terms of costs, facilities and convenience.
• Geographically situated along a major world air-route, or at the cross roads of more than one
world air route.
32 • Geographically located in a catchment area of substantial O&D traffic.
• Healthy regional and national economic growth.
• No political restraints to commercially acceptable bilateral agreements.
• No environmental constraints on aircraft operations.
IATA Planning
B1.5.2 Airspace / ATC (Air Traffic Control)
No restrictions on airspace capacity.
No conflict with other close airports or military traffic restrictions.
No threat to schedule integrity or reliability from airspace or ATC issues.

Airfield and Infrastructure

Runways and other airfield facilities able to handle all traffic demands.
Runway capacity routinely in excess of 75 movements per hour.
No limiting curfews.
All-weather operations.
Regular and reliable transport links to closest major city; a rapid rail service is the preferred
option, if economically viable.
Adequate private car parking at reasonable cost — including long-term parking with shuttle bus
Capacity to handle large traffic peaks with high activity during the peaks.
Reliable airport services/utilities such as power supply, water supply, fuel supply.
Spacing of runways, taxiways, taxilanes to allow Code F aircraft operations.
Dedicated locations for competing ground equipment parking and container storage racking.

Passenger Terminals
Sufficient airport and terminal facilities to allow airlines to meet their own airline service standards
at a reasonable cost (see Figure B2.1 for airline service standards that need to be converted into
physical airport facilities).
IATA Level of Service C or better should be attained (subject to acceptable capital cost and
resultant operational cost limitations) — Refer to Section F9.1.2
Apron configuration and capacity to not inhibit scheduling and to allow airline alliance proximity
parking for hubbing operations.
Apron services available — aircraft fuelling, ground power.
Competitive MCTs (Minimum Connecting Times). MCTs must be competitive with competing
regional airports. Adequate facilities to allow single airlines or alliance airlines to complex flights
within published MCT.
Sufficient aircraft stands to meet peak demands — buses to remote stands. 90-95% of passengers
(on an annual basis) should be served by a passenger boarding bridge.
Terminal facilities to accommodate complex peak demand.
Inter-terminal passenger and baggage transfer systems.
Intra-terminal walking distances minimized.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

• A choice of competing passenger, baggage, ramp and engineering handling agencies.

• Ability to allow airlines to self-handle if required.
• Government agency processing times to world standards.
• Automated baggage sortation systems with high peak hour reliability and flexibility to cope with
high levels of transfer baggage. In-line HBS system is preferred option.
• FIDS systems throughout terminal.
• CUTE systems at check-in areas as well as at the boarding gates.
• Airside and landside retail outlets at High Street prices, or better.
• Sufficient terminal space to allow airline alliances to consolidate their space requirements.
• Logical flow and proximity between check-in counters, airline CIP lounges, and departure gates.
• Sufficient space for airlines to lease administrative offices, CIP lounges and staff amenities.

B1.5.5 Air Cargo & Air Express Terminals

• A choice of competing freight and catering handling agencies.
• Direct access from the cargo and express terminals to the cargo apron.
• Sufficient freighter parking positions, with tether pits (nose wheel tie-down to maintain aircraft
balance during loading and unloading).

B1.5.6 User Charges

• Sufficient airport and terminal facilities to allow airlines to meet airline service standards at a
reasonable cost.

• Transparent pricing mechanisms on "single till" basis (refer to Chapter D).


B1.5.7 Conclusions
It is a challenge for an airport authority to meet all of the planning criteria required to become a 'world-
class' airport. Nevertheless, it is important that airport authorities and their airport planning consultants
are aware of the airline industry's views on airport service/planning excellence.
The following tables on Airport Passenger Terminal Planning Standards summarize airline
requirements for a 'world-class' passenger terminal:



Planning Element Planning Standard Recommended

for Typical Busy Day Practice
Airport Access 90% of passengers can access the Express train service should be
airport available
within 30 - 45 minutes of the CBD. every 15 - 20 minutes.
Employee transportation plan is
Check-in Hall Business Class - Maximum Queuing Time Island layout is preferred. 16-18
of 3-5 min. counters
Economy Class - Maximum Queuing Time per side.
of 15-20 min. Separation distance between islands
Tourist (Charter/ No Frills) Class - of 24-
Maximum Queuing Time of 25-30 min. 26m.
For additional information on T1 JFK counters - a "benchmark"
minimum and design.
maximum check-in waiting times, refer CUTE (Common Use Terminal
to Equipment)
Section F.9.8 Table 9.7. system where a clear financial
Space - for passengers waiting up to 30 rationale for
minutes. 1.8 m2 per international its implementation is apparent.
passenger. 1.3 m2 for domestic Special counters for handling over size
passengers, Incl. Inter-queue space baggage.
and Automated baggage system using
baggage trolleys. Refer to Section IATA 10
F9.1.3. digit LP bar code tags or RFID (Radio
Seating for 5% of passengers. Frequency Identification) tags.
In-line HBS (Hold Baggage Screening)
system. BRS (Baggage Reconciliation
System) preferred.
Ticket counters at head of each island,
located close-by, with space for back
Security Screening Maximum Queuing Time of 3-5 min. & safe.
Space for passengers waiting up to
minutes. 1.0 m2 per passenger.
Refer to Section F9.10.3
Outbound Passport Control Maximum Queuing Time of 5 min. Introduction of biometrics will
Space - for passengers waiting up to speed up
10 processing.
minutes. 1.0 m2 per passenger.
Refer to Section F9.10.2
CIP Lounges 4m2 per passenger Preferred location for lounges is
airside in
normal passenger flow between
and aircraft gates. Size sufficient to
shared by Alliance partners
Departures Lounge Space - 1.2m2 per passenger standing &
1.7m2 per passenger seated.
Seating for 10% of passengers where
passengers do not have to wait; 60%
passengers do have to wait.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual



Planning Element
Planning Standard Recommended
for Typical Busy Day Practice
Departure Gate Lounges Space - 1.2m2 per passenger standing WB aircraft should be parked close to
& the
1.7 m2 per passenger seated main PTB to reduce the walking
Seating - 70% of passengers should distances
have for largest numbers of passengers.
access to seating, including seating at Gate lounge should include podium
F&B counter
(food & beverage) concessions. close entrance to PBB & include CUTE
Walking Distance Maximums of 250 - system with 2 boarding pass readers
300m unaided & 650m with moving for
walkways (of which not more than aircraft larger than type C, a document
200m printer & boarding pass printer.
unaided). Shared baggage facility (shutes/freight
APMs for travel over 500m. elevator to apron level) at the gate
Passenger Boarding Bridges 90 - 95% of passengers (on an Apron drive bridges with 400 Hz fixed
annual ground power, air conditioning &
basis) will be served by a passenger potable
boarding bridge. water attached.
PBB justified with minimum of 4-6 Glass-walled bridge preferred.
aircraft Code 'E' aircraft - one or two bridges
operations/day. 'NLA' aircraft - one bridge to upper
deck &
one bridge to main deck.
Aircraft docking guidance system.
Ramps (with slope not exceeding 1:12)
should be used to connect the PBB
with the
departures gate lounge (upper level)
Aircraft On-Time Performance Sufficient land for twin independent
2,000m separation) staggered parallel
runways (3500 - 4000m length x 60m
width) with space for 2 additional
parallel runways.
Inbound Passport Control Maximum Queuing Time of 10 min. Introduction of biometrics will
Space - for passengers waiting up to speed up
30 processing.
minutes. 1.0 m2 per passenger.
Refer to Section F9.10.2

IATA Planning



Planning Element Planning Standard Recommended

for Typical Busy Day Practice
Baggage Claim Hall Sufficient numbers to be provided to
Wheel stop to Last Bag -
allocate at least one 85m baggage
Business Class claim
NB-15mln. unit per B747 flight. Refer to Section
WB-20 min. Separate device(s) for handling over
Economy Class size
NB - 25 min.
An 11-13m separation between
WB - 40 min. baggage
Space -1.7m2 per passenger claim units
(excluding Sufficient baggage trolleys to be
baggage claim unit) available
Refer to Section F9.10.6 on entry to the baggage claim hall.
ATMs (Automated Teller Machines)
Inbound Customs Recommended use of
Meeter Greeter Hall Easy access to train station
Space -1.7m2 per passenger &
20% of space for seating.
Passenger Arrival- Wheel stop to Business Class - passenger on the
Curbside curbside 20-25 minutes after
ICAO recommended practice aircraft
is 45 minutes Economy Class - passengers on the
curbside 40-45 minutes after
Wayfinding The PTB should incorporate self-
passenger flow routes through the
but where signs are required they
provide a continuous indication of
Signposting system should use a
concise &
comprehensive system of directional,
informational, regulatory &
messages. It should adhere to a basic
Airline Offices 10m2 per staff member guideline of
Sufficient copytostyles
space lease&tosizes,
Rule of Thumb - airlines &
# check-in counters x 100 m2 Alliances.
Located landside reasonably
close to
Clearly signposted.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Planning Element Planning Standard Recommended

for Typical Busy Day Practice
Passengers with Disabilities Airport facilities must comply with
laws and regulations.
Retail/Concessions Airport Authority should obtain 50 -
60% of
total airport revenue from
70-80% of retail concessions should be
located airside.
Retail/concession facilities should not
interfere with passengers flows
MCT - (Minimum Connecting Time) check-in and the departure gate
Domestic-Domestic - 35-45 min.
Domestic-International - 35-45 min.
International-Domestic - 45-60 min.
International-International - 45-60 min.
Refer to Section U1.2.6 for specific
baggage connecting times.
Transfer Counter - Maximum Queuing
Time of 5-10 min.
Space - for passengers waiting up to
minutes. 1.2 m2 per passenger, incl.
queue space and baggage trolleys.

Refer to Section F9.1.3.

Seating for 5% of passengers.

IATA Planning


The Global Airport Monitor is a customer satisfaction benchmarking programme that analyses the
perceptions of international, domestic and transborder travelers and provides an up-to-date marketing
index to measure the service quality of participating airports. This benchmarking tool explores
passengers' 'on-the-day' experience of an airport on a wide range of service elements on a worldwide
The questionnaire is distributed to passengers in the departure lounges (airside) 30-45 minutes prior
to departure. Each airport receives approximately 350 questionnaires per quarter. If an airport needs
a more robust sample by segment, e.g. Transborder/Domestic or per terminal for more detailed
analysis, an increased sample size is constructed. The survey is carried out according to a precise
sampling plan constructed with the airport management, ensuring the sample is representative of the
airport's traffic mix.
The questionnaire covers 24 airport service attributes and 4 airline service elements as well as
demographic/ travel and connecting passenger profile. The 24 airport service attributes include:
1. Ease of finding your way through the airport/ signposting.
2. Flight information screens.
3. Availability of flights to other cities.
4. Ease of making connections with other flights.
5. Availability of baggage carts.
6. Courtesy, helpfulness of airport staff (excluding check-in).
7. Restaurant/ eating facilities.
8. Shopping facilities.
9. Business facilities (i.e. computers, internet).
10. Washrooms.
11. Passport and Visa inspection.
12. Security inspection.
13. Customs inspection.
14. Comfortable waiting/ gate areas.
15. Cleanliness of airport terminal.
16. Speed of baggage delivery service, (previous experience).
17. Ground transportation to/ from airport.
18. Parking facilities.
19. Sense of security. 39
20. Ambience of the airport.
21. Overall satisfaction with airport.
22. Value for money for restaurant/eating facilities.
23. Value for money for shopping facilities.
24. Value for money for parking facilities.
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Each year IATA publishes the results of the Global Airport Monitor surveys conducted at major
around the world. Figure B1-2 shows the rankings of the Top 10 Airports from 1998-2002.

Figure B1-2: Rankings of Top 10 Airports from 1998-2002

Singapore Copenhagen Singapore Dubai Dubai

Helsinki Singapore Sydney Singapore Singapore
Manchester Helsinki Helsinki Copenhage Hong Kong
Melbourne Vancouver Hong Kong n Copenhagen
Geneva Manchester Copenhagen Seoul Kuala Lumpur
Zurich Kuala Minneapolis St. Incheon Seoul Incheon
Amsterdam Lumpur Paul Helsinki Athens
Copenhagen Cincinnati Manchester Sydney Vancouver
Montreal Perth Vienna Athens Cincinnati
10 Mirabel Amsterda Birmingham Hong Kong Sydney_________
Orlando m Vancouver Bermuda
Hong Kong Vancouver

For information on the IATA Global Airport Monitor contact


At an early stage in an airport project, specific airline space and facility requirements must be
determined. The recommended document for obtaining this required information is the IATA Facilities
Planning Questionnaire. See FIG. B1.3 at the end of this chapter.
It must be anticipated that the contents of the questionnaire may not be completely applicable at all
airports, but it is expected that the basic document can be used at all locations, with suitable notes
indicating items which should be ignored, deleted or possibly added. Therefore, before circulation,
the airlines and the airport authority should agree both on the sections to be used, and any variation
in their content. IATA will arrange the circulation of the questionnaire to all airlines operating at that
airport, and to non-airline handling agencies (where applicable) requesting completion in as much
detail as possible and return to IATA for consolidation and subsequent presentation to the airport
authority. Responses from each airline are kept confidential.
Estimates of rental rates for leasing space should be available to the airlines early in the planning
process. The rental rates usually affect the amount of space that an airline will request. If rates are
high, the airline may reduce its space requirements.
At airports where more than one terminal building is involved, it may be necessary to complete
separate questionnaire sections for each building.
Requirements associated directly with staff numbers should be based on the maximum number of
staff on duty on a particular shift. Care should be taken not to use cumulative figures of total staff
employed, although provision must be included for shift changeover, when assessing car parking
requirements, locker room areas, etc.

Figure B1-3: IATA Facilities Planning Questionnaire
Estimates for planning purposes only — not a commitment to rent the required space
Airline:_________________________________ Planning Years_____________to ______________


1.1 Passenger Baggage Handling

Do you intend to perform your own passenger baggage handling function? YES / NO
— If "NO" state name of handling agency/airline now used__________________________________
— If "YES" indicate whether in full or part. FULL / PART
— If "PART' indicate which functions you intend to perform and which are to be performed by the
handling agency/airline:

Function Peformed by Handling Agency

If Self If Yes Name of
Handling Agency/
Function Tick (✓) Tick (✓) Airline
Ticket Sales
Passenger Check-in
Seat Allocation
Load Control
Passenger Boarding Control
Baggage Sorting
Flight Operations
Crew Briefing

1.2 Apron Handling

Do you intend to perform your own apron handling function? YES / NO
— If "NO" state name of handling agency/airline now used

— If "YES" indicate whether in full or part. FULL / PART

— If "PART' indicate which functions you intend to perform and which are to be performed by the
Function Function Peformed by Handling Agency
If Self Handling Name of
If Yes Agency/
Tick (✓) Airline
Baggage/Cargo Tick (✓)
Aircraft Push-back
Aircraft Catering
Aircraft Cleaning
Aircraft Toilet Service
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

1.3 Cargo Handling

Do you intend to perform your own cargo handling function? YES / NO
— If "NO" state name of handling agency/airline now used

— If "YES" indicate whether in full or part. FULL / PART

— If "PART' indicate which functions you intend to perform and which are to be performed by the
handling agency/airline:

Function If Self- Function Performed by Handling Agency

Handling Name of
Tick (✓) If YeTick K) Agency/
Goods acceptance/paperwork
Cargo processing
Container/Pallet build-up
Aircraft loading
Aircraft unloading
Container/Pallet breakdown
Cargo processing
Customer contact/paperwork
IATA Planning


2.1 Passenger Terminal

State your existing facilities and requirements for the forecast years specified above. Airlines
to be handled by third parties should only specify those requirements which would not be provided
by the handling agent.
Staff Desired Existing Requirements Requirements
Function Location Facilities Year Year
No. Check-in Counters

No. Self-Service
No. CUSS Kiosks
Check-in ___
Support Offices 7
No. Ticket/Sales
(not included above)
Administrative Offices m' m' m*
Operations Offices nf nf m'
VIP/CIP Lounge m^ nV m<
Communications nrr* m< m*
Facilities (specify)
Line Maintenance m< m< rtf
Ground Equipment m' m<
Other (specify)

Joint Use of Facilities

Indicate below whether your airline is prepared to share any of the facilities below with another airline
or agency.

Facilities Tick K) if Prepared to Share

Yes No
Check-in Counters
Ticket/Sales Counters
Departure Baggage System
VIP/CIP Lounge

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

2.2 Support Facilities

Function Staff Desired Existing Requirements Requirements
Location Facilities Year Year
Aircraft Maintenance m m m^
Ground Equipment m m tvf
Aircraft Catering m m
Other (specify) m m

2.3 Cargo Terminal (Exclusive Airline Space Only)

Function Staff Desired Existing Requirements Requirements
Location Facilities Year Year
Storage Area ITf m n?
Processing Area m* m nf
ULD/Equipment rrf rtf ttf
Storage Area
Office Space m< m<
Bonded Area m m mJ
Other (specify) m m m/


Experience has shown that the most effective and mutually beneficial course of action for the
airlines is to establish consultation with the aiiport authority and its consultants as early as
possible to explore alternative airport plans and terminal concepts. An ACC (Airport
Committee) is the forum to consolidate airline views and to provide a focal point for consultation
between the airlines and the airport authority concerning the planning of a major airport
or a nf;w airport, in order to input airline functional requirements. A successful ACC has major
benefits for both the airlines and the airport authority. Where formation of an ACC is not
due to resource limitations, airports should still have a regular detailed dialogue with the
airlines and handling agents

The Aiiport Passenger Terminal Planning Standards table summarizes airline requirements
for a "world-class" passenger terminal. An airport authority should ensure that its consultants
planning the airport terminal incorporate these planning standards and recommended practices
into the design of the airport passenger terminal.

IATA Planning



It is advisable for national governments to develop a strategic planning objective for the medium and
long-term development of airports within their national jurisdiction. The strategic proposal should look
at existing air traffic control as well as runway and terminal capacities and then should define strategic
objectives for the phased expansion or development of new or existing airports.

An example whereby this holistic strategic approach has been well adopted can be cited by the British
government (Department for Transport), which created and developed The South East and East of
England Regional Consultation Document. This specific paper was based on the results of the South
East and East of England Regional Air Services (SERAS) Study. This document included proposals
for different amounts of new runway capacity as well as options that limit development in the South
East of England at a strategic level. While the SERAS document is specific to the region in question,
it does demonstrate the necessary level of governmental strategic thinking that is required and
represents an excellent benchmark in this regard for governments worldwide.

Generally the formal planning sequence which is followed is denoted by the following stages. It should
be noted that national government planning sequence variations are likely to occur:

Stage 1. Review of Governmental National Planning Strategy for ATC/Runways/Airport Infrastructure.

Stage 2. Preparation of Initial Master Plan for Proposed International/Regional Airport.

Stage 3. Review of Local Community's Sensitivities.

Stage 4. Refinement of Master Plan.

Stage 5. Planning Application.

Stage 6. Planning Appeal (as necessary).

Stage 7. Planning Decision.

The national plan should be developed in consultation with all airport operators, national and
international commercial interests, airlines and IATA, and should address the following issues for the
perceived 30 year development period:

• National commercial and political objectives where government and financial institutions seek to
expand regions within a nation for development or continued expansion.

• Existing airline routes and the viability of new routes.

• Ecological and environmental impact of airport and flight operations to new or expanded existing

• Commercial impact studies on existing airports, airlines and handling agents, including those
pertaining to cargo operations.

• Rail and road impact studies.

• Impact on existing and future aircraft traffic movements.

• Commercial impact on local businesses and employment rate variations.

• Social impact on residential areas surrounding the airport.

• Identification and impact on areas of natural beauty, historic sites and religious monuments.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Methods that may be employed to access the national airport planning document should be published
in appropriate press and government information sources. The document itself should be a realistic
interpretation of the facts developed by a wide cross section of the airport and airline industry, as
well as local community representatives. The document should include but should not be limited to
the following detailed sections:
• Statement of airport development needs for the nation.
• National and regional business development needs.
• Social needs and relevant impact statement.
• ATM national development plan.
• Airport to rail and road national development position statement.
• National airport development plan.
• High level funding options for national airport development alternatives.
• List of contributors to the text.


The regional planning paper should be a more regionally focused and detailed derivation of the
national planning document. Typically, a regional area would contain no more than two large or
medium sized airports within its boundary. The concepts presented need not be detailed construction
solutions, although expert civil, structural and specialist engineering advice is still required so that
any solutions proposed can be realistically developed when need be. These might include:
Statement of airport development needs for the region.
Regional business development needs.
Regional social needs and impact statement.
ATM regional plan and national overview.
Rail and road infrastructure solutions to aid airport development plan.
Regional airport development plan and study (concept options).
Airport regional development plan objectives and option recommendations.
Regional airport development funding options.
List of contributors to the text.


The airport master plan is an airport-specific document which fulfills the objectives and requirements
of the national and especially the regional airports plan. The concept option recommendations within
the regional plan are produced for a specific airport, and should technically be more developed and
expanded upon. Typically, the master plan document should be developed as a 30 year forecast of
development options which would include the following topics:
46 • Airport development long term phased objectives.
• Concept variations (normally 3 or more sub options developed).
• Social and environmental impact statement and recommendations.
• Runway development plan and recommendations.
IATA Planning

• Cost plan restraint objectives.

• Construction programme constraints.
• Energy consumption targets.
The airport master plan should be used as a tool in the earlier stages of negotiations with the local
planning authority to explain the level of impact the various options would have, and to help generate
a forum for the authority's concerns as well as those of the local community. The document should
support the subsequent formal planning application produced during the ensuing feasibility design


The local community will be concerned with a variety of issues and will include groups in favor of
and less than amenable to future airport development. It is important that the developer addresses
and listens to the concerns and issues raised by the community. The developer should endeavour
to reduce uncertainty and misunderstanding by engendering regular and clear communication
channels with local community groups. Often the local community can make valuable suggestions
which, although simply a fine detail to the airport master planner, may be very important to the local
community as a whole. Indeed, detailed suggestions can and often are put forward by community
groups which might have little cost impact, but which can also dramatically improve living and working
conditions in the area.
The following issues should be addressed via regular discussion with local community groups:
• Confirmation of night flight movement schedules resulting from proposed development plans.
• Development of further runway plans.
• Development of terminal and infrastructure facilities.
• Noise reduction plans.
• Environmentally sensitive land issues.
• Construction period strategies to minimize disturbance.


B2.IR1 National and Regional Planning Documentation

It is recommended that governments develop National and Regional planning documents in
accordance with clause B2.1 and clause B2.2 respectively.
Regional planning documents should be a natural progression from any National planning
strategy documentation developed in consultation with all interested parties.

B2.IR2 Master Plan

When developing and producing airport master plans it is recommended that airport developers
follow the philosophy and approach defined within clause B2.3 and that economic and local
community issuon are discussed and fully addressed

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

B2.IR3 Local Communications

The developer should endeavour to reduce uncertainty and misunderstanding by maintaining
open, clear and courteous channels of communication with representatives from affected local


Chapter C — Master Planning

Section C1: Principles
C1.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 43
C1.2 The Master Plan — Ten Step Sequence .................................................. 46
C1.3 Step 1 — Stakeholders and Objectives................................................... 47
C1.4 Step 2 — Site Evaluation ....................................................................... 47
C1.5 Step 3 — Airfield Configuration ............................................................... 51
C1.6 Step 4 — Runway Orientation ................................................................ 67
C1.7 Step 5 —Aprons....................................................................................... 68
C1.8 Step 6 — Taxiway Systems..................................................................... 70
C1.9 Step 7 — Passenger Terminal/Apron Complex Configurations ............... 74
C1.10 Step 8 — Alignment of Terminal Building and Piers to Service Stands .. 76
C1.11 Step 9 — Alignment and Provision of Support Processes...................... 77
C1.12 Step 10 — Aircraft Maintenance.............................................................. 77
C1.12 Step 10a —Cargo ................................................................................... 78
C1.13 Master Plan Deliverable — Preliminary Land-Use Layouts ..................... 78
C1.14 IATA Recommendations.......................................................................... 86
Section C2: Forecasting
C2.1 Introduction and Forecasting Definition ................................................ 88
C2.2 Objectives of Forecasting....................................................................... 88
C2.3 Forecast Data......................................................................................... 89
C2.4 Segmentation ........................................................................................ 91
C2.5 Demands and Trends.............................................................................. 92
C2.6 Forecasting Methodology....................................................................... 94
C2.7 IATA Recommendations ......................................................................... 97
Section C3: Land Use Planning
C3.1 General Introduction.............................................................................. 98
C3.2 Long Term Vision ................................................................................... 98
C3.3 Assessing Noise....................................................................................... 99
C3.4 Land Use Within Noise Zones ................................................................ 99

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

C3.5 Land Use Management........................................................................... 99

C3.6 Land Use Control ................................................................................... 100
C3.7 Airport Land Use Planning ...................................................................... 101
C3.8 IATA Recommendations ......................................................................... 102
Section C4: Control Towers
C4.1 Purpose Overview.................................................................................. 103
C4.2 Design Characteristics ........................................................................... 103
C4.3 Control Tower Position............................................................................ 105
C4.4 IATA Recommendations ......................................................................... 106




The airport master plan is created to guide the future development expectations of airports and to
establish their ability to expand and develop in a logical, sustainable and cost effective manner. Airline
market forces are discernibly linked to the master plan development proposal; i.e. as airport traffic
increases the facility's development and operations should be phased to provide the appropriate
airport processes and sized infrastructure. Should an airline's operations fluctuate, then the master
plan should also contain the flexibility to be able to respond accordingly.
Master plans can be created for new or existing airport locations and should be considered as active,
live documents which should be systematically reviewed at least every 5 years. This regular review
and update process should address variations in market forces and the operational requirements of the
facility's airline clients. Existing master plans can be revised to accommodate unforeseen commercial
variations to the airport's or airline's operations.
The master plan will provide a detailed and accurate assessment of how an airport should deliver its
services to its airline and ground handling clients in an effective and controlled manner, with due
consideration for safety, development costs and the resultant realistic cost and profit recovery
In this section the major attributes and details of an airport master plan are discussed. The master
plan ten point staged sequence is also provided for planners who may find themselves faced with
'blank canvas' airport development proposals. This sequence has been compiled to help airport
planners systematically construct the master plan, giving due attention to the primary and secondary
facilities being proposed and their subsequent placement on the airport site.

C1.1.1 Development Restrictions

There can be both natural and artificial restrictions which may limit the extent of future airport
development. These need to be determined at the beginning of the planning process so that all parties
are aware of any constraints that may impact on future capacity development.
Restrictions may cover environmental boundaries on over-flight of neighboring countries or towns,
political limitations on adjacent airport growth that may adversely distort or influence development,
planning conditions that may limit airline and aircraft operations, restrictions that may determine
aircraft type or time of operation, or limits on noise and quantity of emission levels that should not
be exceeded.
There may also be topographical or man-made features that restrict operations or impose payload
limits on certain aircraft types. Such restrictions can be removed but this usually comes at a significant

C1.1.2 Capacity Constraints and Developments

It is important for airport operators to know what currently constrains their airport capacity. If the
constraint is an operational process deficiency or an infrastructure provision deficiency or both, it needs
to be understood fully before the decision to expand or change the airport process or infrastructure is
made. If no constraints currently exist then they must look to the future and predict when individual
facilities or support infrastructure will fail to provide the required level of service. The reality is that
improving and expanding facilities can often be very costly. As airport operational costs will ultimately
be cascaded to the primary business partners of the facility, airport development expenditure should
be justified with a detailed supporting business case defining the reasons why airport growth should
be provided.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

C1.1.3 Planning Horizons

Traditionally, the long-term planning horizon for airports extended no further than 20 years. IATA now
views this as being too short-sighted. Airport authorities should always endeavour to look to the
ultimate development potential and capacity of their site. Ultimate development potential may be
determined when the runway system is saturated, though in other instances stand availability or the
capacity limits of passenger terminals, support facilities or land-side access systems may be the
determining factor. Local considerations may confine development ambitions within the boundaries
of the airport perimeter.
Airport authorities and companies must determine the maximum or ultimate capacity possible that
can be adequately served by the existing and potential future apron and terminal provision. This
knowledge should be at the core of the airport master plan for each airport.

C1.1.4 Improving Operational Efficiency and Flexibility

Airport operators and airlines should in the fist instance look at the extension of existing facilities
rather than the construction of separate new facilities that may duplicate all or part of their current
The design of new facilities should be as flexible as practically possible, with a building's layout and
construction techniques promoting variations in the operational usage of the building at some point
in the future. The design of building envelopes should aid the expansion of the facility, which is almost
inevitable, through the use of modular design solutions where practical. Modular design solutions can
allow airports to modify their operations with minimum impact on airport clients, and the benefits of
this approach should be explored fully. All new airport facilities should be planned with future expansion
in mind to support the ultimate development potential of the airport.
Base carriers generally need to have a single point of operation in order for them to provide an
efficient and effective hub. By operating from one base, the base carrier can increase its percentage
of the transfer market by maximising the number of city pairs served. Any situation where they are
coerced into operating from two airports will weaken their ability to compete, as two operational bases
will result in unnecessarily duplicated costs. Airport authorities and companies should liase regularly
with the relevant airlines to establish their operational and business objectives so as to align the
design of their airport accordingly.
Multi-airport systems may only exist where there is no possibility of operating from a single base. A
multi-airport system needs to have sufficient traffic volume (20 to 30 mppa) to support entirely
independent operations. Success will be heavily dependent on each facility securing the support of
a major network carrier or an alliance grouping, and many high-volume individual routes operating
to both airports would be needed.

C1.1.5 Political Considerations

It is often the case that local political interests will seek to manipulate market conditions by restricting
or forcing airlines to fly certain types of traffic from particular airports. This is principally apparent in
cities where a new airport project would likely cause the closure of an existing facility, and is generally
practiced to appease a local populace fearful of losing the economic conditions and benefits that are
associated with large airports. The serious operational and financial implications that this course of
action can have on the airlines in question should be fully appreciated by airport authorities and
companies, as these factors can ultimately impact on the basic viability of the region's air travel
IATA Master Planning

C1.1.6 Financial Considerations

For all airport developments large or small, the eventual benefits to the various stakeholder groups
must be positive and outweigh the cost of the development; e.g. a thorough cost benefit analysis
should be undertaken to support all capital expenditure (CAPEX). A financial model should be
established which shows the proposed method and time scales for cost recovery, which will in turn
allow the airlines to determine what the proposed impact may be on their yields and operating costs.
Where relocation of the entire airfield is being considered to a new 'green-field' or 'blue-sea' location,
financial support will be required from governments to offset the political costs of re-establishing
infrastructure at the new site. This is particularly true of large-scale developments that include surface
access system provision, primary utility supply and distribution networks, and preliminary site
preparation works that may be essential to support operations in the new location. It should also be
noted that any proceeds accruing from the sale of land or facilities at the former site should be used
to offset the cost of new facilities.
For further information on financial matters pertaining to airport development, please refer to Chapter
D, Sections D1 to D4 inclusive.

C1.1.7 Existing Airports

No two existing airports are identical. While there may be similarities in certain facilities created by
particular runway configurations, each will possess several unique characteristics — often created
through compromise.
The main problem with existing airports concerns how to expand facilities that have run out of room
to develop in their present locations. A common operational dilemma may arise in these circumstances
whereby the airlines using an existing airport will usually want to continue to operate from that location,
and yet this in turn may prevent the facility from sufficiently limiting its operations to allow for the
required expansion and redevelopment. Airport operators in this case tend to take the view that the
existing operation should be expanded towards its limit, while in parallel a process is begun to develop
a replacement facility. The existing airport is then capable of possibly being redeveloped at a later
stage for a different aviation market, or indeed sold off as general real estate once decommissioned.

CI .1.8 New Airports

At 'green-field' or 'blue-sea' sites the planner essentially has a blank canvass upon which to compose
their airport master plan, which should ideally follow the ten step sequence defined within clause
C1.2 below. This sequence defines the primary and logical steps that all airport developers should
follow when creating a master plan. As with existing airports, the travel distance and accessibility to
the new airport site are primary requirements, and the apron area tends to be the central pivot point
of a balanced design approach. Refer to the development zones identified within Figures C1-1 to C1-
6 inclusive for further details in this regard.
The primary business functions and markets of the airport will need to be clearly identified and
balanced so that the correct functional emphasis can be placed on their development. Each proposed
function of the airport should be ranked and this should in part dictate the positioning of the process
within the airfield. It sounds obvious, but passenger processing functions should be highly ranked
within passengers airports. Similarly, cargo and mail processing functions should be highly ranked
within predominantly cargo and mail airport operations.
There are various permutations on how these functions can be aligned but the solution has to be
operationally viable from day one through to the ultimate phase. This may result in some master
plans, particularly in their early phases, looking somewhat generous in their approach to land use
planning. All other non-essential activities can then be positioned so that they do not interfere with
either the circulation routes or expansion zones of the primary facilities.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual


The following sequence should be followed when developing a master plan for a typical international
or domestic airport passenger terminal and apron airport operation. Step 7 and step 10 should be
exchanged in sequence when a predominantly cargo and express processing facility is proposed, as
the commercial and provisional bias switches accordingly.
Step 1 Determine the peak aircraft movements and resulting peak passenger movements required
in the final master plan design year (Refer to Section C2 for Forecasting Techniques).
Step 2 Collect via survey: geographical, geological, meteorological and environmental data
pertaining to the proposed airport site location.
Step 3 Select the runway configuration(s) which best matches the aircraft type and movement
requirements, ATC capability, geological limitations and meteorological conditions, and
which satisfies the environmental requirements as closely as possible.
Step 4 Align the proposed runway(s) to coincide with the prevailing wind directions.
Step 5 Determine and locate the number of aircraft stands required and the stand type (remote
or gate serviced) needed to meet the service standard.
Step 6 Provide the correct configuration and quantity of taxiways, ensuring that the runway(s) and
stands are serviced adequately, with due consideration to the dynamics of the aircraft on
the apron.
Step 7 Size and position the ultimate terminal building(s), pier(s) and control tower within the
appropriate development zone(s) (refer to Figures C1-1 to C1-6 inclusive). The space
requirement for the terminal building will be heavily dependent on the processes required
as defined within Chapter T, and the functional space requirements defined within Chapter F
— Airport Capacity, Section F9 — Passenger Terminal Facilities, and Chapter U — Airport
Baggage Handling.
Step 8 Align the ultimate terminal building and piers to service the aircraft stands accordingly.
Position fire services within the apron complex appropriately.
Step 9 Size and position airport support processes such as (but not limited to) rail, bus, coach
and passenger car access and parking facilities. See Chapter T for potential processes
to be considered and included.
StepIO Position secondary Cargo and Separate Express Facilities Terminal and stands, aircraft
maintenance hangars as required within the surplus development zone(s) (refer to Figures
C1-1 to C1-6 inclusive).
Historically, few airports worried about running out of space. Airfields were often located in relatively
isolated countryside positions and had multiple runways occupying vast tracks of land. The jet age
placed a reduced need on crosswind runways and as a result runways made way for aprons, small
finger piers and terminals. Development tended to be piecemeal and lacked co-ordination Terminal
buildings and airport support facilities merely spread out as required, with little or no thought for the
future. Expansion of existing facilities was not normally considered, so newer, multiple terminal
solutions were added. This situation, rather surprisingly, lasted until the late eighties. It is for these
reasons that the ten point master planning sequence described above should be adopted by airport
developers, so that logical airport developments can be designed and implemented in the most
appropriate and efficient manner.

IATA Master Planning

All airports, regardless of their size, can no longer ignore their impact on surrounding communities,
who unfortunately in some instances may have been allowed (by the lack of land-use controls) to
encroach upon the airport's boundary. Sustainability now needs to be considered and a greater
emphasis needs to be placed on the airport as a junction for modal interchange.
A master plan is required so that all air-side, land-side and airport support facilities can develop,
expand and improve the operational flexibility and efficiency of their business in a structured, balanced
and orderly fashion, without adversely impacting on the business of their neighbours on or adjacent
to the airport. In so doing, the potential of the available land and the capacity of the airport's runway
system can be maximized.


C1.3.1 STEP 1 a — Stakeholder Consultation

Meaningful and effective consultation with all interested people, community groups, parties and
organisations (airlines, major tenants, the travelling public, surrounding communities, Civil Aviation
Authorities and support agencies) that may be impacted by the airport development is essential.
For further details on what groups should be consulted and what staged please refer to Sections B1
and V1.

C1.3.2 STEP 1 b — Background Statistical Data

All successful master plans are based on a combination of robust assumptions and facts. These must
be assembled and recorded with great care in order that they can stand up to external scrutiny by
those who may or may not wish that airport development should take place. Of particular importance
will be the forecasted data pertaining to relevant airlines and the base carrier(s). This will serve as
a sound base from which aviation market forecasts can then, at a later stage, be extrapolated.

C1.3.3 STEP 1 c — Future Demand Aviation Market Forecast

A forecast of future aviation demand is required in order to determine if and when additional capacity
should be developed. It should not be used to determine the overall scale of the airport required, as
facility requirements should be closely matched against the chosen site's ultimate development
potential so that all facility development is geared to reaching the ultimate level while maintaining
balance within the overall operational system. For further details on forecasting please refer to Section
C2 for Forecasting Techniques.


C1.4.1 STEP 2a — Data Collection and Analysis (site visit)

A thorough study should be made of either the existing or proposed sites to determine their suitability
to accommodate future traffic. All relevant and available facts should be recorded. This should include &
• Utility Provisions — primary supplies, the position of end nodes and transition point of supply
• Retrieval Systems — sewage, surface water and effluent retrieval systems.
• Adjacent primary and secondary surface access systems.
• Location, size, capacity, condition and age of all air-side, land-side and airport support facilities.
• Condition of runways, taxiways and aprons.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual
• Meteorological conditions.
• Geology and topography.
• Obstacles and terrain.
• Surrounding development & land use.
In this way, later stage evaluations can be carried out should existing facilities be considered for
refurbishment, expansion or demolition to make way for development as foreseen in the master plan.

C1.4.2 STEP 2b — Geology and Topography

Significant variations in site levels will need to be recorded as these will determine the amount of
material that will be required to be excavated, transported or filled in order to produce a graded site
capable of supporting aircraft operations.
Soil conditions, particularly the ability of the site's various terrains and substrata to safely and
adequately support the loads imposed by aircraft, vehicular traffic movements and building structures
need to be determined.
Some terrain may be of low bearing quality and may influence the planner's choice as to where best
locate a major runway without incurring additional construction costs. Runways, if not constructed
properly, risk early cracks due to structural damage and resulting high maintenance costs. Soil analysis
and borings will be very important to determine which areas to map out for runway development. Soil
composition quality plays an important cost factor in determining the type of construction materials
required. The presence or absence of water on the site is also an important element to take into

C1.4.3 STEP 2c — Surrounding Development & Land Use

It is important to determine what use is currently being made of the surrounding land, what development
plans are proposed and what zoning procedures have been set in place to ensure that incompatible
developments are not permitted adjacent to the site. Particular attention should be paid to noise
sensitive developments, especially if these are located in close proximity to the airport and/or on the
line of existing runways and their respective aircraft approach and departure paths. For further details
please refer to Section C3 of this manual.

C1.4.4 STEP 2d — Site Selection Criteria

The following site selection criteria should be considered by airport planners:
• Financial considerations.
• Adjacent airports, ATC, airspace and routes.
• Environmental considerations.
• Operational & technical considerations.
• Social considerations.

IATA Master Planning

C1.4.5 STEP 2e — Methodology

There are a number of basic steps that have to be taken in turn to determine which site offers the
most potential to satisfy the growth requirements of both airlines and airport authorities alike. The
following need to be determined:
1. The size of site required to satisfy forecast demand.
2. Which site(s) fulfil the basic area requirement.
3. Data collection and analysis from each possible site.
4. Review of site selection criteria that affect airport location.
5. Operational relationships.
6. Preliminary land use layouts.
7. Evaluation of criteria.
8. Recommendation of which site(s) should be considered in the second stage evaluation process.

C1.4.6 STEP 2f — Site and Facility Sizing

For existing and proposed airports, the land available for development either between or adjacent to
the runways, when coupled with the annual capacity of the runway system, will determine the
capacity of the airport. If land availability is not an issue then runway capacity is the factor that
determines ultimate capacity. The total area available for development is fixed by the site's existing
or proposed boundary.
In order for airport planners and airport authorities to understand the scale of the site required for
airport infrastructure development, the following tables have been assembled. These cover the
facilities exclusively and should be used for rough estimation purposes only.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

C1.4.7 STEP 2g — Approximate Land Area Requirement

The following table highlights the land availability at 25 airports throughout Europe, North America
and the Asia Pacific regions.


port No. of Total Total Total Land Area
Runways Annual Annual Annual (ha)
Mvts. Passenger Caw

CDG 4 517,657 48.1 1,610,484 3,238

LHR 3 466,815 64.2 1,402,000 1,117
FRA 3 458,731 49.3 (2001) 1,900
AMS 5 432,480 39.2 1,222,594 2,678
BRU 3 326,050 21.5 687,384 1,245
ZRH 3 325,622 22.4 545,423 783
MUC 2 302,412 22.9 148,018 1,500
FCO 4 283,449 26.2 202,400 1,600
ARN 2 279,383 18.2 120,535 3,100
LGW 1 260,858 31.9 338,246 683
ORY 3 243,586 25.3 120,638 1,530
OSL 2 204,275 14.2 82,383 1,300
MAN 2 191,846 18.4 122,143 883
ATH 2 186,05B (2000) 123,397 1,700
North America

ATL 4 915,454 80.1 655,983 1,518

ORD 6 908,989 71.6 1,468,553 2,833

DFW 5 837,779 60.4 904,994 7,658
LAX 4 783,433 65.5 2,038,784 1,443
YYZ 4 426,506 28.9 344,463 1,810
JFK 4 345,094 32.8 1,864,423 1,995

Asia & Pacific

SYD 3 307,058 25.7 573,880 887

HKG 2 193,895 32.7 2,240,585 1,255
SIN 2 184,533 28.6 1,680,000 1,300
NRT 2 133,396 27.3 1,932,694 1,084
KIX 1 122,916 19.4 999,692 510

IATA Master Planning

C1.4.8 STEP 2h — Social Considerations

The placement of airports within populated areas will have a significant social impact which must be
fully assessed by airport planners. Please refer to Sections E2 and S3 of this manual for further
details in this regard.

C1.4.9 STEP 2i-Environmental Considerations

It is almost essential and certainly recommended for airport developers to create a detailed
environmental impact study for a proposed new airport development site. The considerations which
should be taken in account are detailed particularly within Sections E1, E3 and E4 of this manual.

CI .4.10 STEP 2j — Economic Considerations

It will be essential for airport planners to consider the economic viability of the proposed site in
terms of the constructions costs associated within the region and resultant payback period for the
development. Additionally, the regional stability of the country where the airport is to reside will be
important to understand. Inflation and cost of borrowing within the region may preclude certain
desirable development options from being considered for the proposed airport. Some countries provide
special economic zones where major developments may benefit from less governmental taxation.
These factors need to be explored and considered fully.


C1.5.1 STEP 3a — Airfield Configuration Overview

The airport authority and the airport planning team must have a comprehensive understanding of the
airfield configuration options that exist. There are essentially six airfield configurations for airport
planners to choose from, all of which are defined within the following Clauses and Figures C1-1
through C1-6 inclusive. These all have various operational advantages and disadvantages, and it
should be noted that while six airfield configurations exist to choose from, only four are deemed
recommended by IATA for green-field or blue-sea situations. Please refer to the table within Clause
C1.5.8 for further information.
Airfield configurations are determined by the number, position and orientation of existing and proposed
runways and their support taxiway networks. This factor will greatly influence the position of all other
primary and secondary support facilities.
When determining the position of new runways, several related factors need to be assessed in order
that the new infrastructure can make best use of the existing or proposed new site's unique conditions.

C1.5.2 STEP 3b — Adjacent Airports, ATC, Airspace & Routes

Each airport has to coexist and operate within much larger national or international air traffic systems.
Individual airports utilise vast tracks of airspace in order to accommodate the procedures required to
allow aircraft to approach, hold, land and take-off. As a result, any extensive growth plan should be
discussed and carefully co-ordinated with the relevant air traffic control authority, such that feasible
recommendations can be developed and impractical concepts eliminated. Other factors may also
come into play, including coordination with military controlled airspace and aircraft movements.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

C1.5.1 STEP 3c — Meteorological Conditions and Runway-

Wind Orientation
The main criteria for the orientation of runways are the prevailing winds. Historical data will have to
be retrieved to determine their direction, frequency and strength. As a general rule, the principal
runway at an airport should be oriented as closely as practicable in the direction of the prevailing
ICAO specifies that runways should be oriented so aircraft may land with crosswind components of
20km/hr or less at least 95 percent of the time for runways of 1500m or more. Optimum runway
directions are determined by using a wind-rose.

C1.5.2 STEP 3d — Visual Conditions

Visibility and ceiling heights are very much affected by weather conditions and will influence the
choice of runway operations; e.g. whether to select for operations under all weather or visual
only. Fog, turbulence and abnormal rainfall may at times also reduce the capacity of runways.
In order for airlines to maintain regular schedules during adverse weather conditions, airports are
equipped with approach aids. The category of these aids depends on both the sophistication of the
equipment installed at the airport and on board the aircraft. This determines the minimum visibility
required for an aircraft to be able to land.

Type of Approach Minimum Decision Visibility Runway Visual Range

Height (RVR)
Non-precision (300 ft)
Precision Cat I 200 ft 800m >550m
Cat II 100 ft >350m
Cat IIIA 50 ft >200m
Cat NIB <50ft >50m
Cat MIC <50 ft <50m

The minima herein are acceptable only when full facilities are installed and no objects penetrate
obstacle clearance surfaces. Category III requires much more sophisticated equipment, which is not
commonly installed at airports or in the aircraft using them. Given the small benefit that Category III
gives compared to its costs, it is usually not installed at most airports. Cat III is most prevalent in
Europe where it is a necessity for the airlines to maintain normal schedules in poor weather

IATA Master Planning

C1.5.4 STEP 3f-Average Temperature and Altitude Considerations

In general terms, high temperatures will impact on the length of runway required, the rapid exit taxiway
positions and the distances that can be traversed by aircraft while taxiing.
High temperatures result in lower air densities which in turn cause lower engine thrust. When
determining runway length a correction factor needs to be applied on temperatures above 15 degrees
C or 59 degrees F.
Airports that experience excessively high temperatures during the day may find that their operations
are restricted due to insufficient runway length being available to support maximum possible take-off
weights. In these instances, cargo volumes and/or passenger numbers may be restricted or operations
may only be cost effective during cooler early morning or late evening periods.
Altitude, and its resulting effects upon air pressure and other temperature factors also plays an
important role in determining the most effective runway configuration for a given facility.

C1.5.5 STEP 3g — Obstacles/Terrain

Obstacles often represent serious constraints to an optimal layout of runways or may in some
circumstances have a negative influence on the operation to/from a runway. ICAO Annex 14 specifies
that airspace around airports should remain free of obstacles so as to permit the intended aircraft
operations at the airport to be conducted safely and to prevent the airport from becoming unusable
by the growth of the obstacles around the airport.
Criteria for evaluating such obstacles are contained in the ICAO document Procedures for Air
Navigation Services — Aircraft Operations (PANS OPS).
Features within the natural landscape may also influence the orientation or length of proposed runways.
While small obstructions can be removed, cost and the subsequent additional benefits obtained will
be the determining factors when considering removal.

C1.5.6 STEP 3h — Obstacle Limitation Requirements

The requirements for obstacle limitation surfaces are specified by the intended use of a runway (i.e.
takeoff or landing and type of approach) and are intended to be applied when such use is made of
the runway.
In many countries all approaches and departures are conducted under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
and limited straight-in approaches and defined departure routes.

C1.5.7 STEP 3i — Runway Configuration Options

Where figures are stated in this chapter outlining possible aircraft movement rates per hour, it
should be
noted that the figure quoted is heavily dependent on the composition of the aircraft mix,
conditions, the navigation aids available, and ATC separation standards of the country in question.
For more information on runway capacity please refer to Section F5.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

C1.5.8 STEP 3j — Runway Configuration and Movement/Capacity

Runway capacity is fundamentally driven by three factors these are defined as follows:-
1. Aircraft type and mix This influences aircraft spacing on final approach or departure where
wake vortices occur, as well as runway occupancy time, where aircraft weight and stopping
distances are important factors.
2. Runway design Includes the length available, access to taxiways for entry and exit from runways,
the availability of high speed exits and entrances, etc.
3. Aerodrome design Considers the support infrastructure, including terminal design and access
to gates, and taxiway design, which can influence the ability to get to or from a runway, or to
change runways when weather or other conditions require. This factor also includes access to
precision landing or departure guidance, runway and taxiway lighting, etc.
4. Engineered Runway Capacity This is the number of movements (landings and/or departures)
that can be expected to occur on a particular runway, or set of runways, assuming that there are
no physical or practical constraints to accessing the runway(s). This means that aircraft are able
to vacate a runway at a stopping point, or roll directly onto a runway without stopping. It does,
however, factor the predicted wake vortex spacing for a known or assumed traffic mix, and
assumes known or assumed runway occupancy times for landing or departing aircraft. It is an
ideal figure, and cannot generally be achieved or sustained.
5. Operational Runway Capacity This is the maximum number of movements that a runway can
achieve and sustain in normal operating conditions. Note: "Mvts/Hr" denotes Aircraft Movements
Per Hour.

Runway Configuration Assessment Table

Runway Runway Configuration Advantages Configuration Disadvantages Configuration

Configuration Layout Operational
Figure Runway

Single Fig C1-1 - Lesser impact on - Airport capacity restricted 36-55 Mvts/Hr
Runway environment due to reduced by
apron area and reduced single runway traffic
aircraft movements
movements per hour. capability.
- Runway utilization often - Runway emergencies and
high. maintenance more difficult to
- Recommended choice of manage.
IATA (subject to capacity - Cross wind take off and
Open "V" to Fig C1-2 - Increased runway Mvts/Hr - Not a recommended choice 85-90 Mvts/Hr
"L" Runways yields increased airport of
ultimate IATA.
capacity. - Open "V" to "L" has larger
- Varied runway impact on environment than a
orientations single runway and some
can overcome seasonal parallel
prevailing cross wind runway configurations.
problems. - Open "V" to "L" layout
- Runway emergencies and occupies larger apron plan
62 maintenance easier to area.
manage - Open 'V" layout does not
(subject to case). naturally lend itself to
- Both runways can be used efficient
simultaneously (subject to apron expansion.
ATC - One runway will always be
control limitations) more compromised to
IATA Master Planning

Runway Configuration Assessment Table (cont'd)

Runway Runway Configuration Advantages Configuration Disadvantages Configuration

Configuration Layout Operational
Figure Runway

Intersectin Fig C1-3 - Varied runway - Not a recommended choice 70-75 Mvts/Hr
g orientations of Qualification:
Runways can overcome seasonal IATA. Movements per
prevailing cross wind - Both runways cannot be hour based on
problems. used two
- Runway emergencies and simultaneously. intersecting
maintenance easier to - Intersecting runway layout runways
manage has
(subject to case). larger impact on environment
than parallel runway as apron
area increased.
- Intersecting runway layout
occupies larger apron plan
than single runway or parallel
runway configurations.
- Intersecting runway layout
does not naturally lend itself
efficient apron expansion.
- One runway will always be
more compromised to
Staggered Fig C1-4 - Runway utilization can be - Cross wind take off and 60 Mvts/Hr
Runways high. landing can present
- Runway emergencies and problems.
maintenance easier to
- Dedicated takeoff and
dedicated landing runway
operations promotes safer
multiple runway operations.
- Runway layout naturally
lends itself to efficient apron
- Recommended choice of
IATA (subject to capacity
Dual Parallel Fig C1-5 - Runway utilization can be - Cross wind take off and 84-105 Mvts/Hr
high. landing can present
- Runway emergencies and problems
maintenance easier to
- Dedicated takeoff and
dedicated landing runway
operations promotes safer
multiple runway operations.
- Runway layout naturally
lends itself to efficient apron
- Recommended choice of
IATA (subject to capacity

n9W IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Runway Configuration Assessment Table (cont'd)

Runway Runway Configuration Advantages Configuration Disadvantages Configuration

Configuration Layout Operational
Figure Runway

Multiple Fig C1-6 - Runway utilization can be - Cross wind take off and 120-168 Mvts/Hr
Parallel high. landing can present
- Runway emergencies and problems
maintenance easier to
- Dedicated takeoff and
dedicated landing runway
operations promotes safer
multiple runway operations.
- Runway layout naturally
lends itself to efficient apron
- Recommended choice of
IATA (subject to capacity

C1.5.9 STEP 3k — Runway Use

Runways and their supporting taxiway connections should observe the following characteristics:
• Be linked to an efficient airspace system.
• Be supported by an air traffic control service provider that can maximize the potential of any
given runway system.
• Reduce, to a safe working minimum, runway occupancy times through the provision of
positioned rapid exit taxiways.
• Provide for the shortest possible taxiing times between runways and aircraft parking positions
for both arriving and departing aircraft.

• Avoid the need for aircraft to cross active runways.

IATA Master Planning

Cl5.10 STEP 3I — Runway Elements

Runways are made up of seven elements, all of which perform a different function. The table below
provides the formal ICAO definition of the stated apron elements.

Runway Elements Definition Table

Apron Element ICAO Annex 1 4 Definition

Runway A defined rectangular area on a land aerodrome prepared
for the
Shoulder landing
An area and takeoff
adjacent to of
end of the pavement so prepared so
as to
Taxiway strip provide
An area a transition
including betweenintended
a taxiway the pavement and an
to protect theaircraft
operating on
the taxiway and to reduce the risk of damage to an aircraft
Movement Area accidentally
The part of an aerodrome to be used for the take off,
landing and
Manoeuvring Area taxiing
The partofofaircraft, consisting
an aerodrome of the
to be usedmanoeuvring
for the take area.
landing and
Runway Holding Position taxiing
A of aircraft,
designated excluding
position theto
intended aprons.
protect a runway, an
limitation surface, or an ILS/MLS critically sensitive area at
Stopway taxiing
A aircraft
defined and vehicles
rectangular shall
area on thestop andat
ground hold,
the unless
end of take run
available prepared as suitable area in which an aircraft can be
in the case of an abandoned takeoff.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

CI5.11 Definition — The Single Runway

Figure C1-1: Typical Single Runway Zone Diagram







Master Planning

CI5.12 Definition — Two-Runway Configuration — Open "V" To "L"

(i) Capacity changes downward when a mixed mode configuration is adopted. The main constraint
is the need to protect the possible overshoot or missed approach area for a landing aircraft in
relation to a departing aircraft on the second runway.
(ii) With respect to the table within Clause C1.5.8, the capacity estimates for this runway configuration
assume that the terminal facilities lie between the runways within the development zones defined
within Figure C1-2 below.

Figure C1-2: Typical Open "V" To "L" Shape Runway Zone Diagram






IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

CI.5.13 Definition — Intersecting Runways


(i) Intersecting runways are necessary when relatively strong winds blow from more than one
direction, resulting in excessive crosswinds if only one runway is provided. When the winds are
strong, only one runway of a pair of intersecting runways can be used, reducing the capacity of
the airfield substantially. If the winds are relatively light, both runways can be used
(ii) The capacity of two intersecting runways depends a great deal on the location of the intersection
(e.g. midway or near the ends) and on the way the runways are operated. The further the
intersection is from the takeoff end of the runway and the landing threshold, the lower is the

Figure C1-3: Typical Intersecting Runway Zone Diagram



Master Planning

C1.5.14 Definition — Staggered Runways

(i) In many circumstances it will be advantageous from an aircraft operational viewpoint to stagger
the thresholds of parallel runways in line with the requirements defined within ICAO Annex 14.
Airports that do not possess the capability to lay out widely-spaced parallels may opt for a close
parallel alternative. In these situations the minimum amount of stagger is predetermined by
recommendations as laid down by ICAO in Annex 14. The distance between the runways
if possible, allow for aircraft to manoeuvre and hold prior to take off or to cross the other active
runway. This type of staggering may be necessary because of the limited land available for
runway construction.
(ii) From an operational point of view, the staggering of runways is only required when the
distance falls below 760m. For segregated parallel operations to continue ICAO recommends
that the specified minimum distance may be decreased by 30m for each 150m that the arrival
runway is staggered toward the arriving aircraft, to a minimum of 300m, and should be
by 30m for each 150m that the arrival runway is staggered away from the arriving aircraft. For
more detailed information please see ICAO Annex 14.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

CI5.15 Definition — Parallel Runways

(i) Provided parallel runways are spaced by at least one nautical mile, they may be treated as two
independent runways. Runways closer than 1NM apart become "dependent" — i.e. the
on one runway affects the operation on the adjacent parallel. Procedures and equipment [such
as Precision Runway Monitoring] can allow the runways to operate semi-independently up to
1034 metres apart
On the condition that runways are spaced by at least 1034 metres, and are not staged by more
than approximately 1000 metres, they may be treated as independent or semi-independent.
Runways closer than 1034 metres are effectively the same runway in IMC — however, in VMC, may
be used to achieved capacity higher than a single runway — i.e., land on one runway, depart on the
close spaced parallel. A displaced instrument approach procedure and landing threshold on a close
spaced parallel runway can achieve a slight increase in arrival rates.

Figure C1-5: Typical Parallel Runway Zone Diagram



IATA Master Planning

C1.5.16 Definition — Multiple Parallel Runways

(i) The capacity of multiple parallel runway configurations depends primarily on the number of
runways and on the spacing between the runways.
(ii) Airports with more than four parallel runways will represent the exception, as few locations can
generate the demand to match the capacity of five or more parallel runways. Furthermore, the
ability of the air traffic control systems to supply five or more runways at the same time
progressively more difficult, and the airspace requirement becomes very large.

Figure C1-6:Typical Multiple Parallel Runway Zone Diagram






CI5.17 STEP 3m — Runway Capacity
The following table can be used as a basis for comparing differing runway options. There are a
number of factors that can impact on an airport's ability to reach its theoretical maximum potential.
These can include operating restrictions (night curfews or environmental limits), infrastructure
deficiencies (insufficient or poorly positioned Rapid Exit Taxiway (RET) and/or holding bays) and
airport layout weaknesses (crossing of active runways).

Hourly and Per Annum Movement Capacities of Runway Combinations

Runway Configuration Realistic Mvts/Hr Realistic 70% Theoretical 100%

Mvts/Annum Mvts/Annum
Single runway, segregated 48 202,000 289,000
Single runway, mixed mode 55 232,000 331,000
Dependant close parallel, 84 354,000 506,000
Dependant close parallel, mixed 97 409,000 584,000
Independent parallel, 105 442,000 632,000
3 runways — 2 segregated, 1 (105+55)=160 675,000 964,000
mixed mode
3 runways: all independent, (55x3)=165 696,000 994,000
mixed mode
4 runways; 2 pairs of close (84x2)=168 708,000 1,012,000

• Mixed mode is assumed to add -15% to segregated mode capacity.

• Actual achieved runway capacities vary with aircraft mix. A large proportion of large aircraft
or a
wide range of aircraft sizes will reduce total movement capacity.
• The inability to clear runways to allow following aircraft to land (insufficient or poorly
RETs), to reposition aircraft prior to take-off (inadequate holding bays) and the need to cross
active runways will significantly reduced assumed movement maximums.
• Mvts/Hr denotes aircraft movements per hour.
• Mvts/Annum denotes aircraft movements per annum.
• Annual movement figs, derived by taking realistic hourly movement assumptions.
• 16.5 hour operating day (06:00 to 10:30), 365 day operation assumed.
• The theoretical annual maximum figures stated are based on a 100% take up of slots over
day and throughout the year. 100% take up of slots is not possible or desirable. A more realistic
C1.5.18 STEP 3n — Spacing between Runways
The spacing between parallel runways dictates the mode of runway operation under IFR and VFR
and hence the capacity that can be obtained. The following table summarises the separation distances
of parallel runways:

Separation of Parallel Runways

Minimum Separation Distance Simultaneous Use Of Parallel

(Between Centrelines) Instrument Runways
1,035 Independent parallel approaches
915 Dependent parallel approaches
760 Independent parallel departures
760 Segregated parallel operations

Minimum Separation Distance Simultaneous Use Of Parallel Non-

(Between Centrelines) Instrument Runways
210 Where the higher code is 3 or 4
150 Where the higher code is 2
120 Where the higher code is 1

All dimensions in metres

(i) As a design consideration, to sustain independent parallel approaches in all weather conditions
the runways should be separated by at least 1.035m. If this cannot be achieved then dependent
approaches or segregated operations have to be applied, thus offering lower runway capacities.
(ii) Runways may be operated in mixed mode (e.g. arrivals and departures on the same runway) or
segregated mode (e.g. arrivals on one runway and departures on the other runway).
mode is a simpler operation with parallel runways, but because of wake vortices from heavy jets
it achieves less capacity. Mixed mode has to be used on single runways. On widely spaced
parallel runways it produces an increase in capacity providing independent approaches and
departures can be established.
(iii) Data sourced from ICAO Annex 14.

CI.5.19 STEP 3o — Runway and Taxiway Systems

The land area required to support the movement of aircraft on and around an airfield can often be
in excess of 50% of the total area requirement for an airport. The following table outlines the
approximate area required given twin parallel taxiways with associated clearance to object (with
code F separation) for a single runway of varying lengths:


Runway Length 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Area Required (ha) 104.9 129.6 154.4 179.1 203.9

(i) The above table excludes the areas required to support RESA, approach/departure & missed
approach surfaces, glide slope area & airside roads.
Runway Length Requirements


A300-600 D 2
ELEMENT 170,500 2,645
A310-300 D 164,021 2,450
A319 C 64,000 2,080
A320-200 C 77,021 2,105
A321 C 83,000 2,286
A330-200 E 233,013 2,590
A330-300 E 233,013 2,657
A340-200 E 275,016 3,260
A340-300 E 275,016 3,230
A380-800 F 592,000 "3,600
A360-800F F 590,000 " 3,050
B717-200 C 54,885 1,840
B737-600 C 65,091 1,960
B737-700 C 70,080 2,160
B737-800 C 79,016 2,640
B737-900 C 79,016 ____2,860
B757-200 D 115,666 2,660
B757-300 D 123,831 2,820
B767- D 151,953(179,1 2,200 (2,640)
B767-300ER D 186,880 2,920
B767-400ER D 204,117 3,580
B777-200 E 247,208 2,620
B777-200ER E 297,557 3,480
B777-300 E 299,371 3,500
B777-300ER E 344,549 3,160
B747-200 E 377,842 3,720
B747-400 E 396,893 3,220
B747-400ER E 412,769 3,560
DC-10-30 D 263,084 3,820
MD-11 D 288,031 3,560

(i) MTOW, ISA +20°C/Sea Level, no wind & a dry runway, FAA add 15% for a wet runway. **
+15°C/Sea level. When considering new runways at existing airports, it is important to
consider the existing
and projected traffic mix. In this way the proposed runway length can be tailored to suit the
traffic type so that planned capacity enhancements suit the largest percentage of forecast
(ii) Boeing aircraft data courtesy of Boeing Aircraft Company Inc. Airbus data courtesy of Airbus
website, via published Airplane Characteristics Manuals.
(iii) The runway lengths listed do not consider the effects of aerodrome elevation, runway slope,
wind or obstacles.
Airport planners should refer to the document types listed below, which are provided by the
relevant aircraft
manufacturer(s), and which also details the recommended landing and departing runway
length data:

1) Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning Document.

Runways also need to be orientated (see figure C1-7) so that aircraft may land at least 95% of the
time while experiencing varying crosswind strengths. Varying crosswind conditions can be
accommodated but these are dependent on the Aerodrome reference field length available. A low
visibility wind analysis should also be undertaken.
The number of runways required is dependent on the peak hour number of aircraft movements to
be accommodated, the mix of aircraft types and the anticipated annual volume of passenger to be
Wherever possible, land should be reserved and protected to allow airports to extend their runway
systems so as to avoid imposition of aircraft operating restrictions (max. permissible take-off weight)
and to accommodate changing fleet mix and traffic type, without having to impact on surrounding

Figure C1-7: Generic Staggered Parallel Runway

(rotated to prevailing wind direction)

The layout in figure C1 -7 also provides an indication of the large areas taken up by the primary
infrastructure systems. Here the runway separation is 2,250m, the runway stagger is 1,500m and the
total site area is 1,297.5 ha. The cross-over taxiways are separated by 195m. This dimension allows
a further code F taxiway to be inserted between the two shown at some later date. In this example
the area required to support the movement of aircraft represents approximately 53% of the total area
Cross-over Taxiways
The area required for a twin parallel cross-over taxiway system with associated clearance to object
(with code F separation) between parallel runways with varying separations is approximately:

Runway Separation 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500

Area Required (ha) 17.2 22.5 27.8 33.1 38.4


An apron is an airside area intended to support an aircraft as it loads and unloads passengers and
cargo or awaits entry into an aircraft maintenance facility. It also serves as a platform from which all
ground support vehicles, including refuelling, catering, baggage conveyors, toilet service, ground
power units, cargo loaders and transfer platforms can operate from.

C1.7.1 STEP 5a — Apron Sizing

The size and extent of aircraft aprons is dependent on the forecast fleet mix. Examination of the fleet-
mix by type of traffic (charter, domestic, international, etc.) will provide guidance as to the number
and type of aircraft to be accommodated in the peak hour, their principal dimensions and the clearances
required. Gate occupancy times will also have to be factored in at this stage.
Flexible-parking configurations or Multiple Aircraft Ramp System (MARS) aircraft stands should be
used, as outlined in Sections G1 and L3. A degree of flexibility also needs to be built into the depth
of the stand dimension to accommodate unforeseen expansion of the terminal/pier/satellite in later

C1.7.2 STEP 5b — Apron Positioning

In airport planning, apron areas and passenger terminal facilities go hand in hand, both heavily
dependent on the other. As such, both must be planned together. When considering the location of
aircraft aprons the following factors should be considered:
• Aprons should be located as close to the runways as possible in order that taxiing distances and
the amount of time an aircraft spends on the ground is reduced to the absolute minimum.

• The apron should allow for clearances and separation distances as indicated in ICAO Annex 14.
• Aprons should provide maximum flexibility to accommodate varying aircraft types at differing
times of the same day.
• Aprons should be sized to allow for differing aircraft types on individual routes as a result of
seasonal variations in demand that require increases or decreases in capacity.
• Aprons should be planned such that the largest aircraft are positioned as close to the main
passenger processing complex as possible.
• Aprons should be laid out such that aircraft always have one route in and one separate route
out, thereby reducing the need to stop and hold to allow aircraft to enter or exit parking positions.
• Aprons should be capable of accommodating all associated ground equipment, aircraft servicing
vehicles and forward staging areas for baggage and cargo.
Master Planning

C1.7.3 STEP 5c — Apron Servicing

Aircraft, when parked on stands, require quick and efficient servicing by a wide variety of ground
handling equipment, services and vehicle types (refer to Section L5 and Fig L5-1). All vehicles must
be able to manoeuvre around aircraft on and off stand, between stands, and between stands and
terminals. As such adequate service road provision is essential.
In order to reduce delays and the potential for accidents between aircraft and vehicles traversing
behind stands, IATA recommends that service road locations should be restricted to the head of

C1.7.4 STEP 5d — Aprons Areas

The area required for aircraft aprons, both contact and remote, with associated taxiway clearance to
object for aircraft with varying wingspans is approximately:

ICAO Ref. Code B C D E F

Area Required (ha) 0.22 0.41 0.75 1.14 1.50
ICAO Ref. Code B C D E F

Area Required (ha) 0.19 0.37 0.69 1.07 1.42


C1.7.5 STEP 5e — Aircraft Stand Dimensions

The table below provides the generic space requirements which should be typically allowed on an
apron to accommodate the indicated aircraft types.
Lana, Centre Line To
Other Than
Aircraft Stand Taxi-

>ush Back Truck

y Centre Line To

ice & Expansion

Jf Stand Access
if Stand Access

way Centreline
1 & Push Back

e For Satellite
ck Clearance
□ Aerodrome


tand Depth
pan Criteria





to a .c
1 IN
I" l
HI || CD

Type Length Span a b c d e f g

B 15 m up to but CRJ 26.78 21.21 20.00 33.50 21.50 30.00 30.00 25 -35 3.00
not including
24 m

C 24 m up to but A319 33.84 34.10 20.00 44.00 26.00 45.00 30.00 25 -35 4.50
not including A320-200 37.57 34.10
36 m B737-800 39.50 34.30

D 36 m up to but A310-300 46.66 43.90 20.00 66.50 40.50 55.00 30.00 25 -35 7.50
not Including B757-200 47.33 38,06
52 m B767-300ER 54.94 47.57

E 52 m up to but A340-600 75.30 63.45 20.00 80.00 47.50 80,00 30.00 25 -35 7.50
not including B777-200 63.73 60.95
65m B747-400 70.67 64.94

F 65 m up to but A380 73.00 79.80 20.00 97.50 57.50 85.00 30.00 25 -35 7.50
not including
80 m

All dimensions in metres form. 77

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Figure C1-8: Generic Apron Stand Reference Dimensions

These areas are based on the recommended separation distances for taxiways/aprons as outlined
by ICAO, and head of stand dimensions as recommended by IATA. It should be noted that IATA
does not recommend that a rear of stand service access road be provided for either contact or
stands. This aids in avoiding the potential for collisions between ground support equipment and
is removed.


The principal function of taxiways is to provide access for aircraft moving between runways and
passenger terminal areas, cargo areas and maintenance hangars. Taxiways should be arranged so
that arriving aircraft do not obstruct and delay departing aircraft.
The extent of taxiway layouts is determined by the volume and frequency of traffic to be handled in
the peak hour. Should peak hour movements not require a full parallel then a partial parallel layout
can suffice. In so doing construction costs can be minimised.
Taxiway layouts should not be unnecessarily complicated and should provide easy to follow,
possible routes between runway ends and aircraft parking positions.
Simulation models will assist planners in determining exact taxiway system requirements.
For more information on runway capacity please refer to Section F6.

Master Planning

C1.8.1 STEP 6a — Taxiway Minimum Separation Distances

The following diagram and tables highlight separation distances as recommended by ICAO Annex 14.

Taxiway Minimum Separation Distances Table (All Dimensions in Metres)

Distance between taxiway centreline Taxiway Taxiway, other Aircraft stand

& runway centreline centre line to than aircraft taxl-lane centre
ln?:rument runways Non-instrument runways taxiway stand taxi-lane, line to

Code Code Code centreline centre lin© to

letter 1 Number
2 3 4 1 Number
2 3 4 object
(D (2) (3) (51 (6) (71 (9) (10) £111 t12)
A 82 5 825
i 37.5 475
IS) 23 75 16.25 1200
B 87.0 87.0 - - 42.0 52.0 - - 33.50 21.50 16.50
C - - 168.0 - - - 93.0 - 44.00 26.00 24.50
D - 176.0 176.0 - - 101.0 101.0 66.50 40.50 36.00
E - - - 182.5 - - - 107.5 80.00 47.50 42.50
F - - 190.0 - - - 115.0 97.50 57.50 50.50
192.5 103.00 60.00 53.00

Ref. - ICAO Annex14 - Table

(i) The separation distances shown in columns (2) to (9) represent ordinary combinations of runways
and taxiways. The basis for development of these distances is given in the ICAO's Aerodrome
Design Manual, Part 2.
(ii) The distances in columns (2) to (9) do not guarantee sufficient clearance behind a holding aircraft
to permit the passing of another aircraft on a parallel taxiway. See the Aerodrome Design Manual,
Part 2.
(Hi) For further information pertaining to Code F aircraft taxiway clearances please refer to ICAO New
Large Aircraft Circular (Published Dec 2003).

Separation Distances Table

ICAO i e ween Taxiway Taxiway, Other

Taxiway Centre Line
i Span Criteria Aircraft Centreline To Taxfway Than Aircraft
Aerodrome A Runway Ces .reline Stand Taxilane,
Reference Centreline Centre Line To
Cods? Instrument Object
Type Length Spen Runway.
a b c

B 15 m up to but CRJ 26.78 21.21 87.0 33.50 21.50

including 24 m
C 24 m up to but A319 33.84 34.10 168.0 44.00 26.00
not A320-200 37.57 34.10
including 36 m B737-800 39.50 34.30
D 36 m up to but A310-300 46.66 43.90 176.0 68.50 40.50
not B757-200 47.33 38.06
Including 52 m B767-300ER 54.94 47.57
E 52 m up to but A340-600 75.30 63.45 182.5 80.00 47.50
not B777-200 63.73 50.95
including 65 m B747-400 70.67 64.94
F 65 m up to but A380 73.00 79.60 190.0 97.50 57.50
Including 80 m
All dimensions in metres.
IÃTA Airport Development Reference Manual

Figure C1-9: Separation Distance Reference Diagram

& n
W "

C1.8.2 STEP 6b — Taxiway Capacity

The following table provides broad guidelines as to the range of hourly movements that can be
achieved from taxiways.

Taxiway Capacity Table

Number of taxiways Taxiway capacity (movements per hour)

0 0—15
1 16 — 20
2 Maximum capacity of the runway system would be the limiting
factor. If
Landing only runway
50 — 55was not limiting then capacity would be approximately
Take-off only 30

IATA Master Planning

C1.8.3 STEP 6c — Exit Taxiways

Exit taxiways allow landing aircraft to leave a runway so that it is then clear for use by other arriving
and departing aircraft. At airports with peak traffic periods and continuous flows of arriving and/or
departing aircraft, the capacity of the runway is dependent to a large degree on how quickly landing
aircraft can exit the runway. An aircraft that has landed delays succeeding aircraft until it has cleared
the runway. Taxiways at right-angles are possible but this geometry restricts the speed of exit and
hence increases runway occupancy time. A RET, with exit angles between 25 and 45 degrees, permits
higher exit speeds. This in turn allows succeeding landing aircraft to be more closed spaced in terms
of time, or it might allow a takeoff to be sandwiched in between two successive landings.
The precise location of the Optimal Turn-off Segment (OTS) should be determined after considering:
• For which operational conditions runway capacity should be enhanced; i.e. peak period, special
weather conditions, particular group of aircraft, mixed mode.
• The representative fleet-mix that the exit is intended to serve after eliminating those with less
than 5 or 10% of the total.
• The separation distance between runway and taxiway; i.e. on non-instrument runways the
separation distances may not allow for design of a satisfactory RET.
• The characteristics of aircraft concerning threshold speed, braking ability and turn off speed for
differing wind conditions.
Should the above highlight more than one OTS, it may be necessary to consider construction of two
or more rapid exits. Note that a distance between exits of approximately 450m should be observed.
The OTS position should be closely related to the position of link taxiways.
Reference should be made to Annex 14 to determine the precise geometry required for radii of turn-
off curves and fillets, straight distance after turn-off and the intersection angle of the rapid exit taxiway.

C1.8.4 STEP 6d — Dual Parallel Taxiways

When planning new runways, sufficient space should always be allowed for a dual parallel taxiway
system to be located adjacent and parallel to all runways. Where availability of land does not permit
dual parallel taxiways, the airport planner should note that the capacity of the single taxiway could
then be the factor that determines runway capacity.
Dual parallel taxiways, unless constructed for replacement airports that will assume all existing
movements, should be constructed in phases, as demand requires. The absence of full dual parallel
taxiways would not prevent individual airports from functioning to their fullest potential. It would merely
reduce the efficiency of aircraft movements on the ground.
Dual parallel taxiways should also be incorporated into a master plan to cross between two widely
spaced parallel runways. The number of crossover taxiways should be related to the ultimate
development potential of the site and should be checked using a simulation model.

C1.8.5 STEP 6e — Taxi-lanes

Taxi-lanes are routes, bounded on either one or two sides by aircraft parking positions, by which
aircraft can only gain access to these parking positions. It should be noted that for taxi-lanes the
separation distances as outlined in clause C1.8.1 are less than those for the equivalent taxiway
When planning new airports, aircraft stand layouts that allow for only a single entry/exit taxi-lane or
cul-de-sac should be avoided. The resultant delays due to constriction of free movement would place
unnecessary financial inefficiencies on airline operations.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

C1.8.6 STEP 6f — Holding Bays

Holding bays are designated positions intended to protect a runway, an obstacle limitation surface
or an ILS/MLS critically sensitive area, where aircraft hold.
At runway ends a holding position allows queuing aircraft awaiting take-off to be re-ordered as
determined by ATC. This optimised re-sequencing of aircraft (with airline approval) can assist in
relieving climb and en-route ATC constraints. The holding position should be designed to accommodate
two to four aircraft and allow sufficient space for one aircraft to bypass another. The area allotted for
a waiting aircraft will depend on its size and manoeuvrability. Holding aircraft should be placed outside
the bypass route so that the blast from the holding aircraft will not be directed toward the bypass
Whenever possible, runway end holding positions should be orientated to permit aircraft departing
them to access the runway at an angle of less than 90. These runway access points can allow aircraft
a rolling start to their take-off and thereby reduce runway occupancy time. For aircraft operating at
or near maximum take-off weight, the entry point should be as close to the end of the runway as
possible. Small and medium sized aircraft that do not require the full extent of the available runway's
length may be permitted to access the runway at intermediate access points leading up to the runway
end. This provides another means by which ATC can re-order departing aircraft. Such access points
should also have intermediate holding positions with all the associated and required clearances.
Peak traffic volumes at many airports may exceed the capacity of a holding position, resulting in
aircraft queuing on the taxiway leading to the runway end.

C1.8.7 STEP 6g — Holding Aprons

Holding aprons can be placed at a convenient location on the airport for the temporary storage of
aircraft. These can be required at large airports where the number of gates is insufficient to handle
demand during peak periods of the day. If this is the case, aircraft are routed by air traffic control to
the holding apron and are held there until a gate becomes available.
Holding aprons can also permit a departing flight to vacate a needed gate and to wait near the runway
without obstructing either the arriving aircraft onto stand or the departure flow, pending receipt of
ATC/ATFM (slot) en-route clearance. They can also be used for aircraft with long turnaround times,
where staying on stand would unnecessarily tie up capacity. This is particularly true of airports where
contact stands are limited.
Holding aprons are not usually required if capacity slightly exceeds demand. However fluctuations
in future demand are difficult to predict, and therefore a temporary holding facility may be necessary.


The area available for the passenger terminal/apron complex is heavily dependent on the runway
configuration, the land available between or adjacent to the chosen runway configuration, and the
ability to handle the forecast mix of aircraft anticipated to use the airport. At existing airports, terminal/
apron options may be restricted by the type of development that has gone before or be limited by
the nature and extent of support infrastructure. The choice may be limited to a few basic concepts
governed mainly by the ability to park as many aircraft as possible in a limited space and still allow
for aircraft to manoeuvre on their own power to and from contact stands.
At new airports this should not to be the case, with the chosen configuration having been determined
by the requirements of preceding sub-sections in this chapter. To understand what has happened to
later generation 'green-field' and 'blue-sea' airports requires a careful analysis of the genesis of these
concepts. Some new airports have adopted generous and flexible concepts of various types, with
scope for built-in changes.

IATA Master Planning

'Green-field' or 'blue-sea' airports have emerged in the past few years and most have the ability to
become 'mega' airports. These new airports are sized in the 400,000 sq. m range and will generally
open with an initial capacity of approximately 30 MPPA. Each airport has been designed to be a hub
airport and to grow in a modular fashion, with some planned to eventually handle up to 100 MPPA.
The size and extent of the terminal/apron complex will be determined by demand and, in the later
stages, by the capacity of the airport's runway system. All facilities on site should be developed in
balance so that the capacity in one facility is not disproportionate to others within the overall airport
processing system. The airport will be capable of expansion until one of the primary facilities within
the system fails to satisfy the demands imposed upon it.
There are many differing types of passenger terminal/apron complex concepts. These are explained
in detail within Section J2.

Figure C1-10: Hong Kong Master Plan Layout

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

C1.9.1 STEP 7a — Passenger Terminal/Satellites

Experience has shown that, when designing facilities for purely domestic or charter passengers, the
corresponding maximum sq. m/PHP figure should not exceed 25.0 sq. m and 30.0 sq. m respectively.
To determine approximate building footprint requirements, the tabulated values below can be reduced
by 50%; e.g. where two floors are required.

Historical Airport Floor Area / Passenger Data

Asia & Pacific - Region

. PHP as % of MPPA Floor Area SQM/MPPA ! .Assumed Assumed Floor SQM/PHP
Annual PHP Area
Passenger 0.004
Brisbane 3.9 53,000 13,590 975 34,125 54
ShenYang Taoxian 6.1 58,000 9,508 1,525 53,375 38
Chongqing Jianbei 7.0 60,000 8,571 1,750 61,250 34
MNLT3 10.0 150,000 15,000 2,500 87,500 60

PHP as % of
SYD (Int.) 15.0 204,000 13,600 4,266 150,000 48
NRTT2 17.0 284,000 16,706 4,857 170,000 58
TPET2 17.0 308,000 18,118 4,857 170,000 63
PVG 20.0 280,000 14,000 5,714 200,000 49
N60 20.0 220,000 11,000 5,714 200,000 39
SINT3 20.0 350,000 17,500 5,714 200,000 61

PHP as % of
SINT1 21.0 276,100 13,148 7,000 245,000 39
SINT2 23.0 358,000 15,565 7,667 268,333 47
KIX 27.0 293,000 10,852 9,000 315,000 33
PEKT2 27.0 320,000 11,852 9,000 315,000 36
ICN 27.0 496,000 18,370 9,000 315,000 55
KUL 35.0 480,000 13,714 11,667 408,333 41
BKK 45.0 560,000 12,444 15,000 525,000 37
HKG 47.0 550,000 11,702 15,667 548,333 35
PEK(2010) 55.0 730,000 13,273 18,333 641,667 40
PEK(2013) 68.0 900,000 13,235 22,667 793,333 40
PEK(2016) 60.0 1,000,000 12,500 26,667 933,333 38
HKG (2020) 87.0 1,035,700 11,905 29,000 1,015,000 36
Average 13,462 45


Once the desired runway configuration has been selected and the runway has been aligned and
orientated correctly, the primary terminal and pier infrastructure should be located. The processes
that are required which will influence the size and proximity of the terminal and pier buildings will
typically included those defined within Chapter T. Section T1 deals with the terminal processes and
section T2 deals with the apron processes. All of these activities need to be considered, applied and
accommodated where appropriate within the correct zone as identified within figures C1-1 to C1-6
The piers should be sized and positioned to facilitate efficient aircraft movements and passenger and
baggage connection times. It will be important to 'timeline' parallel processes, which are inherently
dependent upon one another. The objective should be to ensure the synchronisation of walking
distances and connection times for passengers, passenger baggage movement connection times,
as well as the movement times for aircraft to and from the stand.
IATA Master Planning

In practice the distances and the location of core terminal and pier functions can be 90% accurately
located within a master plan proposal without the need to perform simulations. It is however far more
effective to analyse the true dynamics and obtain the 100% confirmed best position of infrastructure
elements by using simulation tools at the earliest possible stage. While simulation activity has a cost,
the long term advantages of having the correct infrastructure placed in precisely the most effective
position can be very significant. The multiple parallel processes that interact within one another should
be dynamically understood and then the terminal buildings and piers should be aligned and sized to
achieve the optimum configuration, giving due consideration to the service standards that should be
The control tower and fire services provisions should be positioned to align with the recommendations
defined within ICAO Annex 14 and with Section C4 and Section X1 respectively.
The ground transportation processes need to be very carefully assessed within the master plan and
the facilities required will need to balanced against the requirements of locating the terminal building
and stands. The cost to provide links from national rail and road infrastructure should be of prime
concern to the airport planner, as these will have a dominant cost and environmental impact. With a
sound business behind it and the rail and road processes correctly matched to an efficient terminal
and apron layout, the result is likely to be an airport which is favoured by both passengers and airlines
alike, which should be the primary objective.


Airport planners should also take into account the numerous associated and inter-related facilities
that support the operation of the passenger terminal building and the apron services. Section T3 of
this manual defines some of the typical airport support processes.
The location and provision of general services can have a significant impact on airport master
plans. The ability to provide the correct quantity and location of electrical power, gas, water and
telecommunication infrastructure can often steer airports planners to develop a terminal and piers in
a particular manner. This is because of the very high costs associated within expansion of these
fundamental services.
The airport planner will need to understand if the existing services have the capability to provide the
capacity which would be required for a new or significantly expanded airport. Major airports can be
compared to small towns in their ability to consume power, water and to generate sewage and general
waste. The airport planner will need to establish if the national supporting networks have the ability
to meet the capacity and processing challenge. If the national supporting networks do not have the
capacity, then the airport planner would need to assess the cost and practicality of installing the
necessary support infrastructure.
As another example, the security management systems used within airport complexes are vital to
the support and effective operation and resultant planning of most airport terminals and pier facilities.
The airport planner will need to account and plan for the inclusion of these systems within their
designs both at a master planning level and during the detailed design stages which shall help locate
and shape the final proposal.


Airports and aircraft maintenance bases have a relationship of interdependency. The maintenance
capabilities of an airport play an important part in determining it's attractiveness to aircraft operators.
To build up these capabilities, airports depend on the services provided by airline maintenance
divisions and independent engineering companies who in turn rely on the airport's infrastructure to
gain access to the aircraft that need servicing.
At large airports, with widely dispersed terminal locations and apron positions, there may be a need
to strategically locate smaller line maintenance facilities in more central areas to reduce the time
required for towing between operational stands and maintenance areas.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

The scale of the required maintenance operation is dependent on several factors. These can include:
• If the operation is restricted to a single carrier or open to others.
• The availability of certified engineering staff.
• Access to spare part holdings.
• If the facility is to offer a one-stop service including engine test and paint spraying.
• Fleet composition in busy hour, percentage assumed to be maintained, number of aircraft
maintained per maintenance bay, annual utilisation rate, level of maintenance check performed
(A, B, C or D).

C1.12 STEP 10a — CARGO

It is important that the need for a strategic link between cargo facilities and aircraft parking positions
is established at an early stage in the planning process. While at larger hub airports dedicated cargo
aircraft may be accommodated on a frequent, perhaps daily basis, it is normal to find a high percentage
of cargo transported solely on routine passenger flights. As such there is a strong interdependency
between cargo handling and passenger processing facilities, as well as a need for the two areas to
be located adjacent to one another in order that transfer distances are reduced to a workable minimum.
However this adjacency requirement creates a dilemma in so far as each requires significant land to
expand and exploit their full potential. Therefore for smaller airports, with less than 1.0 MPPA or
50,000 tonnes of cargo throughput, the individual facilities should be positioned apart such that each
can expand without restricting the growth potential of the other. In the short term this may result in
separation distances between the two being somewhat greater than appears necessary. However
airports should allow for unrestricted expansion to the ultimate stage wherever possible.
The distance between cargo processing facilities and dedicated cargo stands should be less than 1
km. The distance between cargo processing facilities and passenger stands (where passenger aircraft
will be used for the shipment of cargo) should be less than 2.5km.
It is also important to note the differing types of cargo that may need to be accommodated. These
can include general freight, express freight, airmail and freight forwarders. Please refer to Chapter O,
Cargo, for further clarification.


After the airport perimeter has been established, either for a new airport or for an existing airport
(where the perimeter has been redefined), it is important to double check that all major components
and airport support facilities can be properly located and accommodated within the overall airport
boundary. Each facility should be able to expand through to the ultimate phase of the airport. The
land use layout proposal should be balanced and the development strategy should be focused on
optimising the land use in the most efficient and logical manner throughout the various expansion
Prior to assessing individual functional requirements within an airport master plan, it is necessary to
subdivide the overall area into optimal sub areas, each capable of supporting an individual facility's
growth towards the maximum capacity of the airport.
It is important to note that detailed layout information pertaining to individual facilities is not required
at this conceptual layout stage. All the individual pieces of the development jigsaw need to fit and
be correctly assembled and have the right interdependencies within the operational area. However
at this stage the detailed operational characteristics of each facility are not required.
Airport characteristics, as shown on the Airport Land Use Plans, should be the guiding tool for local
and regional authorities when determining the suitability of development on land surrounding the

Master Planning

C1.13.1 Master Plan Deliverable — Weighting Factors And Points

IATA uses the following method when carrying out evaluations of either the Master Plan or Terminal
Development Options on behalf of airport authorities or member airlines. The weighting factors and
points are defined in a table entitled the "Master Plan Deliverable-Weighting Criteria Table". When
this table is completed it shall reflect the airport planners assessment with regards to their optimum
1. Assign weighting factors to all of the evaluation criteria (column 4).
Factors are assigned such that the total adds up to 100. Each factor can then be viewed as a
percentage of the total. The size of the figure allocated reflects the importance of that criterion
within the overall evaluation process.
2. A second subset of weighting points is then assigned to sub-criteria (column 5).
IATA uses the following range of weighting points:
Weighting or Importance (scores 1 to 10): 1 (minor); 5 (important); 10 (critical).
All of the above figures are specific to the criteria and sub-criteria and should not be used in order
to compare one set of criteria to another. As the importance and number of sub-criteria vary, the total
score possible (column 6) for each criterion will also vary.
From the example given columns 7, 10, 13, 16 & 19 reflect the basic score given to each site. If
possible the score should reflect the ranking of each site as given by the evaluation team for each
sub-criterion. Sites can be given equal scores. The scores given cannot exceed the maximum given
in column 5.
Using site A as an example, the weighted score is obtained by dividing the figure in column 7 by the
sub-total in column 6 multiplied by the weighting factor for the criteria in column 4. This exercise is
repeated for all scores and for all sub-criteria.
Individual scores for each sub-criterion should be explained within the evaluation report. This is
necessary as the evaluation process can:
• Be time-consuming (2 to 4 weeks on average); i.e. the reasoning should be recorded immediately
after the scoring has been determined.

• Involve multi-disciplined teams with individual members working in relative isolation.

• Be open to question and scrutiny by clients, site owners and competing airport planners.

CI.13.2 Master Plan Deliverable — Land Use Report

This interim report should be submitted such that base assumptions with respect to facility sizing,
surrounding land-use and operational relationships can be reviewed and tested. The report should
be concise & give a clear indication of any outstanding strengths & weaknesses. Recommendations
for future actions should also be given.
It is important to stress that information at this conceptual stage need not contain high levels of detail.
The information provided need only be sufficient to allow comparative analysis; i.e. to determine
which option moves forward into the next stage. As such, hand drawn information is acceptable,
providing the concept is easily recognised and understood by a broad, perhaps non-technical review
team. In this way preparation time and costs can be minimised.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

C1.13.3 Master Plan Deliverable — Land Use Concepts

Airport Land Use Plans drawn to scale should depict existing and phased development (including
intended land uses) up to and including the ultimate development stage. These should include:
• Airside infrastructure, including runways (all runway elements, taxiways, holding bays, aircraft
aprons (including de/anti-icing)), engine test enclosures, location & specification of navigational
aids, vehicle parking areas, staging areas, access roads, runway lighting & markings, primary
utility routes, segmented circle, wind indicators and beacon and associated buildings.
• Landside infrastructure, including passenger and cargo terminals, ground transport interchanges,
hotels, primary and secondary access roads and parking structures (at grade and multi-storey),
rail lines, vehicle fuelling stations.
• Airport support infrastructure, including in-flight catering, aircraft maintenance, G.H. maintenance,
airport maintenance, police and security facilities, administration buildings, meteorological
compounds, rescue and fire fighting facilities, general aviation, fixed base operations, helicopter
operations, containment & treatment facilities and aircraft refuelling facilities.
• Areas reserved for aviation related revenue producing development, such as industrial areas,
duty free zones, etc.

• Non-aviation related property and land with the current status and use specified.

• Facilities that are to be demolished.

• Airport site boundary or perimeter, facility and property boundaries, security fence lines and
control post positions.
• Runway clear zones, associated approach surfaces.
• True azimuth of runways (measured from the true north).
• North point.
• Pertinent dimensional data such as runway lengths, parallel runway and runway-taxiway
• Prominent natural and man made features such as wooded areas, rivers, lakes, coastlines, rock
outcrops, protected areas, etc.


72"1" I " I 4 J7 | 89 ' 10 [ Í112ft j u11Airport CriteriaWeightingMax. Weighting o>

.PojntSite AStteBStteCSite DSrteE1Financial Considerations152Adjacent airports, ATC, Airspace & 3
Routes.5Approach a Departure Traffic Patterns871.5940.9130.6640.9140.91Contingency Departure
Routes520.4530.S840.9120.4540.91Local Traffic a
Integration651.1420.4510.2371.5971.59223.182.061.822.963.413Meteorological Conditions54Obstacles & 2.
Terrain5Geology & Topography5Surrounding Development & Land Use56Surface Access <"
Systems5RoadRailSea7Runway, Taxiway, Holding Bay S Apron15Capacity PotentialPercentage of Remote
v Contact Stands8Passenger Terminal - Apron Complex Configurations15Capacity PotentialPassenger
ConvenienceAlliance CompatibilityConnections (passenger & baggage)9Environmental
Impact1010Operational Efficiency1011Social Considerations512Site Conditions5Availability of Primary to
UtilitiesAvailability of Drainage, surface water & effluent
retrieval systems100 (D


Criteria & figures are

given as an example
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

CI.13.4 Master Plan Deliverable — Airport Layout

This stage sees the development of the preferred concept into a detailed, workable master plan. Here
the optimal layout is established. All users and stakeholders will have been consulted at regular
intervals as the plan developed from the initial pre-planning period to this final stage in line with the
IATA Project process requirements defined within Section V1.
The continuous process of reviewing and testing assumptions should continue after the plan is
published. It is essential to do this, as no master plan should be viewed as the perfect solution. The
changing nature of the airline business will ensure that the current solution will soon become outdated.
As such, master planning must be viewed as a near continuous process, with fundamental reviews
undertaken at regular intervals. The maximum assumed period between reviews should therefore be
no more than 5 years, however it is hoped that the main backbone assumptions hold true and stand
the test of time.

CI.135 Master Plan Deliverable — Phase 1 Operational Cost

It is important that all users or air service providers of the airport are provided with estimated rental
rates for the facilities that they may occupy or use in phase 1.
In order to do this, the airport authority or the cost airport planner working on its behalf must possess
a robust financial model that contains and defines:

• How overall project financing is resolved.

• All terminals and other primary and secondary revenue and cost centres, their breakdown revenue
targets and cost estimates for each cost centre.
• Final estimated airport capital, maintenance and operating costs and related pricing policies for
airlines and other user space requirements.

• Income from non-aeronautical sources.

Existing airports should possess a 10-year CAPEX document that shows their intended programme
of works over two consecutive 5-year periods. The programme should be reassessed annually after
consultation with the airline/IATA airport development specialists. The resultant impact of the
development programme on user charges should be discussed and agreed with lATA's User Charges
In so doing the users can see that charges are:
• Cost related, taking into consideration the operation of the 'single till'.
• Transparent and justified.
• Fairly and equitably applied, without discrimination or cross-subsidisation.
• Agreed after consultation.
Airlines, the principal users at airports, will be particularly interested in rental rates for land-side offices,
ramp level accommodation, gate hold rooms, check-in positions, common user terminal equipment
facilities, baggage handling systems, airline service desks and information counters. Security costs
should be assessed and accounted for. In many instances airport security costs should be borne by
the state.

IATA Master Planning

Particular attention needs to be paid when new or alternate methods of operation are proposed. As
an example, when a new airport proposes to switch from a 100% remote stand operation to one
where 100% contact is possible, airlines, particularly if they operate within the charter or low-frills
markets, may have difficulty in accommodating the additional ground handling charges resulting from
the need to push back and perhaps use air-bridges. Airport operators must therefore be subject to
the discipline of assuring that user charges do not drive away carriers working on the margin of
Should the review of proposed operating costs indicate that the proposed development has
substantially reduced the ability for users to make an adequate return, then the preferred concept
should be re-evaluated to determine if there is scope for CAPEX reductions and Operating Expenditure
(OPEX) savings.
In extreme cases, this may require base assumptions to be re-examined and alternative, more simple
and less expensive facility solutions to be brought forward.

CI.13.6 Master Plan Deliverable — Conceptual Layouts

Conceptual layouts should clearly demonstrate how:
• All users can operate efficient, effective and profitable operations within the proposed plan.
• Long term sustainable development can be achieved.
• Projected growth in all types of traffic can be accommodated throughout the entire life of the
project until saturation is achieved in the ultimate stage.
• The environmental impact on surrounding communities and stakeholders will be minimised and
maintained at acceptable levels.
• Additional capacity can be brought into play without negatively impacting on current user
• Associated surface access infrastructure systems will be introduced in staged developments to
support forecast traffic levels and demand.
• Public transport systems can be introduced to increase the percentage of trips made by passengers
and staff when accessing the airport.

C1.13.7 Master Plan Deliverable — Development Phasing

If we assume that basic planning principals have been observed, then facility phasing and construction
should be determined by demand. Facilities should be expanded in a modular fashion and at intervals
to keep slightly ahead of demand and to maintain pre-determined and required levels of service.
Phased expansion should allow for periods where individual facilities can settle into routines such
that operational efficiencies can be maximised. In general terms this period should extend for a
minimum of 4 to 5 years after project completion. Longer periods of construction inactivity will be the
result of the over provisioning of facilities, with associated cost penalties that would invariably be
passed on through airport charges.
As master plans are drawn up, they should show the existing airport layout and as a minimum the
plans showing the first phase and/or development in years 5, 10, 20 as well as the ultimate stage.
Short term plans covering a ten year period should be supported by a rolling development programme
that is reviewed annually by the airlines and supported by a CAPEX document. IATA has developed
specific guidelines in relation to CAPEX documentation. Such guidelines are available on request.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

C1.1&8 Master Plan Deliverable — The Master Plan Report

A final master plan report should be submitted showing how the land-use option has been developed.
The report should be concise and give a clear indication of any outstanding strengths and weaknesses.
Recommendations for future actions should also be given.
For this report, drawn information needs to be of a higher quality, with precise dimensions clearly
noted such that the operational viability can be clearly demonstrated. The information must be capable
of standing up to intense scrutiny and questioning.
The report should identify how the phased implementation of the airport master plan will satisfy the
strategic brief for the region. The main elements defined within Clause C1.2, The Master Plan — Ten
Step Sequence should be clearly explained within the report.
The final master plan report should at least contain:
Definition of the strategic objectives for the region.
Executive summary.
Statement on how the master plan shall meet strategic objectives.
Financial Plan (development financing proposal & cost recovery and payback periods).
Environmental impact.
Economic impact.
ATC impact.
Qualifications of master planning team.
Explanation of how The Master Plan — Ten Step Sequence was observed.
Provision of master plan phasing diagrams to ultimate airport development (in 5 year increments).
Conclusions and recommendations statements.
Supporting forecasting/environmental/financial data.
Prospective Airline User statements.
Further Information.
Final reports may be subject to comparative analysis; i.e. to determine which airport planner's master
plan option is ultimately successful and moves forward into the final stage. Again the master plan
must be easily recognised and understood by a broad, perhaps non-technical review team. It is for
this reason that airport master plans should adopt a consistent format so that comparison of master
plans can be done on a like for like assessment basis.

C1.13.9 Master Plan Deliverable — Location Map

This is a map drawn to a suitable scale (e.g. approximately 1:50,000) sufficient to depict the airport,
city or cities near the airport, rail lines, major roads, major obstructions, terrain and geographical
boundaries within 15-20km of the airport. It is also important for environmental and political
considerations. A sectional aeronautical chart may be used. This may be shown on the title page in
lieu of the ALP.

IATA Master Planning

C1.13.10 Master Plan Deliverable — Basic Data Tables

These tables contain data on airport conditions and information on existing and proposed runways
where applicable. The following table is an illustrative example.

Master Plan Deliverable — Basic Data Tables

Runway Data
Runway 12 - 30
Existing Ultimate
Effective runway gradient (in %) 0.19 Same
% Wind Coverage 91.4 Same
Designated Instrument Runway(s) / /
Runway length (metres) 3,600 3,900
Pavement Strength (see note 1) 605, 80D. 145DT Same
Pavement type (sod, asphalt, concrete).
Approach Slopes & Clear Zones 50:1 Same
Lighting HIRL Same
Marking All Weather Same
Navigation & Visual Aids ILS, ALS, VASI Same
RETs (rapid exit taxiways) & RATs (rapid access taxiways).

1. Values given are gross aircraft weight in 1,000' and type of main gear — Single (S) Dual (D) &
Dual Tandem (DT) Gear aircraft using the CAN-PCN system as appropriate.

Master Plan Deliverable — Basic Data Tables

Airport Data
Airport magnetic variation
Airport Elevation (highest point of the useable landing area) 850.0' Same
Airport Reference Point (ARP) Co-ordinates (WGS-84) 30* 40* 31' Same
Airport & Terminal NAV aids 111*20'3ff Same
SMR/SMGCS (surface movement radar/surface movement guidance &
control system)
Mean Max. Temperature of Hottest Month 80 F Same


Miscellaneous Facilities — taxiway edge: lighting, centreline and sign system.

Remarks: Trees to Northwest of runway 12 to be removed when runway is extended.

C1.13.11 Master Plan Deliverable — Building List

All buildings should be described and numbered.

C1.13.12 Master Plan Deliverable — Meteorological Information.

A wind rose should be presented, with the runway orientations superimposed. This should indicate
the data source and for what period the records cover.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

C1.13.13 Master Plan Deliverable — Main Title Block

A title block should show:
• Drawing Description.
• Who was responsible for creating the plan.
• Who prepared, checked and approved the plan.
• The drawing reference number, the date drawn, scale and number of associated sheets.
• Revision details including number, description, who revised, who approved change and date.


C1 .IR1 Master Plan Development

Airport planners should observe and follow The Master Plan — Ten Step Sequence, defined
within Clause C1.2.of this section. The master plan report deliverable should observe the
document mm&htation requirements defined within Clause C1-14 of this section.

C1 IR2 Land Use Concepts

All airports should develop land use concepts that allow all airport users to develop and expand
their business in a structured, orderly fashion, without adversely impacting on the business of
their neighbours on or adjacent to the airport.

C1.IR3 Master Plan

All airports should possess a thoroughly vetted master plan that indicates how additional
can be provided in a sustainable, cost efficient, modular and flexible manner when demand is
A master plan is required so that all air-side, land-side and airport support facilities can develop,
expand and improve the operational flexibility and efficiency of their business in a structured,
balanced and orderly fashion without adversely impacting on the business of their
on or adjacent to the airport. In so doing the potential of the available land and the capacity of
the airport's runway system can be maximised:

C1 .IR4 Master Plan — Phased Development Strategy

Master plans should include a phased development strategy that allows for expansion of all
facilities in a way that does not impact on the operational viability of neighbouring facilities. As
such, layouts at 5, 10 and 20-year intervals leading up-to an ultimate long-term strategic view
should be provided.

IATA Master Planning

C1.IR5 Master Plan Assumptions

All master plan assumptions should be thorougnly reviewed and tested every five years.

C1 .IR6 Stakeholder Consultation

Adequate and meaningful consultation with stakeholders should be undertaken prior to and
during the master plan review period.

C1.IR7 CAPEX Plan — Documentation

Existing airports should possess a 10-year CAPEX document that shows their intended
programme of works over two consecutive 5-year periods. The programme should be
annually after consultation with the airline/I ATA airport development specialists. The resultant
impact of the development programme on user charges should be discussed and agreed with
lATA's User Charges Panel.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual



Airport traffic forecast studies use a combination of trend analysis, data extrapolation, expectation
surveys and professional statistical judgement. Extensive operational knowledge and a comprehensive
understanding of how the local environment in which the airport is situated is required. A close working
relationship with planning and forecasting experts of all major airlines operating at the subject airport
will also be necessary.

Particular attention is also given to comments and forecast inputs from other sectors of the travel
industry (e.g. tourist boards, tour operators, financial institutions, etc.) whenever possible to ensure
that the forecasts incorporate a wide range and broad base of views. As a result, any forecast
produced should reflect the views of the travel industry concerning future traffic development and
likely changes in operating patterns.

Air transport activity generates typical peak period demand that reflects user's characteristics and
volume for a normal busy period. Traffic forecasts often are presented using the following
recommended projection periods:

• Short Term (> 1 Year < 5 Year Projection).

• Long Term (> 5 Years < 30 Year Projection).
• Annual (12 Month Projection).

• Peak Period (Selected Months Within An Operational Year).


C2.2.1 Capacity Planning

An important input to the capacity planning process is the airport traffic forecast. An accurate forecast
is essential since the sizing and the phasing of the airport project is dependant on its data. If the
forecast understates demand, the facilities will be built too small and the airport will experience a
capacity problem. If the forecast overstates the demand, the facilities will be over-sized and the
airlines will needlessly pay for under-utilised facilities. It is therefore critical to capture the correct data
from the airlines and trie IATA user groups at the earliest opportunity. Please refer to clause C2.6.2
Data Availability, which confirms some credible sources for this data.

C2.2.2 Financial and Cost Benefit Studies

Forecasts can also provide inputs for financial planning. At most airports, landing fees are determined
on the basis of a unit charge that is multiplied by the aircraft maximum take-off weight (MTOW)
tonnage of the aircraft. With an understanding of the likely aircraft movements it will be necessary to
compile a comprehensive financial and cost benefit study to support the forecast material.

The financial plan should include but should not be limited to the following data/factors:
• Landing Fee Projection.
• Local Community Benefits.
• Likely Airport Operational Costs.
• Alternative Transport Provision Costs.
IATA Master Planning


There are essentially three parameters that need to be covered in the annual traffic forecast: (a)
passengers and baggage volumes; (b) cargo; and (c) aircraft movements. To obtain this data will
require a clear understanding of the airline user requirements and calculated usage of the facility.

C2.3.1 Passenger and Baggage

The originating, domestic and transfer passenger volumes will be used to determine the planning
requirements of airport terminal facilities and support infrastructure. The number of passengers
collectively within the building will be derived from the flight schedules and corresponding load factors
which collectively shall provide the volumes of the passengers within the building at any instance in
Since various categories of passenger traffic will use different facilities in the airport, it will be necessary
to forecast each passenger category separately in order to determine future requirements for
passenger facilities. Accordingly, IATA forecasts three types of passenger traffic:
• Embarking.
• Disembarking.
• Direct Transit.
These categories are further subdivided between scheduled and non-scheduled passenger traffic,
for which separate forecasts should be produced.
Following the implementation of 24-hour landside shopping, the terminal retail complex will also see
growth from the local community and casual visitors to the airport. This volume of the general public
should be added to the volume attributed to the traveling passenger.
The baggage forecast data will be derived by multiplying the passenger processing rates by the
passenger bag ratios for the various categories of passengers within the terminal. In practice the
following steps are used in this regards:
Step 1 — Flight Schedule Determined for Design Year.
Step 2 — Flight Loadings Determined.
Step 3 — Number of Passengers Witnessed Determined as Passenger Rate/Hr.
Step 4 — Passenger Bag Ratio(s) Applied to Passenger Rate(s) to determine Total Bag Rate/Hr.
For existing airports, airport planners should use passenger to bag ratios determined through surveys
at the relevant airport. In the absence of this data the following bag to passenger design ratios should
be adopted. It should be noted that this is only useful as a first cut forecast for the master plans
where the data is not readily available. Planners are advised to carefully review this data at subsequent
and more detailed design levels.

Table C2-1: Typical Bag to Passenger Ratios for

High Level Forecasting Purposes

Type of Pax. Europe Asia/Africa USA Rest of the

Traffic World
International Pax. 1.0-1.5 Bags/Pax 2 Bags/Pax 2 Bags/Pax 1.5 Bags/Pax
Domestic Pax. 0.5-1.0 Bags/Pax 1.0-2.0 Bags/Pax 1.0 Bags/Pax 1.0 Bags/Pax
Transfer Pax. 1-1.5 Bags/Pax 1-2 Bags/Pax 1-2 Bags/Pax 1-1.5 Bags/Pax

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

C2.3.2 Commercial Aircraft Movement

The forecast of aircraft movements (i.e., aircraft landing and take-off movements) determines the
planning requirements of airport airside facilities.
Aircraft movements include all commercial scheduled operations. Non-scheduled, general aviation
and military aircraft movements usually have little influence on the planning of runway and apron
capacity. These are generally excluded from forecasts unless their impact is deemed appropriately

C2.3.3 Cargo
When forecasting the perceived cargo tonnage it will be important to distinguish between the categories
of cargo goods. Cargo is the combination of freight and mail and these in turn are comprised as

Freight Includes express and diplomatic bags but not a passenger's checked baggage.
Mail Refers to correspondence and other objects tendered by and intended for delivery
to postal administrations.
In the forecast, the combined number of tonnes of freight and mail handled at the airport are taken into
consideration. Also, in general, scheduled and non-scheduled cargo traffic are considered together, as
both are handled in the same cargo terminal area.
The forecast should differentiate between passenger and all-cargo operations, as each will have a
specific influence in respect of apron use. Express freight, for example, will have a dedicated facility
and apron area just as will perishable goods, and so it will be necessary to understand the split
between these categories of cargo volume.
Some of the key factors that influence the demand in cargo traffic are economic growth (both on a
regional and global level) as well as the costs associated with air cargo.
The GDP indicator has demonstrated a strong link to demand for aviation services, in cargo as well
as passenger transport. On a regional analysis there must be an assessment of the catchment area,
and what type of market segment can be captured if there is competition for the same service. As
the global marketplace expands, there is also a need to assess factors on the movement of goods
on a broader base, such as domestic trade policies, elimination of tariffs, etc., on a worldwide level.
Other factors, such as the 'Just in time' philosophy, increase the demand for a faster air cargo service.
The growth in e-commerce has also produced a new demand segment for the movement of products
and the dynamic tracking of goods. Forecasters should seek data from freight forwarding and freight
processing companies to understand market trends and cargo type distinctions.
For airport planning purposes, cargo forecasts must be broken down into sectors differentiating the
means by which the cargo is transported:

• Passenger and Combi Aircraft.

• All-Cargo Aircraft.
It is essential to make this split in the forecast as each sector has different operating requirements,
such as: apron requirements; type of terminal facility; type of aircraft stand; etc. This type of information
is crucial to the planning of cargo facilities where an understanding of client's usage is required.
The combined tonnage of freight and mail handled at the airport should also be taken into consideration
in a cargo forecast. Scheduled and non-scheduled cargo traffic are generally considered together,
as both are handled in the same cargo terminal area. It's generally not recommended to produce a
cargo forecast by origin-destination or by route area, but rather by inbound and outbound cargo traffic.
Because the distinction between freight carried on aircraft and freight carried on trucks is not always
clear, any analysis of cargo traffic must be made with great caution. There are cases when freight
IATA Master Planning

tonnes carried on trucks are included in air freight statistics due to this freight being covered by the
same airwaybill as pure air freight.

C2.3.5 Aircraft movements

There are two ways of projecting passenger aircraft movements. One way is to project an average
number of passengers per flight and apply this parameter to the projection of passenger traffic to
derive the resulting movements.
The second way is to project the passenger load factor and the average aircraft size as two separate
steps. This approach provides a more solid projection of aircraft movements than the first one, but
it requires the construction of passenger load factors for the base year for each route area. These
are then projected for the whole forecast period and must reflect the potential room for improvements
in airline productivity.
The next step is to apply the projections of the load factors to passenger traffic projections in order
to derive the projection of total seats. Following this, forecasters will need to project the average
aircraft size to reflect as much as possible the expected evolution of airline fleet mix as well as airlines'
strategy to either intensify frequencies, to the detriment of aircraft size, or utilise bigger aircraft if the
level of frequencies is found to be suitable. In applying the average aircraft size to the projection of
total seats, we obtain a projection of aircraft movements.
It becomes important that, within each route area to be forecast, the projected evolution of aircraft
mix by size category remains compatible with the projected evolution of the average aircraft size
which is expected to take place. For example, if one projects the average aircraft size to decline
during a five-year period, the projection of the mix during that period should not reflect an increased
share of aircraft of the higher size categories.
In regard to cargo aircraft movements, the forecast needs a different approach. It should be based
on the projection of the share of total cargo likely to be carried on these cargo aircraft, and determining
an assumed average number of tonnes per flight, this would lead to the construction of cargo aircraft
movements. This however requires that the statistics are made available by the airport authorities in
question. A distinction in cargo tonnage carried on the passenger aircraft versus cargo carried on
cargo aircraft is required.


C2.4.1 Traffic Sectors

It is also important to distinguish between the different traffic sectors. Each individual airport will have
different traffic sectorisation comprised from the list below:
• Long Haul International.
• Short Haul International.
• Domestic.
• Schengen.
• Transborder.

C2.4.2 Passenger Characteristics

Originating, terminating and transfer passengers should be further subdivided between scheduled
and non-scheduled passenger traffic, especially with the growing market of the low cost carriers.
Given that air travel is a derived demand, it is essential to identify the different passenger characteristics
to have a better appreciation of the impact on the future development of the different terminal facilities
such as check-in, passport control, baggage handling system, business lounge, etc.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual


C2.5.1 Annual to Peak Period Demand

For the purpose of facilities planning it is essential to know the likely requirements on an hour-by-
hour basis. Annual or even weekly forecast figures can be almost meaningless in this respect.
The relationship of annual traffic to peak period will depend on seasonal variations and passenger
characteristics. This relationship is projected separately for domestic and international traffic and
within each category for each route area.

C2.5.2 Seasonal Trends

Seasonal variation affects the relationship of peak month to annual traffic. Common influencing factors
in this regard include:
• Effect of economic growth on business or holiday market sectors (leisure traffic usually creates
peaks at certain periods of the year different from the peak created by business traffic).
• Whether airlines increase capacity during peak periods.

C2.5.3 Special Events

Peaks associated with special occurrences such as national holidays, religious festivals, and sporting
events should be excluded from forecasts. Plan to accommodate this above planning peak demand
at a lower level of service, by means of contingency plans, schedule coordination and other sound
demand/capacity management practices.

C2.5.4 Assessment Methods

Having established the magnitude and frequency of the forecasted data, it will be necessary to assess
it using proven assessment rules which will be used for the sizing of airport facilities. One approach
is to use a proportion (85th percentile) of the forecast profile as the basis to plan airport infrastructure.
Another approach is to select frequently occurring peak days or busy hour periods which are chosen
as the basis on which to plan airport facilities. These approaches can be summarised as follows:
• 85th percentile.
• 40th busy hour or day of the year (see CDG example of this method in Table C2-2 below).
• 30th busy hour or day of the year.
• The second busiest day in an average week during the peak month — an average weekly pattern
of traffic is then calculated for that month.
It is important that one the above techniques is used as it is inappropriate to plan the design of airport
infrastructure on the occurrence of either an isolated peak day forecast or an isolated peak hour rate.
Busy Day Schedule: Determining airport capacity largely depends on predicting the impact of
projected airline schedules on the various airport facilities. Capacity and level of service are based
on operating conditions and rules, but also upon the particular demand profiles created by the mix
of flights and flight sector for a typical busy day. The amalgamated airline schedules for a typical
busy day reflects the airlines strategy for an airport and how an airport is connected to the world.
The production of a single day forecast requires a detailed assessment of all the operational parameters
that underlie airline schedules: the operational suitability of aircraft types for given route structures;
reasonable aircraft roistering compatible with a high level of aircraft utilisation; and use of commercially
feasible arrival and departure timings throughout a route structure. This assessment is then
incorporated to form the amalgamated airline forecast schedule.
Selection of a 'Busy' Day: A typical 'busy' day is the second busiest day in an average week during
the peak month. An average weekly pattern of passenger traffic is calculated for that month, and

IATA Master Planning

peaks associated with special events such as religious festivals, trade fairs, conventions and sport
events are excluded. This single day analysis should assess:
• Operational suitability of an aircraft type for a given route structure.
• Aircraft rotations compatible with a high level of utilisation.
• Use of commercially feasible arrival and departure timings throughout the route structure.
• Airport curfews and other limitations.
The 'busy day' data for the base year is 'actual' and should come from the airport control tower (ATC)
log. It should cover each aircraft movement during the 'busy' day with indication of the following

• Airline Name.
• Flight Number.
• Aircraft Type.
• Aircraft Registration.
• Seating Capacity.
• Origin Of Flight.
• Arrival Time.
• Terminal Used.
• Passengers Disembarked.
• Direct Transit Passengers (If Applicable).
• Departure Time.
• Destination Of Flight.
• Embarking Passengers.

The busy day should be more than just a single witnessed statistical hour or a day within an
calendar. The busy day should be representative of a frequently occurring 'model' busy period,
representative of a realistic day within a weekly schedule.

Table C2-2: CDG Peak Passenger Traffic Analysis

CDG Airport Passenger Traffic Analysis

Punngin 2000 1999 1998 1897 199t 1995 1994 TTL

Par Year 48,246,137 43.597,194 38,628,916 35,327,039 31.724,035 28,356.470 28,880,214 254,559,006

Per Peak Month 4,887,000 3,877,000 3,487,000 3.057.000 2,798.000 2,778.807 24,940,807


0 0
Peek Month to Year 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Per Peek Day* 179,519
.10 168,248
.10 151,461 137,809 128.951 114,283 108274 988,545
Peak Day to Peak Month 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 101
Per Peak Hour 16.791 16,474 12.927 12,699 12.085 8,915 9,148 89,039

Peak Hour to Peak Day

M 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09
Per 40th Peak Hour 14,599 13,492 10,980 10,697 10,146 7,760 7,874 75,548
.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 0,08 0.07 0.07 0.08

Peak Month to Yeat
Peak Day to Peak Month 4%

Peak Hour to Peak Day 9%

40th Peak Hour to Peak Day 8%
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Table C2-3: Estimate of Peak Passenger Traffic

Based on MPPA Forecast

Passengers/Year 1,000,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 10,000,000 12,500,000 15,000,000

Passengers/Peak Month 100,000 250,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000
Passengers/Peak Day 4,000 10,000 20,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
Passengsrs/Peak Hour 3S0 900 1,800 3,600 4,500 5,400

Passengers/Year 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000

Passengers/Peak Month 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 5,000,000
Passengers/Peak Day 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 200,000
Passengers/Peak Hour 7,200 9,000 10,800 12,600 14,400 18,000


C2.6.1 Study Objectives

The objectives of the forecast study should be clearly identified prior to the collation of data. Informed
decisions should be made and forecasters should be focused on having the correct representative
statistics rather than a convenient series of numbers which perhaps do not convey the true behavioural
patterns of the airport and its traffic in the foreseeable future. Forecasters should aim to satisfy the
following high level study objectives:
• There should be three sets of statistics provided by the airport facility forecaster, which should
represent the low, medium and high magnitude data obtained and assessed. The forecaster must
specify which influencing factors have the largest level of uncertainty in regard to their future
evolution, in order to justify having both low and high projections.
• Operational and business assumptions should be clarified in every regard on forecasted
information with qualifications as regard their impact on the forecasted data.
• Data should be auditable whereby the forecaster should be able to trace the history of the
manipulation of data and to confirm the logic for the decisions made in every regard.
• Consultation groups should be identified along with their terms of reference. All of which should
be clarified in the record and the presented data produced by forecasters.

C2.6.2 Data Availability

There are three main credible sources of data for forecasters to access. This includes but it is not
exclusively limited to:
1. Historical Site Data
Historical Site data may originate from various sources within the airport organisation and or the
airlines. Care should be observed with historical data because as the name suggests it is based
on past trends and may not be representative of how the existing airport or airline may function
based on a changing fleet or changes in business processes. Historical data is useful in the
assessment of process times and historical processing trends.
2. IATA World Wide Survey
This data is sourced by IATA following extensive world wide surveys of key airline and airport
infrastructures/organisations (see clause C2.6.3 Method 2 for further details).

IATA Master Planning

3. User Forecasted New Data

This data is created by the airline or airport from first principles and may reflect a combination
of historical data and new operational objectives on the use of newer aircraft or new airport

C2.6.3 Methods Of Forecasting Passenger Traffic And Aircraft Movements

A combination of several methods forms the core of the traffic forecasting approach, these are defined
as follows:
Method 1: Computerised Regression
This analysis pertains to the relationship between traffic (to/from an airport) and the major indicators
of socio-economic activity in the airport's country (e.g. IATA has a comprehensive database of
projections of the major economic indicators of world countries).
The forecasts should draw on the wealth of experience and local knowledge available within
airlines serving or likely to serve an airport. A forecast based on an econometric model should
generally be revised to reflect carriers' views and the team's experience in dealing with the
forecasting process.
The contribution of airline yields is becoming increasingly important in determining traffic growth,
although GDP remains usually the most important factor. Unfortunately, statistics on yield trends
on a per country basis are generally hard to obtain.
Econometric models do not take into account non-quantifiable factors which are of prime
importance in conditioning future traffic development, therefore it is recommended not to rely
entirely on a purely model-driven forecast.
The use of models implies some continuity in the level of influence of the factors considered
throughout the forecast period. Forecasting experience demonstrates that this is not always the
Method 2: The IATA World-Wide Traffic Forecast Survey
This global survey is undertaken every year in August-September and covers all traffic flows
around the world (nearly 2,000 unduplicated country-pairs). This survey reflects the opinions of
all IATA member airlines serving these country-pairs concerning the future development of
passenger and cargo traffic during the next 15 years. It takes into account the influence of the
major economic variables as well as airline strategies that are intended to respond to future
demand. Airlines are asked to provide their opinion on total market growth trends and not simply
their own traffic.
Method 3: Special Survey-Based Forecasts
These are customised for specific airport traffic forecast projects. This consists of approaching
each of the key airlines and tour operators to obtain their forecasts of growth trends for a particular
destination compared with other similar destinations. It is important that their survey is not only
restricted to the travel markets where direct services now exist, or to airlines or tour operators,
but also includes other experts in the travel industry (e.g. tourist authorities and hotel chains).

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Method 4: Judgmental Forecast

This method permits a wide range of information to be brought to the forefront of the forecast
(national trends, political situations, etc.). It is useful in conjunction with the other methods, where
there are a large number of variables for which little information is available, or where non-
quantifiable factors are expected to play a major role. The judgmental element is a particularly
high-value component to the traffic forecast since the team member will have gained substantial
experience in dealing with airport traffic forecasts for small as well as large airports all around
the world.
Extrapolations of Past Trends
Extrapolations of historical data can be used typically where long-term trends are likely to continue.
Care should be observed with this principle as changes in operational processes, improvements
due to new technology and changes in legislation can seriously undermine the projection of data
into what can be realistically the 'unforeseeable' future. Extrapolated data:
• Fits a mathematical line to the historical data and then a projection of this line is given to
trend the data into the future. Growth patterns are fitted to smooth out data.
• Assumes there is an underlying pattern in historical data.
• Assumes that all factors influencing air traffic in the past will continue to operate in the same
way in the future.
Causal Methods (econometric models, regressions, gravity models)
This approach relies on the assessment of socio-economic variables that can cause air traffic
growth or decline. With this approach it will be necessary to:
• Identify the socio-economic variable(s) cause(s) changes and ensure that historical trends
for these variables are available.
• Determine how the variable(s) is (are) related to air traffic demand (model, equation) assuming
no capacity constraints and structural changes?econometric models, equations, gravity
• Forecast/predict socio-economic changes.
• Adjust forecasts when underlying causal factors develop differently from the original
• Do NOT directly correlate two long term trends.
Qualitative Techniques (market and industry surveys)
This technique uses predominantly surveyed or historic data which is then subjectively assessed.
The subjective assessment may take into account a wide range of real process changes,
technology changes and logical factors which might affect the forecast. In summary:

• Human judgment and ratings are turned into quantitative estimates.

• Market research, industry surveys and historical analogy is used.
• When data is scarce or when there are data philosophy changes it is difficult to predict their
• Delphi Technique: bring together data in a logical, unbiased and systematic way such that
all information and judgements related to growth/decline can be calculated and assessed.

IATA Master Planning


C2.IR1 Forecasting Periods

ipata forecasts should be presented using any one or more of the forecasting period durations
defined within clause C2.1.

C2.IR2 Forecasting Data

When designing terminal building infrastructure, forecasting data should be presented which
relates to passengers and baggage volumes and ui; craft movement data, as defined within
clause C2.3.1 Similarly cargo forecast data should in most cases be produced where terminals
are going to process any form of cargo, whether it be freight or mail subdivisions. Aircraft
movement data forecasts must be provided prior to the planning of apron and runway
Data should be obtained from any of the recommended data sources as defined within clause

C2.IR3 Data Assessment Techniques

Forecasters should evaluate the merits of each of the assessment techniques defined within
clauses C2.5 and C2.6 and select the philosophy and approaa •ich best fits the needs of
the project forecast brief and then should present forecasting data accordingly.

C2.IR4 Freight Analysis Precautions

Because the distinction between freight carried on aircraft and freight carried on trucks is not
always clear, any analysis of cargo traffic must be made with great caution. There are cases
when freight tonnes earned on trucks are included in air freight statistics due to this freight being
covered by the same airwaybill as pure air freight.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual



The need for control of development in the vicinity of airports has been recognised from the very
beginning of commercial aviation. Initially, concerns concentrated on controlling the height of
hazards or obstacles. These centred on incompatible activities that could cause:

• Electrical interference with radio communications and navigational aids.

• Confusion of pilots by lights on approach.

• Reduced visibility due to the production of smoke or vapour clouds.

• Birds to accumulate in critical operational areas.

All of the above are still pertinent today. Noise did not enter into the equation until the introduction
of turbo-jet operations in the early 1960s, and there are various measures available to alleviate
around airports, including: reduction in aircraft noise at source; land-use planning; development
control or management; operational noise abatement procedures (when permitted by air traffic
authorities); and local noise related operating restrictions.

Land-use planning is central to the overall process. Properly managed, it will effectively protect
health and safety by minimising exposure to emissions and excessive noise. These management
principles need to be coupled with supportive legislation. Legislative frameworks regulating
surrounding land-use outside of the airfield boundary should be provided by National Governments,
as they are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the airport is interwoven into the regional and
national socio-economic fabric. These should set the broad policy context within which local
can work, and ideally there should also be a consultation process by which the various stakeholder
groups (surrounding community, airport operators, and airline representatives) can comment on and
suggest changes to draft policies. The airport operator should also be consulted on monitoring the
effective application of the legislation.

The sustainability of air transport is heavily dependent on controlling environmental impact, with a/c
being noise the largest factor to be considered when undertaking land-use planning within and

Many of the available solutions to mitigate against noise in the vicinity of airports, including those
obtainable from land-use planning, can often only be realised in the longer term. However this should
not be seen as a reason by those responsible for seeking reductions in noise levels to apply minimal
effort. This particularly holds true for existing airports where the ability to make immediate changes
in land-use is limited.

For existing airports it is also important that a/c source noise reductions and the resultant contraction
of noise contours and population numbers impacted do not allow local authorities to relax their guard
against encroachment upon the airport boundary. It should also be noted that in this regard airlines
have made significant contributions by requesting efficiency gains from a/c manufacturers. Jet aircraft
are now significantly quieter than when they first entered into service over 40 years ago.
Master Planning


Many factors influence noise level exposure. These include sound pressure levels, broadband
frequency distribution, spectral irregularities, duration, SIDS and STARS, frequency of operations,
application of operational noise abatement procedures, a/c mix, mode of runway operation, and
prevalent meteorological conditions.

Sensitivity to a/c noise will vary from one country or location to the next, and be dependent on
many factors. These can include land-use, building use, type of construction, distance from source,
background noise levels, sociological factors, the amount of diffraction/refraction/reflection due to
buildings and topography encountered on site, and the meteorological conditions prevalent at the
time of exposure.

All of the above can be modelled to determine anticipated noise exposure and community response.


The establishment of noise zones surrounding an airport is an important step when determining
land-use. The number of zones, noise descriptors and noise exposure calculation methods used
from one country to the next. As a result the approach used is dependent on the individual country

Whatever approach is applied it is important that local authorities apply strict controls over proposed
development in the zones around the airport. It is important to stress that the zones should be
calculated and based on the ultimate achievable throughput of the airport, i.e. when the runway is
saturated, such that long term development flexibility is ensured.

As an example, three zones could be established as follows:

• Zone 1 — Where most land uses and developments are not permitted.

• Zone 2 — Where some restrictions apply.

• Zone 3 — Where no restrictions apply.

Noise zoning serves two purposes: to protect the airport from encroachment and to protect


A single authority should have overall responsibility for developing land-use criteria. Zoning plans
should be created as a first step when establishing an airport, as retrospective steps are difficult if
not impossible to achieve.

In general terms noise sensitive development such as housing, schools, hospitals, offices and
should not be permitted in the first zone. It should be noted that building construction can be utilised
as a means to reduce noise exposure.


There are many methods for regulating development or for modifying existing land uses in order to
achieve compatibility between the airport and surrounding communities. Building or land acquisition
can be employed, but this tends to be an expensive solution exercised in extreme cases only. As
noted above, zoning and building controls should be applied in the first instance. 107
Uncontrolled development within established airport noise zones will debase local authority control
and may impact on the long term development potential of individual airports. Short-term gains
resulting from the either the owner or developer's desire to increase the rate of return from property
and land or by increased taxes to the Government should be avoided.
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual


Numerous strategies can be applied to control the use of land surrounding airports. Development
restrictions within pre-defined zones can secure the longer-term vision for new airports. Retrospective
noise insulation measures may go some way to redressing the balance for commercial and residential
properties of long standing at existing airports. However the means of control, regulation and finance
will vary from country to country and be dependent on national and local characteristics. There are
three differing forms of control, as outlined below.

C3.6.1 Planning

A comprehensive development or layout plan should be provided to local authorities and should be
used as a guide by authorities when establishing development restrictions and controls. For existing
airports this will assist in determining the compatibility of development proposals with Government

C3.6.2 Mitigation

Measures can be employed that will help to alleviate the problems of aircraft noise. For new
construction, building regulations can ensure that building type, structure and materials provide an
adequate level of sound insulation.

Noise insulation programmes can also assist properties of long standing that are adversely impacted
by the development of existing or new airports. However the cost of applying adequate sound insulation
packages to housing can in some instances exceed the resale value or possible benefit from increased
rent. Also, additional sound insulation measures produce increases in construction and operating
costs and reduce flexibility of use to within the controlled building environment.

In extreme cases, land acquisition and relocation is a policy that can be explored by airport authorities.
However it is expensive and used primarily when no alternative will provide a satisfactory solution.
It may also in some instances have negative social implications.

Barriers can also be used to mitigate noise generated by manoeuvring aircraft or by ground handling
equipment. Barriers can be in the form of earth mounds located adjacent to runway thresholds and
holding aprons. Alternatively building structures, particularly those of main terminal buildings and
finger piers or satellites can be used, and sound attenuation barriers can also be employed. A
particularly good example is the reinforced concrete panels bordering the apron area to the western
side of T4 at London Heathrow. These have been attractively landscaped and in parts are now totally
enveloped by climbing plants and shrubbery. Such barriers can also contribute by doubling as security
barriers, particularly as these often occur in critical operational areas.

C3.6.3 Financial

Construction of new development in the immediate surrounds to the airport can be encouraged by
108 the existence of support infrastructure such as roads, utilities and community based facilities and
services. Similarly the absence of such capital improvement programmes can have the reverse

Government tax incentives or reduction programmes can also direct development towards areas
where these are welcomed and away from those areas where it is not.

Noise related airport-charging systems could also be employed. For more information in this area
see section D.


After the airport perimeter has been established, either for a new airport or for an existing airport
(were the perimeter has been redefined), it is important to double check that all major components
and airport support facilities can be properly located and accommodated within the overall airport
boundary. Each facility should be able to expand up to the ultimate phase of the airport. Balanced
optimised development, throughout the various expansion phases, is essential.
Master Planning
Prior to assessing individual functional requirements within an airport master plan, it is necessary to
subdivide the overall area into optimal sub areas, each capable of supporting growth towards the
maximum capacity of the airport. Airport facilities, in terms of building area, footprint and land area
required to support development, should be sized from an analysis of the maximum number of aircraft
movements and associated daily and peak hour passenger flows that the proposed runway system
can generate.
It is important to note that detailed layout information pertaining to individual facilities is not required
at this conceptual layout stage. All the individual pieces of the development jigsaw need to fit and
be correctly assembled and have the right interdependencies within the operational area. However
at this stage detailed operational characteristics of each facility are not required.
Airport characteristics, as shown on the Airport Land Use Plans, should represent the guiding tool
for local authorities when determining the suitability of development on land surrounding the airport.

C3.7.1 Airfield Configuration

The extent of this key operational area depends on the chosen runway configuration. See Section
for specific details.

C3.7.2 Facility Location Strategy

Once specific facility and functional areas have been identified they must be positioned on and around
the airport. The optimum location of these facilities must take into account the operational relationships
of the different facilities. One of the primary aims when positioning airport facilities should be to
minimise aircraft, passenger, baggage and vehicular movements. For specific operational relationships
see Section C1.4.5.

C3.7.3 Airport Land Use Plans

Airport Land Use Plans drawn to scale should depict existing and phased development (including
intended land uses) up to and including the ultimate development stage; i.e. when the runway is
saturated. The plans should include:
• Airside infrastructure including runways (including all runway elements — see section C1.3.7.2),
taxiways, holding bays, aircraft aprons (including de-icing), engine test enclosures, location &
specification of navigational aids, vehicle parking areas, staging areas, access roads, runway
lighting & markings.
• Landside infrastructure including passenger and cargo terminals, ground transport interchanges,
hotels, primary and secondary access roads and parking structures (at grade and multi-storey),
rail lines, vehicle fuelling stations.
• Airport support infrastructure including in-flight catering, aircraft maintenance, G.H. maintenance,
airport maintenance, police and security facilities, administration buildings, meteorological
compounds, rescue and fire fighting facilities, general aviation, fixed base operations, helicopter
operations, containment & treatment facilities and aircraft refuelling facilities.
• Areas reserved for aviation related revenue producing development such as industrial areas,
duty-free zones, etc.

• Control tower placement within the airfield (line of sight requirements).
• IT systems provision and infrastructure.
• ATC access control provision.
• ATC staff car parking (if different to general staff car parks).
• Systems commissioning requirements.
ATC radar and airborne aircraft communications buildings are often provided away from the airport
and in dedicated facilities. Where this facility is to be integral to the control tower facility, airport
building and apron designers should consult national ATC legislative bodies for precise size and
facility performance requirements

FIG. C4-1 shows the internal detail of a modern control tower with views overlooking the apron.

Figure C4-1: Control Tower Facility — Internal View

Photo Courtesy ofAlenia Marconi Systems Limited (UK)

I ATA Master Planning


The position of the control tower on the apron is vital to the safe operation of the aircraft. Ground
aircraft controllers need to be able to see all stand perimeters, taxiways and runways and final
approaches. One of the more challenging aspects of control tower design is the operational
requirement to permit controllers to see the stand areas and taxiways so that they can control and
coordinate push back operations where pilots are effectively blind in this regard. The control tower
staff must be able to provide clear guidance to pilots by being able to know the clearance status of
the stand and taxiways visually and through communications. Apron areas are often vast and can
be interlaced within intricate building infrastructure.
Apron, runway and taxiway control rooms should, wherever possible, be consolidated into a single
elevated apron control room, with 360° unobstructed panoramic vision of the areas mentioned
to the requirements of the national ATC provider and local operator). Dual elevated apron control
rooms maybe used (subject to the requirements of the national ATC provider and local operator)
where any one of more of the following situations have been met:
• Taxiways and runways are placed extra long distances away from the terminal apron stand
which results in the need to raise the control tower for this purpose only.

• More controllers will have a better vision of specific areas of the apron.

Typical Control Tower

Angle of Vision
Dependent on
ATC Provider

(i) H1 - Denotes Primary Full Apron
Control Room Height
Dimension Is dependent on Terminal
(II)Building Design
H2 - Denotes Secondary ApronATC visual
Control Room Height requirements
Dimension Is dependent on Terminal Building Design ATC visual requirements

(III) All stand perimeters, runways and taxiways to be visible from apron
pv) A single Apron Control Room solution is genertcally a preferred solution tnougn
this ATC dependent (Designer should consultnational ATC provider/operator)

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual


C4.IR1 Control Tower resign Consultation:

Terminal building and apron designers must liase with national ATC providers and operators at
the earliest opportunity to understand the precise operational specifications of the control tower.
Designers should also consult ICAO Annex 14.
\ ___________.

C4.IR2 Control Tower Desigl Considerations

Terminal building and apron designers must observe the design characteristics stipulated within
C4.2 and the control tower positioning requirements defined within clause C4.3

C4.IR3 Visual and Non-Visual Aids Reference Material

Designers embarking on the development of control towers should refer to sections G2 Visual
Aids and section G3 Non Visual Aids of this manual.

Chapter D — Airport Economics
Section D1: Airport Management
D1.1 General Airport Management — Economics ........................................... 109
D1.2 Meeting the Capacity Demand................................................................. 109
D1.3 Financing Airport Capacity Expansion ..................................................... 109
D1.4 The Privatization Trend ............................................................................ 110
D1.5 The Need for Economic Regulation .......................................................... 111
D1.6 Airport Performance and Efficiency .......................................................... 112
D1.7 IATA Recommendations .......................................................................... 113
Section D2: Airport Cost Structures and Revenue Sources
D2.1 Airport Cost Structures............................................................................ 114
D2.2 Airport Revenue Sources ......................................................................... 114
D2.3 IATA Recommendations .......................................................................... 115
Section D3: Airport Investment Decisions and Financing
D3.1 Airport Investment Decision-Making ....................................................... 116
D3.2 Airport Financing Options — Debt vs. Equity ........................................... 116
D3.3 Airport Financing Options — Pre-Funding Through Charges .................... 118
D3.4 IATA Recommendations .......................................................................... 119
Section D4: Aeronautical Charge Policies
D4.1 Aeronautical Charges.............................................................................. 120
D4.2 Determining the Cost Base for Aeronautical Charges.............................. 120
D4.3 Aeronautical Charging Policies ................................................................ 124
D4.4 Market-Based Options.............................................................................. 125
D4.5 Consultation with Users ........................................................................... 128
D4.6 IATA Recommendations ......................................................................... 128
Section D5: International Cost Variations
D5.1 Airport Benchmarking Data .................................................................... 130
D5.2 IATA Recommendations ......................................................................... 133

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual





Up until the late 1970s, airports were seen as nothing more than an extension of government. Since
then, however, the links with government have progressively loosened and the pressure for airports
to become commercially viable enterprises has grown. This viability included running the airport as
a business, able not only to cover its costs (including capital costs) through revenues, but also to
arrange for the necessary financing of airport development programmes.
Invariably, this challenge has been met with much success. Airports have generally been able to
generate substantial profits and secure private sector financing for airport development programmes,
usually at a low cost of capital. Further, airports have been able to do this despite the fact that the
demand for airport capacity, facilities and services is derived indirectly from airline scheduling plans.
While an airline's operating plan is more tactical, with scheduling decisions being made based on
short-term traffic forecasts covering the next 6-18 months, the airport planning cycle is more strategic
and long-term where the time frame from initial conception to completion may take 5-10 years.
This then is the primary challenge for airport management — matching capacity provision with demand
while maintaining financial viability or profitability and an acceptable level of service.

D1.1.1 Issues Relating to Airport Management

In recent years government policy-makers and airport planners alike have generally been contending
with two main issues:
1. How to meet the long-term growth in traffic demand with the necessary runway capacity and
terminal facilities.

2. How best to finance airport expansion in view of limited government budgets.

With respect to this latter point there has been an increased focus on developing the commercial
side of an airport and improving airport financial performance, while encouraging the involvement of
the private sector in both the management and financing of airport infrastructure.


Apart from the short-term influences of the economic cycle, growth in air travel demand has generally
been outstripping the supply of infrastructure and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
However, passenger growth can be accommodated through higher load factors, increased aircraft
size, or increased frequencies. The primary capacity concern to airport managers therefore is the
composition of traffic in terms of aircraft operations; this will have an impact both in terms of the
infrastructure needed and the cost recovery of related expenditures. As already discussed in the
chapter on forecasting, how an airline will meet the demand through its operational plan is of significant
importance to airport planners.


Traditionally, the vast majority of airports around the world were directly owned and operated by
national, regional or local governments. In most cases the civil aviation authority or department, being
part of the transport ministry, operated the airport(s), and in some cases the CAA would also be
, responsible for providing air traffic control and aeronautical meteorological services.
ICAO has, for a long time, promoted the concept of an autonomous authority that has managerial
and financial autonomy from government, yet is wholly owned by government. Aside from reducing

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

the financial burden on governments, autonomous authorities have the advantage of creating a
business culture — improving financial performance and quality of service.
With professional management in place that is both financially accountable and able to undertake
and implement long-term development plans, the government-owned autonomous airport authority
has in a number of cases been a precursor to the privatized airport. Such was the case with the
British Airport Authority, established in 1966, which later became a limited company (BAA Pic) with
the Airports Act of 1986, owning seven airports. Shares in BAA Pic were subsequently floated on the
London Stock Exchange in 1987.


The airline industry generally favours the trend what is commonly referred to
as the privatisation of airport and air navigation entities in that the facilities and
services may be provided in a more cost efficient and effective manner. It is
concerned, however, that the process often leads to increases in the cost base
for charges, and thus, higher user charges. The requisites for industry support
for privatisation are: meaningful consultation with the user community prior to
during the privatisation process; appropriate legislation obligating observance by
the commercialised/privatised entity of the ICAO Policies on Charges; and the
designation of an effective and independent economic regulatory mechanism
providing oversight of charging practices.


Privatization1 of, or private participation in airport management has usually taken the form of a long-
term lease of all or part of the airport facilities and services, with the responsibility for their
and development resting with the concessionaire. Such leasing arrangements can take the form of
build-operate-transfer (BOT), build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT), build-transfer-operate (BTO), and
other variants thereof.
Lease payments can take the form of an annual royalty payment or down payment toward an
privatization. Examples of these airport leasing arrangements are most prevalent in Latin America,
although we also find examples in Africa, Australia and Canada. The problem with such leasing
arrangements is that government is in a position of strength vis-à-vis the concessionaire when it
comes to negotiating rights to operate facilities that have no alternative use and charge monopoly
rents. With the concessionaire in most cases being given the right to set aeronautical charges, in the
absence of effective price regulation, he can recover this cost from the users of the airports facilities
and services. The incentive for the concessionaire to negotiate the best deal possible with the
government is therefore low.

Commercialisation factors 0% <------ 100%

Ownership: 100% State owned 100% Public Shares
Accounting Methodology: Cash accounts Commercial practices
Capital Financing Options: State budget All options
Employee Status: Civil servants Corporate
Legal Status: Government Private
Entrepreneurialism: Little Considerable
Management Reports to: Political Board of Directors
Taxation: Low As private companies
Management Focus: Government policies Profits/Share Value

Airport Economics

Private participation can also take the form of a transfer of minority ownership through the sale of
shares to a strategic partner or through a public issue. This has typically been the European model,
although we also find examples in Asia and South Africa. With the notable exception of BAA pic
and a few others, a fully privatized airport is a rarity. Governments have generally demonstrated
apprehension toward giving up full control of their airports to the private sector.
In summary, faced with budgetary constraints and the increasing financial resources required to fund
airport operations and development plans, governments have felt that airports could be better
and managed as commercially autonomous entities, having access to private sector capital.
private participation and privatization in the provision of airport services has been seen as a source
of revenue.
Although the large majority of airports still remain under government or public ownership, either in
entirety or through a majority holding, indications are that private involvement in the ownership and
management will continue to increase. As the need for airport development funding continues to
grow, with governments being increasingly reluctant to contribute funds, the pressures to privatize
airports will continue. These pressures will not only come from governments, but also from the airport
management that desires full managerial and financial autonomy from government interference.
Typically, those airports already operating profitably as private companies are seen as mature
candidates for full privatization.


Economic regulation is essential to improving airport efficiency and countering

the potential abuse in the setting of charges. In order to gain support from the
user community for the privatization of airports, it is imperative that States
institute an effective and independent economic regulatory mechanism.


Due to the non-competitive nature of airports, it has long been argued and recognized that
of airport charges is essential, especially when the airport is privately owned and motivated by the
profit imperative. Economic regulation can range from hard and administratively burdensome (for
both the airport and users alike), to soft regulation—where the authorities rely on industry
based on consultation and contractual arrangements (most prevalent in North America).
In the case of BAA, tight controls were imposed:

• It has to produce more detailed accounts consistent with the Companies Act.
• The CAA, working in conjunction with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC), can
investigate complaints of discrimination or abuse of monopoly position.
• Aeronautical charges, in terms of revenue per passenger, could increase by no more than the
retail price index (RPI) less an estimate of the expected increase in productivity, a negotiated X
per cent.
The significance of this latter condition — the "RPI minus X" formula that would be revised every
years — is that it would force BAA to become more efficient and diversify into other revenue
activities that are not subject to price controls. Thus, through the 'single till' rate-setting
aeronautical charges could be kept within a targeted range. However, this so-called 'single117till'
regulatory mechanism has come under increased criticism and is not seen as shareholder friendly
as airport charges at Heathrow — one of the world's most congested facilities — were expected to
fall 30% in real terms by March 2003 (the end of the regulatory review period).
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

efficiently in the first place). Other regulatory schemes are contractual, whereby the airport comes to
an agreement with the user community to cap charges at a certain level for a fixed term. Such is the
case at Copenhagen.

In other States a regulator may have been appointed to monitor the behavior of the concessionaire
of an autonomous airport authority, but is largely ineffective in carrying out its mandate. The main
reason for this is that the regulatory authority may not be sufficiently independent and entrusted with
the necessary enforcement powers. In many such situations the concessionaire has the lobbying
power to sway government officials and politicians, rendering the CAA virtually powerless. However
in the vast majority of cases of private participation or privatization of airports, examples of effective
and truly independent regulatory mechanisms do not really exist.


As airports are increasingly operated on a commercial basis, and the trend toward airport
continues, the need for and interest in information on financial performance will grow. Since airports
enjoy a quasi-monopolistic position, demand for airport services is relatively inelastic and the
exists for abuse in extracting high revenues from airport customers. Airport profitability, therefore,
does not necessarily equate to airport efficiency. Aside from measuring airport quality of service
standards, airport managers will therefore have to measure an airport's economic efficiency by
assessing the relationship between inputs (labour, capital, etc.) and outputs (passengers, aircraft
movements, work-load units, etc.) Not only are airport performance indicators useful to airport
managers for making decisions on the best use of resources, users will insist on them and
authorities may well impose them as a means to gauge whether the commercialization process is
delivering on the efficiency promise.

While performance indicators can be used to analyze and monitor past and current performance,
they can also be used to give an indication of the overall quality of performance when compared to
a standard that reflects industry best practice. However data comparability problems make inter-
airport comparisons difficult to calculate and interpret. Every airport has its own method for charging
for its facilities and services, making it difficult to assess the relevant charge and its underlying cost
base. Aside from currency differences, accounting practices differ from airport to airport; some
are recipients of government subsidies, while others have to arrange for their own financing.

Nevertheless, knowledge about performance benchmarks and information on relative levels of

efficiency between airports will continue to grow, and appropriate analytical techniques need to be
developed. At present there exists no industry standard for measuring airport performance, although
the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) of the UK is currently the only firm doing work in the area
of Airport Performance Indicators and Airport Charges comparisons.

Some examples of indicators for measuring airport performance are:

• Total revenue per air traffic movement (ATM), passenger, or employee.

• Aeronautical revenue per ATM, passenger, or employee.

• Aeronautical revenue as a percentage to total revenue, or total cost.

• Non-aeronautical revenue per ATM, passenger, or employee.

• Non-aeronautical revenue as a percentage to total revenue, or total cost.

• Total cost per ATM, passenger, or employee.

IATA Airport Economics


D1.IR1 Privatisation Policy Statement 1

The airline industry generally favours the commercialisation and/or privatisation of airport and
air navigation entities in that the facilities and services may be provided in a more cost efficient
and effective manner. It is concerned, however, that the process often leads to increases in the
cost base for charges, and thus, higher user charges. The requisites for industry support for
privatisation are: meaningful consultation with the user community prior to and during the
commercialisation/privatisation process; appropriate legislation obligating observance by the
commercialised/privatised entity of the ICAO Policies on Charges; and the designation of an
effective and independent economic regulatory mechanism providing oversight of charging
V _ _ __________________________________.
____________________________________________ _ J

D1.IR2 Economic Regulation Statement

Economic regulation is essential to improving airport efficiency and countering the potential
abuse in the setting of charges. In order to gain support from the user community for airport
commercialization/privatization, it is imperative that States that will or have already
commercialized or privatized their airports institute an effective and independent economic
regulatory mechanism.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual



Capital charges (interest expense, depreciation and amortization) relating to investments in the
infrastructure represent a large portion of an airport's total costs. For established airports with
continuous expansion plans, capital charges account for about 25-50% of total costs. For new "green
field" airports, investment-related costs are significant, with capital charges accounting for as much
as 90% of total costs.
In the earlier years of civil aviation, suitable land was more readily available, and the capital costs
related to the construction of basic infrastructure — runways, taxiways, and terminal and support
facilities — were more affordable compared to today's standards. Airports were simply built where it
was cheapest to construct. Today, after decades of continued urbanization and environmental
restriction, there is a lack of suitable land close to the city center. New airport sites are further from
the cities they serve, requiring new road and mass transit infrastructure to be built for easy access.
These sites are usually of poor quality, such that the pre-construction or site preparation phase has
become a major component of the investment. This phase could, for example, involve leveling
surrounding hills or creating a man-made island. The most extreme example of such an airport
is Kansai (Osaka), in Japan. Together with the complex nature of today's airport facilities, these
considerations make construction of new airports prohibitively expensive and almost always in need
of some form of government financial support.
Operations and maintenance costs — the costs to operate and maintain the investments in
infrastructure in good shape to prevent so-called capital deterioration — typically make up a third of
the total cost structure. Staff costs can make up as much as 40% or as little as 20% of total airport
costs, depending on the region and the airport in question. Staff costs as a proportion of total costs
tend to be low for US airports because they do not get involved in air traffic control or handling
activities, and because the airlines are much more involved in the operational activities of US airports.
Thus the unique economic, operational and financial characteristics of US airports sets them apart
from their peers in other parts of the world.
As pointed out in the chapter dealing with airport planning, an efficient, well-planned airport can save
the airlines money. The goal of reducing capital costs in order to be more cost-effective is too restrictive
an approach. The goal should be to minimize the sum of airport user charges and airline operational
costs. Optimizing a master plan by organizing the runway and terminal area layout whereby taxi
distances and times are minimized is recognized as good airport planning. Airline operating costs
also need to be considered when determining the terminal design — a sound approach to which
permits optimum airline staffing and quicker aircraft turnaround times.
Proper timing and phasing of an airport development programme is just as critical due to the effect
this has on airport unit costs. Investments in airport infrastructure, by their very nature, are lumpy
and have the tendency to produce a 'step climb' in capacity. Unit costs increase sharply and decrease
again over time as traffic builds up and the facilities are better utilized. To keep unit costs low or at
reasonable levels, airports may be inclined to hold off on development plans until such time that
increased congestion results in an increase in related costs; e.g. the cost of busing to remote aircraft
boarding sites. Furthermore, due to economies of scale, high utilization of limited capacity will also
■ make an airport more profitable. A rather extreme example of this effect is Heathrow.


The two main sources of airport revenue come from aeronautical or traffic-related activities (i.e.
landing fees, passenger service charges, etc.) and non-aeronautical or commercial activities (i.e.
office-space rent, car parking, duty-free shopping concessions, handling agent concession fees, etc.).
Airports have traditionally relied more heavily on aeronautical revenue sources as their main form of
income — typically about 50-70%, while 30-50% comes from commercial activities such as leases,
duty free, car parking, airport ground handling services, etc. The smaller the airport and the more an
airport relies on domestic passenger traffic, the more dependent it will likely be on aeronautical
I ATA Airport Economics

revenues as its main source of revenue. However, if such an airport is to attract, retain and develop
traffic, it will have to set charges at reasonable levels. It is likely that these domestically-oriented
airports will not achieve full cost recovery and typically will rely on some form of subsidization.
as discussed in the section dealing with privatization, government subsidies are running dry and
airports have been pressured to become financially viable through the development of other revenue
ICAO has therefore recommended for some time that airports fully develop their non-aeronautical
revenue sources. Lesser reliance on aeronautical revenues is also one of the reasons why IATA has
supported airport commercialization. However the development of additional revenue sources
concessions that are directly associated with the operation of air transport services; e.g. fuel through-
put fees, catering concession fees, aircraft handling concession fees, etc., should not be considered
as opportunities for revenue enhancement since this only increases the cost to operate at an airport
and is therefore considered no different from increasing aeronautical charges.


Airports should refrain from imposing non-cost-related levies on aeronautical

activities directly associated with the operation of air transport services. Such
levies only increase the cost of airline operations at an airport and could have
discriminatory effects.

The development of commercial activities has proven to be particularly profitable for certain airports,
leading some to take on more risky ventures or to get involved in non-airport-related activities. Aside
from offering consulting services, some airports have been making investments in other airports or
airport development projects, or getting involved in the provision of discotheques, casinos, or other
real estate projects.
The concern here is the potential for management distraction away from the core business of
efficient and cost effective airport facilities and services. An equally significant concern is the
that users of the airport are exposed to the financial risk related to such ventures. Nevertheless, the
development of revenues from non-aeronautical activities has become the principle means by which
a growing number of airports have been able to recover their total costs in the case where losses
are made on the aeronautical side of the business. Under a 'single-till' rate-setting methodology,
charges can therefore be moderated and kept at reasonable levels. Further discussion on this topic
is included in the sections dealing with airport cost allocation and rate-setting methodologies.


D2.IR1 Airport Revenue Policy Statement

Airports should refrain from imposing non-cost-related levies on aeronautical activities directly
associated with the operation of air transport services. Such levies only increase the cost of
airline operations at an airport and could have discriminatory effects

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual



A detailed business plan has to be drawn up as part of any airport development programme. It should
contain financial projections and forecasts of future activity at the airport. The basic elements that
should be included in this type of business plan are:

• Forecast and composition of air traffic demand.

• Scope of and business case for the airport development programme.

• Feasibility analysis; i.e.: will the airport's overall financial performance be acceptable; can the
airport manage the additional cash flow requirements; will the proposed programme produce an
acceptable return on investment; etc.
• Financial analysis of costs and revenues, including: an operating budget; a financing plan; a cash
flow forecast; a debt servicing schedule; pro forma balance sheets and income statements;
financial ratio analysis; etc.
• Risk mitigation assessment, the primary areas being: technical risk relating to construction
completion; commercial risk relating to changes in traffic demand; cost risk relating to changes
in construction or capital and operational costs; financial risk relating to currency exchange,
inflation and interests rate changes.
For investment purposes, the next step is to draw up a financing plan. Critical to this plan is an
analysis of the airport's ability to generate sufficient revenues to make the required payments for
operating & maintenance expenses, debt service, and other funding requirements that may be required
by bondholders or other creditors.
In most cases, airport management would do well by contracting with a reputable consultant with
expertise in project feasibility studies and airport financing programmes. Once a detailed business
and investment plan has been drawn up, an evaluation of the investment financing options can begin.


In order for airports to gain access to private finance, certain institutional and legal changes will first
have to take place, usually by way of an airports act. Once these changes have occurred, an airport
will have the same choices to make about capital structure as any other private firm would. The
optimal or target capital structure is the desired mix of debt, preferred shares, and common equity
that will cause a firm's share price to be maximized and its weighted average cost of capital (WACC) 1
to be minimized.
This optimal balance between debt and equity financing has been the central question in corporate
finance for some time. All-debt financing typically provides a lower average cost of capital and, in
any case, for most airports the choice may be limited solely to debt. This is the case in the US where
airports have access to tax-free revenue bonds.

The Weighted Average Cost of Capital is defined as the weighted average of the cost of debt, r B, and the cost of equity,
rs. Taking
corporate taxes into account, the appropriate cost of debt is the after-tax cost of debt since interest is tax deductible.
The formula for
determining the WACC is:

S B ,.
Twacc- g^g- rs + g-Tfg- rB U - sIc)

where rB (1 - T0) is the after-tax cost of debt.

For regulated industries like gas, power, telephone, or railways, the cost of capital has been used to set prices so that
the utility earns
this rate of return. If the cost of capital is set too low, then the company will not be able to attract sufficient capital to
IATA Airport Economics

Nevertheless, there appear to be some compelling reasons for airports to take on more debt vs.
equity. Profitable enterprises with stable, predictable cash flows and safe, tangible assets can afford
to take on more debt; unprofitable, risky firms with intangible assets less so. Utilities, such as airports,
typically can afford much greater leverage.

There is also a certain order in which firms go about seeking financing. New capital will first come
from retained earnings. Only after this option is exhausted or becomes difficult due to imposed
limitations on the build up of reserves, will a firm turn to lenders — whether the banks for loans or
lines of credit and/or the bond market. Only as a last resort does the firm turn to the equity market.

This being said, it has been observed that airports have surprisingly low levels of financial leverage
and, more importantly, they have significantly less debt than their peers; i.e. utility companies.

Bonds issued by airports can come in a variety of forms:

General obligation bonds — General obligation bonds are backed by the issuing government and
secured and serviced out of general tax receipts. They are sold at relatively low interest rates.
Total general obligation indebtedness of the relevant government may be a limiting factor in the
use of general obligation bonds.

Self-liquidating general obligation bonds — A variation of general obligation bonds are self-
liquidating general obligation bonds, which are secured by the good faith and credit of the issuing
government, but are serviced from airport revenues. They have the advantage of the low interest
cost, but are not subjected to debt restrictions and do not compete with other public works projects
for capital funding.

Airport revenue bonds — Airport revenue bonds, for which debt service is paid out of airport
revenue, have been the major financing mechanism at large and medium size airports in the US.
They are sold at slightly higher rates of interest due to greater perceived risk. Essentially, the
airport pledges that its future income will be sufficient to cover the interest and capital repayment
over the period of the bond issue. The coverage ratio typically ranges between 1.2-1.5 and level
of risk will be dependent on this coverage ratio.

Lease or special facility bonds — These bonds are guaranteed by the future rental or lease
payments of the airline or group of airlines that are going to use the facility, and are secured by
way of long-term lease/use agreements.

Bond Rating Agencies

Since bond rating agencies determine how bonds are priced, it is important to understand how airport
bonds are perceived. In general, bond rating agencies have historically rated airport revenue bonds
quite highly. A 1990 ACI survey of 31 airports found that 8 of the airports surveyed had the best
possible rating (Aaa on Moody's Credit Rating Scale), and 12 had high ratings (Aa). It is an airport's
status as a critical public utility generally lacking significant competition for local traffic, as well as its
ability to recover its costs, that have lifted airport ratings up to investment-grade levels.

Growth of the airport sector in the bond and bank debt markets will depend heavily on the extent to
which borrowers and lenders can identify and control credit risk. Credit analysis is important and will
be a key element in the long-term growth of airport debt. An evaluation of an airport's credit position
involves a fundamental analysis of its business and competitive position and its operations. As such,
the perceived credit quality of an airport is the product of its performance in a number of analytical

• Competitive position — O&D airports tend to carry less risk than do hub airports that rely heavily
on transfer traffic.

• Finances — operational comparables, benchmarks and financial ratios are used to assess an
airport's strengths and weaknesses.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual
• Rate-setting methodology employed — a key consideration since it fundamentally determines
who assumes the risk for the airport's financial operations and who has control over airport capital
• Debt profile — the amount, type and structure of the debt being issued are reviewed when
assessing an airport's credit position.
• Ownership structure — generally speaking, direct government ownership that provides for a
guarantee against default improves an airport's ability to access capital markets.
• Management — aside from an assessment of the strength and quality of the airport management,
the nature of its relations with the airlines is also considered.
• Environmental issues — noise restrictions on runway usage have become a significant issue,
particularly for western European airports, as this can hamper growth and expansion. From a
credit perspective, the extent to which operational restrictions and opposition to expansion will
affect an airport's position and impact its financial and strategic position needs to be assessed.


Pre-funding or forward financing vehicles are becoming more prominent,

increasing the cost of air transportation. In essence, the airlines and/or the
passenger are made to pay for facilities that are not yet in use. It is
that major capital investments will require external financing, the cost of which
should only be included in the cost base for charging purposes when the


When the forementioned financing options are limited or unavailable, airports may turn to pre-
through charges as a means of financing capital investment projects. Pre-funding through charges
such as the US passenger facility charge (PFC) goes against the fundamental principles of cost
recovery, as does the build up of reserves from an excess of revenues over expenses. This was
recognized during the ICAO Conference on the Economics of Airports and Air Navigation Services
(ANSConf 2000).
However, during the Conference discussion there was general support for pre-funding under
circumstances where it is determined that it is the most appropriate or only source of funding
that strict safeguards are in place for users who will be paying for facilities they do not use. Such
safeguards should include effective and independent economic regulation, substantive consultation
and general agreement with users, limited time of application of the pre-funding charge, and
transparency of accounts to ensure the funds are used toward the agreed upon project.
For accounting purposes, care should be taken that once the facilities become operational the

IATA Airport Economics


D3.IR1 Airport Financing Policy Statement

Pre-funding or forward financing vehicles are becoming more prominent, increasing the cost of
air transportation. In essence, the airlines and/a the passenger are made to pay for facilities
that are not yet in use. It is acknowledged that major capital investments will require external
financing, the cost of which should only be included in the cost base for charging purposes
when the facilities in question are operational

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual



For most airports, aeronautical charges continue to generate well over half of their total revenues.
On the part of the airlines, airport charges are critical because they have a direct impact on operating
costs. However, due to a variety of factors, airport charges impact different airlines differently.

For a short-haul carrier with a high frequency hub feeder operation, airport charges can be significant
— as much as 20-25% as a proportion of total operating costs. For a long-haul carrier operating large
aircraft, airport charges can account for about 5% of total operating costs. Depending on the region
of the world, this figure can increase to 10-12% or be as little as 2-3%. In absolute terms airport
charges have more than doubled, and as new airport facilities and services become operational in
some regions of the world higher user charges can be expected.

In summary, since airport charges are an uncontrollable cost as compared to other costs, and have
been escalating faster than any other airline cost over the last decade, they will continue to be a
major cause of concern for airline management. It is for this reason that the topic of User Charges
has been among the top three priorities for IATA in recent time.

Figure D4-1: Cost Breakdown Schedule

2001 vs.
^ATA Operating Cost 11 2JD m 1991
IATA International Scheduled services US cents US cents
per % of per % of % change
Cockpit Crew 3.3 8.4% 2.8 7.1% -15.2%
Fuel & Oil 6.1 15.4% 6.1 15.4% 0.0%

SAircraft Insurance, Depreciation & 4.9 12.4% 4.9 12.4% 0.0%

Leases & Overhaul 4.8 12.2% 4.0 10.1% -16.7%
Airport Landing & Related Charges 2.1 5.3% 2.0 5.1% -4.8%
Air Navigation Charges 1.4 3.5% 1.9 4.8% 35.7%
Station & Ground costs 5.6 14.2% 4.4 11.1% -21.4%
Cabin Crew & Passenger Service 6.0 15.2% 5.5 13.9% -8.3%
Ticketing, Sales & Promotion 8.9 22.5% 5.9 14.9% -33.7%
General and Administrative 2.7 6.8% 2.0 5.1% -25.9%
Total 45.8 115.9% 39.5 100.0% -13.8%
Airport Landing & Related Charges 4.2 7.8 85.7%

Air Navigation Charges 2.8 7.4 164.3%

7.0 15.2 117.1%


Paragraph 22(i) of ICAO's Policies on Charges (Doc 9082/6) states that:

'The cost to be shared is the full cost of providing the airport and its essential ancillary
services, including appropriate amounts for cost of capital and depreciation of assets, as
as the cost of maintenance and operation, and management and administration expenses,
but allowing for all aeronautical revenues plus contributions from non-aeronautical revenues
accruing from the operation of the airport to its operators."
IATA Airport Economics

The paragraph captures two important concepts for determining the cost base for airport charges.
First, the meaning ascribed to the terms 'full cost' emanates from the 1991 ICAO Conference on
Airport and Route Facility Management (CARFM) during which it was agreed to delete the word
'economic' between the words full' and 'cost' from previous version Doc 9082/4, ' emphasize the
principle that only the costs actually incurred by the providers of airport and air traffic control facilities
and services should be charged...'
This recommendation was meantto reflect the growing trend toward airport autonomy and privatization,
and to indicate that the ICAO Statements by the Council on Airport Charges (Doc 9082/4) was only
to provide guidance on the cost recovery of the facilities and services provided to air traffic.

Rate-setting methodologies
The second concept is the application of the 'single-till' principle, in that the cost base for charges
should be based on the cost of the airport facilities and services provided, net of contributions from
non-aeronautical revenue sources.
How much of a contribution should be considered has been the subject of much debate and contention
between airports and airlines. The airline industry has historically been of the opinion that airports
exist to facilitate air transportation services and that revenue from all commercial activities within the
airport perimeter should therefore contribute to the 'single-till' in the determination of the cost base
for charging purposes.
Further, considering that airports are increasingly developing their commercial potential through
involvement in non-core activities, it is also felt that the airline community should be consulted prior
to such initiatives in regards to what extent users should be exposed to the risk involved under a
'single-till' rate-setting methodology.
In the US, this trade-off between risk exposure and user-say has been captured in airline airport use
agreements. The residual approach1 to setting airport charges guarantees the airport will break-
even, although some airports will ensure that an adequate surplus is made. In this case, the airlines
take the financial risk, but usually have veto power over airport investment decisions by way of a
'majority-in-interest' (MM) clause, which gives airlines veto power over airport-development plans.
The other rate-setting methodology is the compensatory approach 2, which on a total airport basis is
not set to necessarily break-even. A profit or loss can be made depending on the level of traffic and
commercial activity that is generated. In this case, the airport assumes the financial risk, but receives
the benefits of the concession revenues, usually during periods of traffic growth.
Airports employing this methodology have tended to produce larger surpluses and would also be in
a better position to use retained earnings for investment purposes. However, US legislation limits the
level of profit allowed and there have been cases when airlines have sued airports for the accumulated
surpluses. Nevertheless there has been a tendency for airports to move away from the residual
approach to adopt the compensatory or hybrid approach, which employs a mix of the two
methodologies, usually airside residual and landside compensatory.
Under the 'single till' or 'global residual' approach to rate setting, which IATA favours, big income
streams from areas like parking and retail have,the effect of lowering airport charges to airlines, while
the airlines, in turn, assume the financial risk and ensure the airport is kept whole. However, the
'single till' has become a topic of heated debate, with the airports arguing that it is an economic
perversity since it subsidizes the airlines, especially so during times of capacity constraint, and creates
a disincentive to develop new sources of non-aeronautical revenue.

Residual Methodology — under this approach, which can be applied on a cost centre or total airport basis, non-airline
credited against costs to determine the net revenue required, which is then apportioned back to the airlines.
Compensatory Methodology — under this approach, rates and charges are calculated to fully recover the airlines' share of
operating and
capital costs without any credit for non-airline revenues. The airlines' share of costs exclude concession and public areas,
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual
Another paragraph of importance is 22(vii) which states that:
"Airports may produce sufficient revenues to exceed all direct and indirect operating costs
(including general administration, etc.) and so provide for a reasonable return on assets at
a sufficient level to secure financing on favorable terms in capital markets for the purpose of
investing in new or expanded airport infrastructure and, where relevant, to remunerate
adequately holders of airport equity."
In the context of airport privatization, airlines are of the opinion that they should not be made to pay
for the (at times) speculative returns sought by equity holders. Airport management will be tempted
to take on more risky ventures (e.g. international expansion through equity holdings) in order to attract
and retain investors. Further, the temptation would be to reduce the contributions of non-aeronautical
revenues to the cost base for aeronautical charges or abandon the 'single till' concept altogether.
This is therefore yet another reason for the need of an independent and effective economic regulatory
mechanism to help mitigate user exposure to such risk.
Given the debate surrounding the 'single till' principle to rate-setting and its link to the regulated return
an airport can generate, ACI and IATA developed a joint interpretation of sub-paragraphs 22(i) and
22(vii) which is reproduced below:
In interpreting these two sub-paragraphs, the following should apply:
1. The existence of air traffic activity is a necessary precondition for the generation of airport non-
aeronautical revenues. Such revenues are then generated through management initiatives in
offering suitable products and prices. All aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues from the
operation of an airport accrue, in the first instance, to the airport. Reaching a common
understanding on the contributions of non-aeronautical revenues to defray the cost base for
charges is an acknowledgement of the partnership between airports and users.
2. The non-aeronautical revenues in question do not normally include revenues earned by airport
operators from activities undertaken off-airport, or those undertaken by the airport in full
competition with other suppliers.
3. Given the different local circumstances and fast changing conditions, with respect to airport
ownership and management, as well as regulatory regimes, there are likely to be a range of
different appropriate treatments of non-aeronautical income by airports.
4. When determining the contributions from non-aeronautical revenues, high priority should be given
to the investment needs of airports, taking into account paragraph 24 of Doc 9082/6, which
addresses pre-funding of projects, while recognizing that there may be many alternatives to
finance infrastructure development.
5. The appropriate return on aeronautical activities should reflect differences in the level of risk from
non-aeronautical activities. Further, iniorder to provide incentives to the airport operator, high
levels of service and efficiency in aeronautical activities may be rewarded with higher returns and
vice versa.
6. When defining the contributions from non-aeronautical revenues, an accounting system should
be in place to identify the relationship between costs and revenues of non-aeronautical and
aeronautical activities (Doc 9082/6, sub-paragraph 17(vi) refers).
7. As stated in point 4 above, it may he appropriate for airports to retain non-aeronautical revenues
rather than use such revenues to defray charges. However, there is no requirement for airports
to do so and, in appropriate circumstances, there may be solid grounds for charges to be lower,
consistent with Doc 9082/6, sub-paragraph 22(viii).

IATA Airport Economics

8. None of the foregoing should be interpreted as encouragement to airports to exploit unreasonably

their market position relative to users.
Agreed to February, 2001

As a final point, in the event that aeronautical charges are determined without any contributions from
non-aeronautical revenue sources, then the cost allocation between aeronautical and non-aeronautical
functions and among landing (runways and taxi ways), parking/apron and terminal facilities should
be based on an accurate and appropriate methodology that is deemed to be reasonable and equitable
to users.

Cost accounting
It should be evident from the foregoing that a proper cost accounting system is an essential tool,
both in providing the basis for determining the cost base for charges, but also for providing information
to airport management in its assessment of operating performance from a financial perspective. The
cost accounting system should help achieve the following objectives:

• Determine the costs of specific services, programmes, and activities.

• Understand the composition of these costs and what the cost drivers are.
• Determine the efforts and accomplishments associated with programmes and delivery of services
and their changes over time in relation to costs.
• Measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization's management of services,
programmes, and assets.
In the determination of the cost base for charges, special attention needs to be given to the issue of
cost allocation, because so many of an airport's costs are joint costs. First, the total costs by major
cost item (operating & maintenance, marketing, administrative, capital charges, etc.) have to be
determined. The second step involves allocating these functional costs to the various airport areas
or services and this will involve allocating certain costs that are attributable to two or more areas or
services by employing a sound cost allocation methodology such as activity based costing (ABC).
For example, there are many areas and facilities that are used both for passenger handling and
commercial purposes, and care must be taken to allocate costs fairly and equitably between
aeronautical and non-aeronautical activities. Likewise, in the case of airport networks, appropriate
amounts of overhead costs need to be allocated among the relevant airports. The principles of cost-
related and site-specific charges must be maintained.


IATA has no objection to airport networks and airport cross-ownership or

alliances charging practices as long as airport charges are cost-related and site-
specific. IATA considers that there should be no cross-subsidization between
airports and finances should be strictly separated.

Finally, arriving at an equitable cost base for charges will require an allocation of costs among
user groups or categories, i.e. general aviation, military, and international and domestic civil traffic.
Once the costs attributable to civil air traffic have been established, the cost base for individual
charges can be estimated by determining the costs of the facilities and/or services the charge is to
cover. The relevant rate for a given charge (landing fee, parking fee, passenger service charge, etc.)
is then determined by dividing the relevant cost base by the estimated number of charging units. The
number of charging units in the case of a landing fee is generally the aggregate aircraft MTOW that
is estimated to take-off from the airport in the relevant year, or the number of departing passengers
in the case of a passenger service charge.
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual


The User Charges Panel (UCP) is the group that leads the IATA approach to user charges issues.
Its objective is to ensure charges are reasonable, cost-related, non-discriminatory and equitably
applied, and the panel enters into consultations with government and their designated charging
authorities for this purpose. The UCP operates within the framework of a terms of reference set by the
IATA Financial Committee, to which it reports, and consists of 10 airline experts who are geographically
representative of the IATA Membership.

ICAO Policies on Charges

While the UCP has developed IATA policies on User Charges issues ranging from privatization to
market-based options to counter congestion and delays, much of its work is based on ICAO's Policies
on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation Services (Doc 9082/6). These Policies on Charges are
updated from time-to-time and contain the recommendations and conclusions of the ICAO Council
on charges issues. They are intended for guidance to ICAO contracting States, however, IATA
considers that States and their designated charging authorities have a moral obligation to observe
the Policies on Charges. To assist States in the implementation of the Policies on Charges, ICAO
has also developed and maintains two manuals: the Airport Economics Manual (Doc 9562) and the
Manual on Air Navigation Services Economics (Doc 9161/3), which are updated from time-to-time by
the Airport Economics Panel (AEP) and the ANS Economics Panel (ANSEP) to which IATA is an
active member.
The principles for the setting of aeronautical charges as contained in the Policies on Charges have
their origin in Article 15 — Airport and Similar Charges of the Convention on International Civil Aviation
(a.k.a. the 'Chicago' Convention). Article 15 of the Convention requires of a contracting State that:
uniform conditions shall apply to the use of airports and air navigation facilities by aircraft of other
contracting States; and charges imposed for use of such facilities shall not be higher for aircraft of
other contracting States than those paid by its national aircraft engaged in similar international

Average cost pricing

The requirements that airports be open to users under uniform conditions and that charges be non-
discriminatory form the basic underlying philosophy to airport charging policies. These basic principles
can also be found in bilateral air services agreements between States. It has also been widely
accepted that airports are public utilities and that air transport is a service of national importance.
Thus, traditional charging policies have also been based on recouping solely the costs of the facilities
and services provided. These principles have lead to an average cost pricing approach to charging.
However it was clear that larger, heavier aircraft needed longer and stronger runways and larger
handling facilities and thus imposed a higher cost on an airport. Further, larger aircraft with their
higher payloads were found to be better able to bear higher charges — the ability to pay principle.
Thus, many airports introduced specific charges for facilities and services such as aerobridges and
security and apron services. In the case of landing fees, an aircraft weight element (usually MTOW)
was included in the formula as a proxy for the cost it imposed on the airport. However, in the case
of terminal navaid (approach control) and other air navigation services charges, it was recognized
that larger aircraft are more efficient, able to transport more people in a single movement and requiring
no more air traffic management effort than was required for a small aircraft. In the case of such
charges, the practice has been to employ the square root of the weight factor as a trade-off between
the ability to pay and aircraft efficiency.

Rebates, discounts and incentives

Of late, a number of airports have offered discounts on charges, or rebates, as a marketing tool to
increase traffic volume or attract new air routes. Some such incentives are officially published, while
others are not. The argument in favor of such discounts is that they are aimed at increasing the total
business, thereby benefiting all users, especially where the 'single-till' principle to rate-setting is

IAT Airport Economics
applied. Airline start-up costs for a new route can be significant, and therefore airport assistance
through incentives for a limited time is acceptable and appreciated by the airline industry. IATA,
however, only supports rebates or discounts that are non-discriminatory and do not contravene Article
15 of the Chicago Convention. The non-discriminatory element should include the requirement for
such incentives to be published.


A number of airports offer discounts or rebates, mainly as incentives to stimulate

new or increased traffic. lATA's view is that discounts or rebates are acceptable
only if they comply with the following principles:
• Non-discriminatory — any discount or rebate offered must be available
all operators under the same conditions.
• Do not distort competition.
• Are time-limited.
• Are not funded through increases in existing user charges.
• Should be published.

IATA publishes the Airport & Air Navigation Charges Manual, which is a complete compilation of up-
to-date information on airport and air navigation charges world-wide and is available for sale in print
and CD-ROM format.


In light of the more commercially oriented environment in which airports now operate, there has been
some debate in recent years as to whether the traditional airport charging schemes result in the
efficient allocation of resources, and generate sufficient revenues to provide for an adequate return
on investment.
The traditional airport charging systems, that have developed under the auspices of ICAO guidance,
aim solely to recover the cost of providing the facilities or services through a combination of average
cost pricing and ability to pay, and do not provide adequate signaling mechanisms about the costs
airlines impose on an airport. This debate has become particularly acute in the case of congested
airports and environmental mitigation.
It is argued that average cost pricing offers little inducement to operators of new aircraft types to
minimize the cost they impose on the airport in terms of new facilities that are required. All users end
up contributing to the cost for accommodating the new aircraft type. It has been further argued that
average cost pricing offers no incentive for operators to move from peak to off-peak periods. Finally,
under an average cost pricing regime, the more congested an airport gets, the cheaper it gets to
These arguments have lead airport managers and regulators alike to explore the introduction of
economic pricing principles and marginal cost pricing — the cost that would be incurred to produce
one additional unit of output. Economists have long argued that the pricing policy that leads to the
most efficient allocation of resources is one where the price of a good or service is set to the marginal
cost of providing that good or service.
However, can such pricing policies be implemented in the airport environment and will they have the
desired effect? So called market-based options have been promoted as having a possible role to
play in relieving airline flight delays and congestion at busy airports, thereby improving airport capacity
management, enhancing competition and promoting the efficiency of the overall aviation system.
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual
Market-based options would therefore include all market pricing regimes that could encourage air
carriers to use limited capacity in a more efficient manner, potentially bringing into balance current
supply (airport capacity) and demand (number of flight operations) while longer-term capacity
expansion is pursued. Such market-based options could include:

• Auctions, which would allocate a fixed number of operations for some particular period of time.
• Congestion pricing, which contemplates charging air carriers not only for the costs they impose
on an airport, but also the delay costs they impose on other airport users.
• Peak period pricing, which contemplates imposing fees based on the higher costs an airport
incurs to accommodate demand during peak hours, or the cost an airport does not incur because
flights are shifted from busy periods of the day to less busy periods.
• Flat fees, which would restructure existing weight-based landing fees so that total airfield costs
are recovered through a higher average fee, thereby affecting the mix of aircraft that operate at
an airport.
IATA has held the view that in order to relieve airport congestion and delay, the primary objective
should be to improve the utilization of existing capacity and make available additional capacity, rather
than ration demand through market-based options that have not proven to be effective. In regards
to the specific options mentioned, lATA's views are as follows:
Auctions — Auctions, which would allocate a fixed number of operations for some particular
period of time, would result in significantly higher costs for airlines and would not be practicable
in an international context, due to issues relating to reciprocity. The current process of allocating
limited capacity is done by way of slot allocation programmes in place at certain congested
airports. The processes to deal with congestion problems at airports need to be fair and equitable
for all air operators. Therefore, the current process of applying for and assigning international
slots is being done on similar terms at all airports. Slot applications are typically assigned as
requested. Auctions, on the other hand, entail a degree of uncertainty as to whether or not a slot
will become available, aside from the inflated price that will have to be paid. However, neither a
system of auctions or a slot allocation programme would do anything to reduce congestion, unless
the number of operations are effectively capped.
Congestion pricing — Congestion pricing, which contemplates charging air carriers not only for
the costs they impose on an airport, but also the delay costs they impose on other airport users,
relies on the correct and accurate identification of externalities. These are difficult if not impossible
to assess with any degree of accuracy, or to impose based on general agreement among
stakeholders. It would be difficult to demonstrate that congestion prices are cost-based, a
fundamental principle any airport charging scheme should adhere to as per ICAO guidance (refer
to Doc 9082/6). Further, what this concept appears to assume is that air carriers do not incur
delay costs. The fact is that air carriers incur significant delay costs, including the cost of extra
fuel burn, catering, hotel accommodation for inconvenienced passengers, etc.
Peak period pricing — Peak period pricing schemes contemplate imposing fees based on the
higher costs an airport incurs to accommodate peak hour demand, and lower fees based on the
cost an airport does not incur during less busy periods. Such a charging scheme should inherently
be revenue-neutral, however this has not been demonstrated where such schemes have been
in place. Due to difficulties associated with cost identification and allocation, airports have not
been able to identify with any great level of accuracy what their costs are at different times of
the day.
These supposed 'demand-altering' pricing schemes could only have an effect if operators had full
control over their demand patterns. This is not the case. An airline's scheduling and fleet allocation
decisions are based in large part on the demand for air travel at particular times of the day. An airline
has therefore limited ability to adjust, in an efficient way, to a system of peak/off-peak charging due
to the complex task of scheduling its operations. Scheduling is one of the most difficult tasks an
airline has — trying to optimize aircraft utilization within the constraints of airport curfews, increasing
environmental restrictions, crew availability, and many other factors.

IATA Airport Economics

Peak charges have therefore only increased the cost for those air carriers operating during the peak
periods and raises concerns of equity and discrimination. Furthermore, at most (congested) airports
it has become impossible to differentiate between peak and off-peak hours of the day — peak hours
could well constitute the entire operating day making it impossible to implement a peak period pricing
scheme. Experience has shown that where peak/off-peak charges have existed, it has not had a
significant effect on the distribution of traffic from peak periods to off-peak periods. The result has
been that, while a few airports around the world have introduced peak/off-peak charging schemes,
others have abandoned them. ICAO has similarly concluded, on the basis of a survey it conducted
in preparation for the Conference on the Economics of Airports and Air Navigation Services (ANSConf
2000), that "...peak pricing has proved to be of limited effectiveness for capacity management." It is
for these reasons that IATA has strongly opposed any such system of peak/off-peak charging.


IATA objects to any system of peak period pricing, a scheme that arbitrarily
redistributes costs between different users. An airline faced with peak period
charges has no real opportunity to adjust to such a pricing scheme in an efficient
way due mainly to the limited flexibility it has in the scheduling of its operations.

It is clear that the three previously mentioned market-based options will have the effect of increasing
air carrier operating costs. Since air carrier demand for airport capacity is in fact derived demand,
the question is whether air carriers operating in a competitive market can effectively pass on the
increased operating cost to the ultimate consumer of air transportation services, and thus, influence
his/her behavior.
While the demand profile of a business passenger is relatively inelastic to that of a leisure passenger,
the air travel market has also demonstrated that it has a voracious appetite for cheaper fares. This
has been the basis for success of the low cost carrier and any attempt by certain carriers to raise
fares is not met with similar fare increases by other carriers. It is a known fact that airfares reflect
what an individual passenger is willing to pay and not a certain margin over an airline's costs —
effective market segmentation and the law of supply and demand dictates airfares. Thus, what
these market-based approaches would accomplish is an increase in airline operating cost, with little
opportunity of recovering this cost through the fare structure.
Flat fees —A flat fee that would recover total airfield costs through a higher average fee, or alternatively,
a high minimum charge, has proven to be more effective in moving aircraft of a certain lower weight-
class from congested airports to secondary, reliever airports. This was confirmed as a result of the
same ICAO survey noted above. However, such a pricing scheme obviously results in limiting airport
access to a certain group of users and raises concerns of equal access.
Attempts to alter current average cost charging schemes with the introduction of market-based options
should consider capacity costs as joint costs to all airport users. All airport users benefit jointly from
the availability of an airport — it has not been developed for any single user group. All users contribute
their fair share of the joint costs. An average cost pricing regime, as employed in general practice,
is therefore considered to be the most fair, transparent and equitable charging regime. Market-based
options and any other demand-management mechanisms will distort the equity principle, inevitably
treating airport users differently, while not really addressing what is essentially a supply-side capacity
problem. Strategic, long-term airport development planning is therefore key to solving the capacity

IATA Airport Development Reference


Consultation is the cornerstone to a meaningful relationship between an airport and its user community.
The ICAO Council, in its Policies on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation Services, has recognized
this. The underlying philosophy of the consultative process is transparency of information and the
rational of decisions. The goal of consultation should be to reach consensus between the participants,
and this requires a spirit of openness and understanding from both sides. The timely provision by
the airport of financial information, including projections, and forecasts of future traffic activity, together
with other relevant supplementary data or information should serve as a prerequisite for a meaningful
consultative process. On their part, airlines should provide medium-to-long-term scheduling
information to an airport.
The ICAO Policies on Charges do state that failing agreement on charges issues, an airport would
be free to impose new or revised charges. While it is recognized that agreement cannot always be
achieved, decisions made by an airport on the imposition of charges should take into account airline
views and concerns. In the case where airline views are not acted on, the reasons for this should be
explained. In case of disagreement, and failing reasonable explanation, users should have the right
of referral to the competent regulatory authority.
Where significant new or revised charges are being contemplated, consultation should take place
well in advance, i.e. 4-6 months prior to implementation, and may require several meetings before a
final decision is made. It is important to note that consultation is a process and not an event where
a decision already made is merely announced and subsequently implemented. The airport should
seek comments on a proposal, take these comments into consideration and eventually come to an
informed decision. Ideally, a proposal should be framed as a number of possible options or scenarios.

Month 4
Mon Mont Mont
I60-day consttation period
th 1 h2 h3

Initial proposal First Possible other Final Implementation

and notice of consult meetings to notice of of new or
meeting (30- ation be held and new or revised charges
day lead-time) meetin exchange of revised
g correspondence charges
during (30-
this 60-day day lead-
period time)

The benefit to the airlines of a meaningful consultation process is that they get to know what they
are paying for and have their opinions heard. The benefit to the airport is that it will implement
to their charging scheme based on a well-informed decision.


D4.IR1 Airport Charges Policy Statement

IATA has no objection to airport networks and airport cross-ownership or alliances charging
practices as long as airport charges are cost-related and site-specific. IATA considers that there
should be no cross-subsidization between airports, and that finances should be strictly
134 V___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ J
D4.IR2 Discount and Rebite Policy Statement
A number of airports offer discounts or rebates, mainly as incentives to stimulate new or
traffic. lATA's view is that discounts or rebates are acceptable only if they comply with the
following principles:
;«6 Non-discriminatory—any discount or rebate offered must be available to all operators under
the same conditions.
• Do not distort competition.
» Are time-limited,
• Are not funded through increases in existing user charges.
• Should be published.

D4.IR3 Pricing Policy

IATA objects to any^tem of peak period pricing, a scheme that arbitrarily redistributes costs
between different users. An airline faced with peak period charges has no real opportunity to
adjust to such a pricing scheme in an efficient way due mainly to the limited flexibility it has in
the scheduling of its operatiWs.
V. ______________________^_____________________........................_________________.
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual



The purpose and objective of this section is to provide a series of broad, indicative construction costs
for the primary facility components of an airport campus.
The given costs are drawn from historic data compiled from major aviation projects, undertaken in
both the UK and internationally. All costs have been reconciled to 4th quarter 2003 rates for the UK
construction market.
The given costs relate to new build construction work in an environment that is not excessively
affected by operational restrictions and logistical constraints. Such constraints can generate significant
additional costs — typically issues such as imposed phasing of the works, abnormal working hours,
operational safety and security requirements and working in an airside environment.
The main driver of construction cost levels for passenger buildings tends to be relate to prescribed
passenger service levels and the envisaged passenger experience. A 'budget style' regional airport
can easily cost less than 50% of the £/m2 rate of a high profile international facility.
There is a massive difference in the cost of constructing 'identical' facilities across the globe. We
have provided a conversion schedule for global adjustment from the given UK construction cost levels.
The adjusting factors take cognisance of labour costs, material costs, specifications and industry

Fourth Quarter 2003

Facility DescriptionUnitRangeTerminal BuildingsRegional Airports£/m2 GFA1300-

2000International Airports£/m2 GFA2200-3000Cargo Handling Bases£/m2 GFA570-
850Distribution Centres£/m2 GFA350-500Visual Control Towers£k/m stalk75-
200Hangars (Types C and D)£/m2 GFA1050-1350Car ParkingSurface£/space1200-
1500Multi-storey£/space6700-8100Taxiways and Runways£/m2170-205Stands£/m2150-
180HotelsBudget£/m2 GFA900-1100Mid Market£/m2 GFA1500-1750Air Conditioned
Offices£/m2 GFA1100-1500

Data provided courtesy of Davis Langdon Everest


IATA Airport Economics


• These cost ranges relate to construction work in the South East of England in 4th Quarter 2003;
• The costs relate to new-build construction work in an environment which is not excessively
by operational restrictions and logistical constraints;

• GFA denotes Gross Floor Area.

• For international comparison, these costs (which represent 100%) should be adjusted in
accordance with the attached International Cost Factors identified within clause D5.1.1.

D5.1.1 International Construction Cost Factors — Fourth Quarter 2003

The table of construction cost factors listed within this clause have been broken down into major
continents and then subdivided into the various countries within those continents. Select the factor
for the correct region of the world and then multiple that factor by the cost description identified

Continent Country Factor (UK = 100)

Africa Algeria 55
Africa Cameroon 67
Africa Chad 66
Africa Cote d'lvoire 71
Africa Gabon 67
Africa Gambia 74
Africa Ghana 80
Africa Nigeria 65
Africa Senegal 67
Africa South Africa 26
Africa Zambia 45

Asia Brunei 40
Asia China 56
Asia Hong Kong 72
Asia India 19
Asia Indonesia 47
Asia Japan 110
Asia Malaysia 29
Asia Philippines 37
Asia Singapore 59
Asia South Korea 66
Asia Sri Lanka 21
Asia Taiwan 62
Asia Thailand 43
Asia Vietnam 47


IATA Airport Development Reference

International Construction Cost Factors — Fourth Quarter 2003 (cont'd)

Continent Country Factor (UK = 100)

C America Costa Rica 59
C America Mexico 70
Caribbean Bahamas 84
Caribbean Jamaica 65
Caribbean Puerto Rico 78

Europe Austria 80
Europe Belgium 84
Europe Cyprus 46
Europe Czech Rep 51
Europe Finland 80
Europe France 80
Europe Germany 72
Europe Greece 51
Europe Ireland 96
Europe Italy 73
Europe Netherlands 79
Europe Poland 56
Europe Portugal 52
Europe Romania 30
Europe Slovak Rep 33
Europe Spain 60
Europe Switzerland 89

Middle East Bahrain 68

Middle East Egypt 57
Middle East Israel 45
Middle East Jordan 60
Middle East Kuwait 66
Middle East Lebanon 66
Middle East Oman 62
Middle East Qatar 66
Middle East Saudi Arabia 57

N America Canada 56
N America USA 65

Oceania Australia 54
Oceania New Zealand 51

Airport Economics

International Construction Cost Factors — Fourth Quarter 2003 (cont'd)

Continent Country Factor (UK = 100)

S America Argentina 20
S America Brazil 49
S America Chile 43
S America Colombia 57
S America French Guiana 84
S America Guyana 65
S America Peru 53
S America Venezuela 37

Data provided courtesy of Davis Langdon Everest (UK)

• The factors relate to the materials, specifications and standards that are normal in the
and this should be fully understood and appreciated when comparing costs;
• Factors relate to national averages and regional variations will apply. Construction costs in

D5.IR1 Cost Evaluations And Comparisons

Airport cost consultants should refer to the tables listed within this section when evaluating and
comparing the cost of providing airport infrastructure facilities.

TATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Chapter E — Environmental Issues
Section E1: Main Issues
E1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 137
E1.2 Environmental Management Plan ............................................................ 138
E1.3 IATA Recommendations............................................................................ 140
Section E2: Social and Political Considerations
E2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 141
E2.2 The Importance of Partnerships................................................................. 141
E2.3 Sustainable Development......................................................................... 142
E2.4 Airport Stakeholder Partnerships and Initiatives ....................................... 143
E2.5 IATA Recommendations............................................................................ 144
Section E3: Noise
E3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 146
E3.2 Aircraft Noise ........................................................................................... 146
E3.3 IATA Recommendations............................................................................ 151
Section E4: Emissions
E4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 152
E4.2 Airport Emissions from Aircraft.................................................................. 152
E4.3 IATA Recommendations............................................................................ 154
Section E5: Waste Management
E5.1 General ................................................................................................... 155
E5.2 Waste Treatment ..................................................................................... 156
E5.3 IATA Recommendations............................................................................ 156

TA-HL Airport Development Reference Manual



Since the second World War, air transport has grown into one of the world's most important and
innovative industries, driving economic and social progress. It has brought employment and
to millions of people while expanding world trade and increasing opportunities for travel and tourism.
The air transport industry is committed to meeting its customers' growing demands in a sustainable
manner, thereby maintaining an optimal balance between economic progress, social development
and environmental responsibility. This means balancing the needs of passengers, society, the
economy and the environment, as well as making the best use of existing facilities while addressing
the challenge of new developments.
In delivering these benefits, air transport has had less of an impact on the world's environment than
most people realise. Indeed, by continually improving its fuel efficiency, reducing noise and
new, more sustainable technologies, airtransport has been able to reduce or contain its
• Carbon dioxide (C02) emissions: Continuous improvements in aircraft engine technology have
reduced C02 emissions per passenger-kilometre (pkm) by 70% since the advent of the first jets
in the 1960s, to the extent that the fuel consumption of most modern aircraft does not exceed
3.5 litres per 100 pkm. Industry research efforts are aiming to achieve a further 50% reduction
in C02 emissions for equipment entering service in 2020.
• Nitrogen oxide (NOx) and other emissions: Improved fuel efficiency has also meant that other
emissions (such as carbon monoxide, hydro-carbons and smoke) have come down by some
90% or more. The higher temperatures required to achieve these improvements have, however,
prevented similar progress from being achieved in the reduction of NO x emissions, which have
implications for both local air quality and climate change. Ambitious research goals in the
Union and elsewhere are targeting a reduction of NO x emissions of future aircraft by 70% within
10 years, and by 80% within 25 years.
• Noise: Today's aircraft are typically 75% quieter at take-off or landing than the first jets in the
1960s. Research efforts are targeting a further 30% reduction within 10 years and a 50%
by 2020.
• Land use: Air transport generally uses less land than other transport modes. For example, per
passenger-kilometre, air transport uses less than 1 % of the land required for the entire
network in the European Union.
In spite of these achievements, and the technological progress that lays ahead, the continuous and
growing demand for air travel tends to increase air transport's absolute contribution to climate
Aviation emissions presently account for some 3.5% of man's contribution to global warming and
could grow to 5% in 2050, according to the most probable scenario as identified by the IPCC 1.

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual


Airports are increasingly being held to account for their energy use, emissions and effects on the
environment, and many are introducing efficiency measures in the context of planning. An
environmental management plan is the first step for airports seeking to implement environmental
improvements, as it provides the framework for an airport's environmental management activities.
The purpose of such a plan is to ensure that activities undertaken at the airport are carried out in an
environmentally-responsible manner; ensuring compliance with applicable laws, regulations and
management practices, as well as with respect for community and public concerns.
The following are environmental considerations to be taken into account when developing a new
airport or an environmental management plan:
Airport design: The design of an airport is important, since each airport and its corresponding
infrastructure is designed for specific passenger or aircraft movement capacities. Legislation
airport slot allocation subsequently control that capacity. The scope for environmental
improvement at an airport is determined by its physical layout in terms of the terminal and
buildings, facilities, taxiways, runways and their associated infrastructure.
For example, the provision of high-speed aircraft exits shortens aircraft taxiing time, and thereby
helps to prevent ground congestion — while the provision of fixed electrical ground power
and ground power units (GPUs) at gates and maintenance areas helps to reduce noise and
emissions. Rail access to airports can help take cars off the road, thereby reducing local
and improving the environmental balance.
Ecology and natural habitat: Airports are often located in greenbelt areas. They therefore
a role to play in the preservation and enhancement of the biodiversity of their surrounding areas
by maintaining and restoring these habitats and creating new ones where they have been
damaged. This could include, for example, involving local schools in a tree-planting scheme, or
complementing local authorities' work in the local community.
Emissions: Managing local emissions involves both technical and operational changes relating
mainly to road vehicles and to aircraft operations at, and close to, the airport. Solutions can
• Modifying road access to the airport to minimise congestion, or to provide dedicated
transport routes.

• Discouraging private vehicle use through the construction of remote or centralised car
• Encouraging greater use of public transport, providing electric charging stations for
Energy consumption: Energy reductions within airports can be achieved in a variety of ways,
including technical improvements and raising staff and business partner awareness through
environmental campaigns. The former can include:
• The removal of older, outdated equipment in buildings and its replacement with new
efficient technology.

IATA Environmental Issues

• Monitoring electricity consumption of baggage handling systems, passenger conveyor belts,

escalators, air conditioning systems and lighting, etc.
Global climate change: Airports can work to reduce energy and ground fleet fuel consumption
that has a beneficial effect on C02 and other emissions affecting climate change. Airports can
also influence the sources and types of energy and fuel, design for lower consumption, and
manage their use and storage of ozone depleting substances. For example, all CFC equipment
at airports can be removed and replaced by more modern equipment.
Noise: Managing and finding solutions to aircraft and ground noise is an important priority for
airports. Addressing aircraft noise requires working in partnership with airlines, air traffic control,
aircraft and engine manufacturers, national governments, international organisations and the
community. Voluntary agreements with partners can be successful, as can developing technical
and operational measures to improve the noise environment (such as installing effective noise
measuring instruments).
Managing ground noise involves technical improvements to equipment. This can include: the
provision of fixed servicing equipment, which avoids the use of aircraft auxiliary power units and
ground power units, and; management instructions and controls to ensure that correct use is
made of equipment and that construction activities do not produce excessive noise. It can also
include the construction of special 'noise suppression facilities' used for engine ground running
engine testing; and the construction of 'sound walls' to reduce noise disturbance for neighbouring
Land-use planning and zoning, land acquisition, noise protection or insulation programmes also
help to optimise the benefits from quieter aircraft, and to prevent the unnecessary encroachment
of residential development into noise sensitive airport areas.
Land use planning and management: Noise nuisance from overflight, take-off or landing is
primarily due to the absence of adequate land-use planning and management in and around
airports. In many countries, land-use planning and zoning is the responsibility of national,
and local municipalities. Each airport has its own geographical, political, economic and historical
characteristics and there is no single land-use planning and management approach. Compatible
land-use planning and management helps to minimise noise impact around airports and to
safeguard traffic growth.
Landscaping: Landscaping can improve the quality of the environment for people who work at,
travel to, or live near an airport. It can also play a role in integrating the airport into the
community if partnerships are developed with local communities, local authorities, environmental
charities and land owners.
Materials: Particular care must be taken over the management and treatment of hazardous
and chemicals. Environmentally hazardous materials like toxic chemicals, heavy metals, etc.
should, where possible, be replaced by more responsible alternatives.
Water consumption: The reduction of water consumption at an airport can be achieved by
installing equipment that is water efficient (e.g. replacing old sanitary equipment) and finding
ways to influence or provide incentives to airport tenants and other airport users to lower their
consumption of water. Another option is to make use of rainwater or to re-circulate/recycle water.
Water quality: Water quality management and the avoidance of water contamination can be
achieved in a number of ways. Large infrastructure projects can be developed that protect local
watercourses from flood and pollution. Staff awareness and training programmes are important
to prevent careless behaviour and accidents, and clear instructions and controls can ensure that
potential contaminants are properly disposed of and that drainage systems are used correctly.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Waste management: Solutions to waste management must generally involve the airport's
business partners, since many airports handle waste on behalf of airlines, retailers and tenants.
These partners need to be encouraged to reduce waste generation and to recycle where it is
operationally practical. Other measures for consideration are how the recycled material and
is disposed of after collection — as well as specialised training and awareness programmes to
minimise the risk of air, ground and water contamination from fuel, chemical waste, dangerous
materials and oil spills.


E1.IR1 Environmental Policy

1 ATA fully recognises society's expectations towards furthei environmental progress an
committed to achieving such progress through all possible means such as technological
advances, more stringent standards, and operational improvements. Good practices and
voluntary measures are also encouraged, as well as assessing the role of emissions trading
schemes in the longer term. The industry is, however, strongly opposed to the use of
environmental taxes and charges that are considered both economically and environmentally
inefficient and may even be contrary to international law.

El. icient Apron Design Characteristics

In an effort 0 reduce fuel consumption and emissions from aircraft, the length and geographical
position of runways should be optimised wherever possible. The objective should be to maximise
aircraft efficiency during take-off and landing procedures.
Particular attention should be given to the design of rapid exit taxiways, which should be
in accordance with ICAO Annex 14 clause 3.8. Particular attention should be observed to the
requirements of Figure 3-2, Rapid Exit Taxiway.

E1.IR3 Business Partner Environmental Strategy

Airport operators should actively work with their business partners, such as the airlines, the
ground handlers, the aircraft fuel suppliers, as well as the water companies and the building
electricity and gas suppliers etc, to ensure that all hazardous materials are properly used and
disposed of while at the airport
The airport operator and alt its business partners should collectively work together to ensure
o-- 'dl efficiency of the airport by developing specific energy efficiency targets.

IAT Environmental Issues


Airports worldwide must be ready to handle current and future demand. However, many are
increasingly operating at full capacity. As a result, traffic must be transferred to neighbouring
airports to free up capacity, new runways and terminals must be built, or brand new airport sites must
be found.
When a new airport is planned or a major expansion envisaged, it is important to consider not only
what effect the change will have on the airport within its boundaries, but also to consider what the
impact will be on the surrounding community. Airports can satisfactorily be integrated into the local
community fabric if due care is taken. For example, studies into private and public road traffic
by airport activities (e.g. passengers, cargo, staff, etc.) must be undertaken and the surrounding road
network designed to minimise negative effects on residential areas. Indeed, it is recognised that the
negative effects (noise and pollution) of airport road traffic are often worse than the more known
adverse effects of aircraft traffic.
The implementation of new airport projects is becoming more and more difficult despite the fact that
the lack of airport capacity is now identified as the main obstacle to future air transport growth. This
is mainly because of growing opposition from local residents surrounding airports, as well as
groups that force governments to introduce complex approval procedures. As a result, air transport
capacity lags behind demand, thereby increasing congestion and delays, energy use, costs and
emissions, as well as undermining consumer satisfaction.
Conflicting situations when developing an airport are quite often the consequence of a lack of proper
land-use planning and management. Governments and local municipalities have the responsibility to
prevent residential areas from being built around airports to avoid future problem — despite the
attraction to new residents of good communications and other facilities. A delicate balance must
therefore be found between the interests of those affected by increased air traffic, the related effects
on the environment, and the recognised and quantifiable benefits that an airport brings to a region
in terms of economic wealth and employment.
Long-term planning, management and careful advocacy are required by airports to ensure that they
are able to secure capacity and meet demand through safe and sustainable growth. Furthermore,


Given that air transport is one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy, the challenge for the
entire industry, and for airports in particular, is to ensure that aviation grows in a sustainable manner
with a proper balance between economic, environmental and social considerations (see E2.3
Sustainable Development).
Environmental issues arising from air transport growth are multi-faceted and complex. For this
joint participation in decision-making is essential, as it helps to resolve local, regional and global
trade-off situations. Solutions are most likely to be found through coordinated action and partnerships
between as many relevant stakeholders as possible. Stakeholders in the air transport sector are
diverse and include manufacturers, airlines, airport operators, air navigation services providers,
governments, civil society (neighbouring associations and NGOs), architects, planners and research
A variety of partnerships can be formed between these stakeholders to address different issues at
different levels. The following are some examples:
• Local partnerships with communities around airports in order to further reduce environmental
impacts and to better distribute air transport's socio-economic benefits (in terms of employment,
creation of commercial activities, cultural sponsorships, etc.).

• Regional partnerships with other transport modes in order to develop seamless
solutions, in particular between rail and air. Dedicated rail links can greatly facilitate ground
to airports and also reduce road traffic emissions, while the complementary and coordinated
operations of short haul flights and high speed trains leads to the most rational use of existing
• Global partnerships with other industries in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on
global scale. Open emissions trading schemes among industries have been identified by ICAO
as a potential long-term solution for aviation, subject to further assessment.
• Universal partnerships for development in order to improve transport accessibility and
in the developing world. Air transport is indispensable for the development of tourism and trade,
which play a fundamental role in eradicating poverty.
By combining the complementary skills of different stakeholders and eliminating duplication of effort
through partnerships, substantial results can be achieved that will enable aviation to grow in a
sustainable manner.


The issue of sustainable development is gathering growing social and political importance amongst
airports, airlines and governments that are conscious of the need to respond to this major public
issue. In modern society we all face the sustainability challenge that requires maintaining a proper
balance between economic growth, social progress and environmental responsibility — the three
pillars of sustainability.
The air transport industry is a good example of an industry that provides a valuable and unique
contribution to the sustainable development of our global society. It includes efficient and affordable
- access to markets — thereby improving living standards and fostering economic growth — which, in
turn, alleviates poverty and results in less environmental degradation and a more sustainable world.
Sustainable development policies require that airports conduct their operations and undertake
development in ways that " the need of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs1". This means that, for example, airport capacity cannot be
defined solely in technical terms, and must take into account the need for environmental and social
acceptance of airport infrastructure and operating decisions.
Airports today, therefore, must plan for the future and take account of their sustainable development
opportunities and challenges rather than proceeding with unchecked capacity expansion.
The 'three pillars of sustainability' apply to airports in different ways, as outlined below. Airports
make sustainable development a high priority and assume a leadership role in its promotion and
integration into airport policies, programmes and operations.

E2.3.1 Social Sustainability

Social sustainability:
• Recognises direct impacts on daily quality of life: Air transport is a key ingredient in the
quality of life of many people — accordingly, air transport policies have a direct effect on people
and must take into account the characteristics of different communities and regions.

Definition of sustainable development according to the World Commission on Environment and Development, Brundtland Report, 1987.
• Promotes greater access and choice: Air transport should provide people with a reasonable
means of access to other places, goods and services — which implies the promotion of
and diversified air services, including additional frequencies and routes, improved services,
diversified air carriers, etc.

E2.3.2 Economic Sustainability

Economic Sustainability:
• Recognises the need for an air transport Industry that is as efficient as possible to
the national economy — which implies that airport policies, programmes and practices should
be innovative to support the economy and industry's efficiency and competitiveness.
• Recognises the need for an air transport Industry that is affordable for the movement of
people and goods — which implies that airport policies, programmes and practices should
innovative financing and implement cost-effective solutions that will ensure that airport facilities
and services are affordable.
• Recognises the need for an air transport Industry that is priced to reflect the full costs
and benefits of facilities and services provided to users and society.

E2.3.3 Environmental Sustainability

Environmental Sustainability:
• Recognises the importance of protecting and conserving natural resources—which
that airports must apply sound environmental and conservation practices, and that airport
development must make efficient use of land, water, energy and other natural resources, and
preserve vital natural habitats, maintain biodiversity and repair damage.
• Recognises the importance of preventing noise, emissions and pollution before it occurs
— which implies that airports should work to ensure that the industry's needs are met in a way
that avoids or minimises pollutants and waste; and reduces the overall risk to human health,
global warming and the environment.
• Recognises the importance for airport management that is led by example and
environmental stewardship — which implies that airports should continually refine their
environmental management systems so that internal operational practices support sustainable
development. Furthermore, airports should consider the potential environmental impacts of new
undertakings, and apply risk management and due diligence practices to their real property


The sustainability debate at the local level is the most important one for airports, since preserving
good relations with the local resident population — in order to maintain their acceptance — directly
impacts upon airport and airline development.
Airports produce positive effects to the surrounding community in terms of increased employment
and increased economic activity. If well integrated, airports can contribute to the healthy growth of
their surrounding communities. It is very important for the very survival of an airport within an area
that the positive aspects be highlighted and made publicly known; e.g. advantages that would
not exist without the presence of the airport.
The partnerships that are of most importance to airports, therefore, are those addressing local level
concerns; e.g. partnerships between airports, local communities, NGOs and other interest groups.
Local level concerns can include, for example, public concerns regarding the environment (local air
emissions and noise), a desire to further reduce environmental impacts, or a better distribution of air
transport's socio-economic benefits to surrounding communities (in terms of employment, creation
of commercial activities, cultural sponsorships, etc.).
In order to improve the local communities acceptance, several airports have launched specific
initiatives to address this issue, especially in Europe where in recent years sensitivity to noise and
emissions has increased. The following are some examples of typical local-level solutions to local-
level concerns:
• Innovative participation procedures: these involve relevant local stakeholders, in order to
overcome the trade-off between capacity improvements and noise protection measures.
Discussions, mediation procedures and compensation are the main instruments used.
• Compensation schemes: these involve generating jobs and implementing new fund-raising
mechanisms (for example via airport and related air transport revenues) to provide compensation
to neighbouring communities around airports.
• Land use management and planning: the airport operator should be given the means to
"neutralise" enough land in order to protect the airport from new residents who would be likely
to complain about noise.
• Improving rail connections to airports: access to airports by road increases local
Airport operators should explore improving their rail connections.
• Developing community initiatives: airports can provide support to local cultural and
events, facilitate sponsorship opportunities, provide scholarships for local children, provide

"------~------^jumuyfe-----------Wàyt^~W ~^
E2.IR1 Business Partnering Programs — Shared Airport Capacity and
By combining complemented skills and services and eliminating duplication of effort through
partnerships, substantial results can be achieved that will enable aviation to grow in a
Airport operators arid their direct business partners should work together to share airport
in an effort to ensure that airport equipment usage, space and efficiency is maximised. A good
example is the use of airport ground transport vehicies é These vehicles can often be shared,
and initiatives and business relationships should be developed to allow airiines and ground
handling agents to do so.
IATA Environmental Issues

E2.IR2 Sustainable Development
Airports must plan for their future using a sustainable development strategy. Airports should not
just be expanded to meet year-on-year growth forecasts. Before airports embark on increasing
the size and ultimate complexity of their operation they should be looking to rationalise
and common tasks. Efficiencies in the undertaking of airport processes tasks should be refined
and streamlined on an ongoing basis before the last option (to build more infrastructure) is
Airports and their primary business partners should be looking to work in partnership to optimise
the airport operation, in order that when true capacity expansion is required it can be provided.
It should be noted that this course of action is also good commercial sense for the airport and
v.. all of its users.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual


Noise annoyance is a subjective matter and can be considered to have only a local impact on the
community surrounding an airport. Aircraft movements such as landings, takeoffs and taxiing, as
as ground handling activities, contribute to the airport's environmental noise impact. Efforts to
and mitigate the airport's overall noise impact should be managed and implemented in a balanced
way by considering and evaluating all available measures.


The development of suitable ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPS) is important to
aviation industry as it assures and maintains consistency in manufacturers' and carriers'
around the world.
International noise standards for the certification of subsonic jet aeroplanes were first introduced by
ICAO in 1969 and published as Volume I of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention. The Chapter 2
standard was complemented in 1976 by the introduction of a more severe Chapter 3 standard. A
new Chapter 4 standard was adopted in 2001 for application to new aircraft types as from 2006.
Moreover, the ICAO Assembly agreed to give individual States the right to introduce the progressive
phase out of Chapter 2 aircraft between 1995 and 2002.
As with emissions, ICAO's international certification regime for aircraft noise has brought about
significant improvements in the noise performance of aircraft through the progressive tightening of
standards. Since the 1970s, noise from aircraft has come down by at least 75% and industry
to look for further reduction.
It is internationally recognised that for noise management purposes, the noise surrounding an
should be assessed based on "objective, measurable criteria and other relevant factors 1." The
of this assessment should be handled in a manner that takes into account the methodology of the
Balanced Approach for noise management at airports.
Airports experiencing noise problems may levy noise related airport charges. Such charges should
be based upon the aircraft certificated noise performance and should not recover more than the
for noise mitigation and prevention measures. The application of noise-related charges should
the specific principles developed by ICAO and contained in the ICAO's Policies on Charges for
Airports and Air Navigation Services (Doc 9082), paragraph 30.

E3.2.1 Noise Management

The ICAO Balanced Approach concept provides airports with an agreed methodology to be used to
address and manage aircraft noise problems at individual airports in an environmentally responsive
and economically responsible way.
The Balanced Approach to noise management encompasses four principal elements:

ICAO Assembly Resolution A33-7, Appendix C, Paragraph 2(b)

IATA Environmental Issues

It consists of an assessment of an individual airport noise situation, identification of potential

available to reduce the noise impact, a comparative economic and environmental assessment to
establish the most cost-effective solution among those measures, full consultation with stakeholders,
adequate public notification of intended actions, oversight by national authorities, and a mechanism
for dispute resolution involving all interested parties. Specifically, the goal is to address noise
on an individual airport basis, by choosing the most cost-effective measure or measures under the
four elements, using objective criteria.
Reduction of Noise at the source is recommended to be regulated in accordance with the
standards and recommended practices provided in ICAO Annex 8, Airworthiness of Aircraft, and
Annex 16, Environmental Protection Volume 1 Aircraft Noise, to the Convention on International Civil
Aviation. The ICAO environmental standards look to incorporate available technology on the aircraft
and are stated in terms of aircraft performance — that is to say whether an aircraft's measured noise
reaches a stated level for a defined aircraft mass1.
Reduction of noise at the source is not limited to the development of new standards, or new, quieter
aircraft types. It can also be achieved as a result of technological improvement during the life cycle
of an aircraft type. Furthermore, by taking into account the pace of fleet modernisation and its
integration by the operators at an airport, it will result in improving the overall noise performance of
the fleet at that airport. The noise performance trend and fleet mix operating at an airport need
therefore to be considered in any noise assessment.
Land use planning and management aims to direct incompatible land use such as housing,
and hospitals away from the airport environs, and to encourage compatible land use such as
and commercial development.
The problem of noise in the vicinity of airports can only be solved by pursuing all possible means for
its alleviation, and the benefits which can be derived from proper land use planning can contribute
materially to the solution. Efforts to correct situations detrimental to proper land use around airports
cannot be ignored simply because of the time required for such measures to be effective. This is
particularly appropriate to applications of land use planning to existing airports, where it is recognized
that the ability to make immediate land-use changes is limited, but where it is also important to
additional encroachment of incompatible land uses as aircraft source noise decreases and noise
contours retreat closer to the airport boundary.
There are substantial benefits to be gained from the correct application of land use planning
to the development of new airports. The value to be derived from proper land use planning and
management should not be underestimated and it is believed that more attention should be paid to
this useful tool.
Proper zoning of the airport environs is essential if encroachment is to be minimised and
benefits maintained. Close coordination is required with local and regional authorities, as zoning
not normally fall under the competence of the airport. Zoning will be subject to the noise index
by the airport, the noise contours developed and projected, and the number of people affected by
Available land use planning and management measures can be categorized as:

Aircraft mass is normally the maximum take-off weight (MTOW) for the aircraft however there are occasions where the
maximum landing
weight (MLW) could be used

Noise abatement operational procedures, both in-flight and on the ground, authorities should aim
to minimise the number of people affected by noise by reducing the level of perceived noise at
particular locations around an airport. These procedures can be used to optimize the noise contour
(according to the population distribution around the airport) by changing the shape and size of the
Safety remains the highest priority in aviation, and besides the use of approved noise abatement
operational procedures, airports must ensure that the necessary safety of flight is maintained by
considering all factors that might affect a particular operation. These include, but are not limited to,
weather, topography, runway conditions, available navigation aids, etc.
Where a noise problem has been confirmed, the available noise abatement operational procedures
can include, but are not limited to, the use of the following, provided it is consistent with the advice
provided in ICAO PANS OPS1:
(a) Preferential runways.
IATA Airport Development
(b) Displaced thresholds. Reference Manual
(c) Noise preferential routes.
(d) Noise abatement take-off and approach procedures.
(e) Descent profiles such as Continuous Descent Approach (CDA).
(f) Minimising the use of reverse thrust on landing.
When selecting procedures it should be noted that environmental benefits may vary due to the
potential variation in noise distribution as a result of the type of procedure used. This may result in
generating new problems elsewhere, especially if complementary measures are not taken to
environmental gains. It is essential therefore that the stakeholders — airports, airlines, air navigation
service providers and local communities — are in agreement with the noise objectives and resulting
Operating restrictions are defined as any noise-related action that limits or reduces an aircraft's
access to an airport. On assessing the identified noise problem at the airport, operating restrictions
may be part of a set of measures to be implemented to mitigate the noise problem. However, before
implementing or updating operating restrictions, the possible benefits to be gained from other
should be fully considered. The competent authority should ensure that any operating restrictions be
adopted only where such action is supported by a prior assessment of anticipated benefits and of
possible adverse impacts.
It is recognised that operating restrictions can improve the noise climate in the short term as they
lead to the limitation or prohibition of movements of the noisiest aircraft at an airport. However, in
order not to offset the benefits gained through operating restrictions, additional preventive measures,
such as land-use management measures, should be taken at the same time. This combination of
measures is the condition to durably improve the noise climate around an airport. Indeed, these
measures will be ineffective if lack of land-use planning and management measures enable urban
encroachment to continue as operating restrictions improve the noise climate.
As for other measures, operating restrictions should be assessed in a coherent and objective manner
with respect to the basic principles of transparency, cost-effectiveness, non-discrimination, and
avoidance of competitive distortion. Particular attention should be given to the potential impact on
current and future airline fleets. International policies and guidelines must be respected; i.e. ICAO
Assembly Resolution A33-7, which contains the unanimous agreement by States not to introduce
any operating restrictions aimed at the withdrawal of aircraft that comply with the noise standards in
Volume I, Chapter 4 of Annex 16.

See ICAO document titled, Procedures for Air Navigation Services, Aircraft Operations, Volume 1, Part V (ICAO Doc 8168)

IATA Environmental Issues

Operating restrictions can be partial, global or progressive and may be classified in two categories:
(a) Restrictions of traffic such as night curfews, or a cap on movements or noise energy.
(b) Restrictions on the use of aircraft with a particular noise, technical, or performance
Ground Measures, although covered under the principal elements of the Balanced Approach, are
generally considered and implemented separately. They can include, but are not limited to, the
following measures:
(a) Limitation of engine ground running.
(b) Designated areas for engine ground running.
(c) Minimised APU operation.
(d) Minimised taxi times and routing.
(e) Noise barriers.

E3.2.2 Noise Assessment

The noise assessment should identify the level of noise from the airport to which the nearby
is exposed. Whether a noise 'problem' exists depends on whether noise is worsening based on the
particular standard that the airport and/or the competent authority in which it resides currently
The noise-related standard, or noise objective that is meant to be achieved, should be identified and
defined before the assessment is to begin. The baseline is the noise situation currently experienced
by the community surrounding the airport and projected into defined points in the future, taking into
account existing plans without revising current mitigation measures or providing additional
If the baseline noise situation does not meet the noise objective that has been identified, a noise
problem may be determined to exist. Under the balanced approach program, in such a case,
new or revised noise mitigation measures under the elements of the balanced approach —
referred to as 'action scenarios' — would be considered.
To determine whether any such measure under an 'action scenario' might improve the noise
the competent authority or airport undertaking the assessment would compare the baseline noise
situation with the noise situation that would occur were the new or revised measures adopted.
In light of the many factors contributing to the noise situation at a particular airport, methods to
measure the noise from single aircraft events or single points in time are not considered to describe
the noise situation at an airport. Instead, a noise index or equivalent parameter, comprised of
aggregated noise information, often is recommended. Although a calculated noise index 155 for a
airport is a means of reflecting noise information, by itself it is not considered sufficient to describe
the noise situation at the airport. Usually one would want to place the information from the
noise index into a larger context, so that the exposure of people to significant levels of noise may be
assessed over a given time period (preferably at least one year). One way of determining the

! ICAO Circular 2054, "Recommended Method for Computing Noise Contours Around Airports," other useful documents for
reference on
contours are ECAC Document 29 and SAE A21 Document AIR1845
Airport Development Reference

Noise Monitoring: Although noise annoyance generally is a subjective matter, it is recognized that
the noise surrounding an airport should be assessed based on objective, measurable criteria and
other relevant factors.

The noise at points on the ground, caused by aircraft flying into and out of a nearby airport, depends
on a number of factors. These include the types of aircraft using the airport, the overall number of
takeoffs and landings, the time of day the aircraft operations occur, the runways that are used,
conditions, and airport-specific flight procedures that affect the noise produced. Single, point-in-time
noise measurements cannot be expected to represent the overall noise situation at an airport.
noise monitoring and/or noise modelling may be necessary.

To the extent noise monitoring is used, it should be undertaken over time to reflect noise at the
under different conditions. A one-year monitoring period would be expected to provide noise data
that is representative of the periodicity of the traffic schedule, operational characteristics such as
payload changes, and meteorological data. The noise monitoring equipment should be capable of
capturing noise from aircraft alone, or a method should be employed for screening out non-aircraft
noise. Placement of noise monitors at different distances can identify noise energy in different areas
around the airport. However their placement should not be nearer to the airport than as defined for
noise certification in order to ensure at least proper measurement at the three-certification points.

Identification and Assessment of Measures: When identifying the noise problem at an airport and
analyzing the various measures available to reduce noise through the exploration of the four principal
elements of the Balanced Approach (noise reduction at source, land-use planning and management,
noise abatement operational procedures and operating restrictions), the goal is to address the noise
problem using objective criteria in the most cost-effective manner.

On implementing the concept of the balanced approach to noise management, particular attention
shall be given to the principal elements and the analytical and methodological tools that might be
needed to assess and compare those elements. Steps taken by airports to address local noise
should be consistent with the principal elements and ensure that the relationship between them —
in particular in the area of noise and emission trade-offs, the impact of short term versus long term
solutions, as well as local versus regional solutions — are fully addressed.

Environmental benefits (in terms of reduction of numbers of inhabitants severely affected by noise)
associated to the measures considered should then be compared to their respective cost of
implementation through the use of the cost-effectiveness analysis methodology. The measures will
be ranked both by potential environmental benefits and cost of implementation. For each measure
this will enable the definition of a unit cost per inhabitant that will not be further affected by noise in
the future.

This process will provide stakeholders with an assessment of benefits and costs associated with
each of the measures being considered. The appropriate measure, or a combination of appropriate
measures, should then be chosen from among the measures assessed, in consideration of the
objectives set forth at the beginning of the process.

Transparent Process: When developing or updating a noise mitigation program there is a need for
a transparent process which will include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following:

(a) Assessment of the noise situation including the evolution of the problem and expected
improvements resulting from current measures and fleet renewal.

(b) Definition of the noise objectives.

(c) Identification of available measures.

IATA Environmental Issues

(e) Cost effectiveness analysis of the available measures.

(f) Selection of measures with the goal to achieve maximum environmental benefits most cost

(g) Notification and coordination in the implementation of measures.

(h) Dispute resolution for stakeholders.


E3.IR1 Noise Abatement Policy

Although noise annoyance is a subjective matter and noise mitigation programs are well
established at many international airports, IATA recommends that airports, when assessing tbait
noise climate for either updating existing measures or for the introduction of new measures,
take into account the methodology for the Balanced Approach. In addition, IATA re-emphasises
the ICAO policy in Resolution A33-7 where States have agreed not to permit the introduction
of any operating restrictions aimed at the withdrawal of aircraft that comply with the noise
standards in Volume I, Chapter 4 of Annex 16.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual



Airport emissions affect the environment in a variety of ways, most of them on a local scale. Aircraft
landings and takeoffs, taxiing, ground handling, maintenance, power generation, office buildings
road traffic at and around the airport all contribute to the airport's environmental footprint. Efforts to
reduce the airport's overall impact should, therefore, ideally address all sources in a balanced way.


In the immediate vicinity of airports, aircraft emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO x) unburned
(HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM, including visible smoke) contribute to local
air quality concerns. The effects on local air quality of other minor trace species such as sulphur
dioxide (S02), hydroxyl radicals (OH), nitrous and nitric acids, and chemi-ions are negligible and
mostly poorly understood. In spite of the relatively low levels, airport emissions are increasingly
to respiratory health problems among the local population.

As with noise, ICAO's international certification regime for aircraft emissions has brought about
significant improvements in the emissions performance of aircraft through the progressive tightening
of standards. Since the 1960s, emissions of HC, CO and smoke from aircraft have come down by
at least 90%, to the extent that further mitigating efforts are no longer seen as a priority by
The combustion conditions required to achieve these reductions as well as noise reductions have,
however, led to a simultaneous increase in NOx emissions.

International emission standards for the certification of turbo-jet and turbo-fan engines were first
introduced by ICAO in June 1981, and published as Volume II of Annex 16 to the Chicago
The ICAO standard-setting process is important to the industry because it maintains consistency in
manufacturers' and carriers' requirements around the world. In 1993 ICAO subsequently increased
the NO, stringency limit by 20% (effective 1995) and by another 16% in 1999 (effective 2004).
Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) is currently evaluating the potential for a
further increase in NOx stringency for new engines.

Additional reductions in aircraft NO x emissions require careful development and deployment of more
complex and more expensive combustor designs. Major industry research programmes focus on
reductions of 70% for future aircraft within 10 years, and 80% within 25 years. These efforts will help
to meet new NOx standards in the future, such as the European Union limits regarding NO x
around Community airports, expected to come into force in 2010.

Besides the continuous introduction of new engine technologies in their fleets (like, for example,
the DAC engine), airlines further minimise ground level emissions through a variety of operational
techniques, such as one-engine taxiing, being towed instead of taxiing, minimal APU-use, pilot shut-
down of engines during ground delays, and delayed engine start.

As a consequence of the steadily growing number of aircraft movements at airports around the
authorities are, however, increasingly obliged to respond to local public and political pressures to
curb airport activities. For this reason, local NO x emissions are quickly emerging as a potential
constraint for airport capacity expansion.

Environmental Issues

E4.2.1 Airport Emissions from Other Sources

Contrary to what is often assumed, it is not only aircraft that are responsible for NO x and other gas
emissions around airports. Other important emission sources can be found within and outside the
airport perimeter, such as airside vehicles, Ground Support Equipment (GSE), landside vehicles
taxis, busses, trains, etc.), and stationary power generation plants. Minor sources include regular
maintenance and handling activities. Ongoing monitoring and research suggests that the proportion
of aircraft-related NOx emissions is relatively small compared to the total amount generated by other
airport activities and road traffic around airports. The contribution from aircraft also decreases
moving away from the runway.
Given the multi-source contribution to local air quality around airports, and the fact that aircraft are
not the major contributors, it would seem appropriate that a balanced approach is used to improve
local air quality around airports, using a range of measures and involving all sources. Source-
contributions to local emission levels must be accurately measured and monitored in order to
aircraft emissions from other sources and to identify the appropriate basis for mitigation goals and
measures in a balanced way.

E4.2.2 Reducing Emissions Around Airports

Airports can themselves contribute to the reduction of NO x and other emissions by taking a variety
of measures, such as:
• Lighting and heating/cooling of terminals, hangars, parkings, and offices.
• Ground transportation of staff, passengers and cargo to and from terminals and aircraft.
• Powering of ground service equipment and aircraft at the gate.
Action in the following areas would help to reduce airport emissions, either through energy savings
or the use of cleaner energy sources:
• Optimised airport design to reduce taxi times, unnecessary idling of aircraft and waiting at the
• Cleaner and more efficient GSE operations through enhanced maintenance of equipment,
optimising logistics, installation of catalytic converters, introduction of electrically powered
and fuel cell technology, and conversion to fixed electrical ground power at gates.
• Clean airport access for passengers, visitors and staff by promoting use of public transport,
and other electric vehicles (buses), and even bicycles; encourage employee car-pooling.
• Monitoring electricity consumption of baggage handling systems, passenger conveyer belts,
escalators, air conditioning systems and lighting.
• Alternative heating methods such as the use of geothermal energy, incineration of non-

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual


E4.IR1 Air Quality Taxation

Local air quality is determined by a variety of sources a? and around the airport, including
Efforts to reduce the airports overall iftipact should therefore address all sources in a balanced
way, using a range of measures aimed at encouraging improvements in environmental
performance in the most cost-effective way. IATA considers inappropriate the levying of taxes
or charges aimed at reducing aircraft emissions.
IATA Environmental Issues


The volume of waste in many industrialised countries has considerably increased in recent years,
accompanied by an increase in the volume of materials harmful to the environment. In light of these
developments, airlines and airports regard better waste management as a major concern.
Waste can be classified into 2 categories, namely:
Category 1 — Toxins
Toxins cannot be degraded by the environment naturally and should be treated before release
to ensure that no harmful particulates are retained. Treatment of toxins should be in accordance
with national regulations. Examples of a category 1 waste are aircraft fuel spills which must be
chemically treated before controlled release into the environment, so complying with national
best practice legislation.
Category 2 — Biodegradable
Biodegradable chemicals and produces can be naturally broken down by the environment and
do not represent a hazard to the environment upon their controlled release. Again, national
regulations on the volume and rate of release should be observed.
Major sources of Category 1 airline and airport waste at an airport include but are not limited to
the following:
Aircraft spent fuels and lubricants.
• Fuel farm and apron fuel dispensing equipment.

Maintenance hangers and workshops.

Apron vehicles.

Air-bridge lubricants.

Refrigeration plants.

Flight kitchens.

Airport power plants.

Aircraft lubricant dispensing vehicles.

Airport development materials.

Major sources of Category 2 airline and airport waste at an airport include but are not limited to
the following:

• Waste water and sewage.

• Food waste.

E5.1.1 Prevention of Waste

A detailed understanding of the component parts of the waste cycle is critical to the successful
prevention of waste. Having a total understanding of the composite parts mapped to mechanisms
reducing the use of first generation materials and the use of recycling initiatives will be essential. All
organisations operating within the airport environment should seek to actively utilise recycled

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual
Staff and organisations should be made aware of how their individual contributions will aid the plan
to reduce waste, and should be given the necessary tools to achieve the reduction targets. In the
context of staff within the office, paper recycling initiatives should be carried out. Drivers of apron
vehicles should plan their routes to ensure that travel distances and dwell periods on the apron with
engines or electric motors running will be minimised.
Designers should seek in the preliminary stages to produce energy efficient facility designs which
are less dependant on fossil fuel sources for seasonal heating and cooling. Buildings should be
commissioned with thermal imaging cameras to confirm areas of undesirable heat loss giving rise to
excessive consumption of heating fuels or electricity.
Airport operators should seek to reduce energy consumption by employing smart systems on
such as escalators, conveyor motors and lighting systems, where power down cycles should be
employed in times of low or non usage.


Waste is by definition any material which cannot be further used or recycled. Usually waste can be
categorized in the following main divisions:
• Disposed waste (incineration).
• Recycling material (paper, wood, organic waste, polymers, metals).
• Hazardous waste.
The separation of waste is essential to reduce it. Therefore a whole network of collecting points
across the airport with different bins for separation is necessary. A management of these collecting
points will be necessary to achieve sustainable results.
Cabin waste originating from international flights must be removed and destroyed in conformity with
local health codes and airport authority regulations. Usually this involves incineration of the cabin
waste in a properly designed facility. Local environmental rules and regulations must be adhered to
with respect to emissions and proper disposal of the residue.


E5.IR1 Energy Efficient System

Airport operators should employ energy efficient and monitored electrical systetns to ensure
that power management strategies are employed.

E5.IR2 Collection of Reusable Waste
Airport operators and airlines should train staff and employ initiatives to collect waste materials
that can be reused. A target figure of at least 20% of office waste should be collected, sorted,
managed and declared suitable for recycling. This waste should then be subsequently

Chapter F — Airport Capacity
Section F1: Capacity and Level of Service
F1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 159
F1.2 IATA Recommendations.......................................................................... 160
Section F2: Capacity Definitions
F2.1 Capacity Measurement Overview.......................................................... 161

Section F3: Airport Systems

F3.1 Airport Systems Overview ..................................................................... 162
F3.2 IATA Recommendations.......................................................................... 164
Section F4: Planning Schedule
F4.1 Planning Schedule Overview.................................................................. 165
F4.2 Schedule Input Requirements ................................................................ 165
F4.3 IATA Recommendations.......................................................................... 165
Section F5: Runway Systems
F5.1 Runway Systems Overview.................................................................... 166
F5.2 Runway Capacity.................................................................................... 166
F5.3 Capacity Calculations ............................................................................. 167
F5.4 Runway Movement Simulation ............................................................... 169
F5.5 Rules of Thumb ...................................................................................... 170
F5.6 IATA Recommendations.......................................................................... 170

Section F6: Taxiway

F6.1 Taxiway Overview.................................................................................. 171
F6.2 Taxiway Functionality ............................................................................. 171
F6.3 Simulation .............................................................................................. 172
F6.4 IATA Recommendations.......................................................................... 172

Section F7: Apron

F7.1 Apron Overview .................................................................................... 173
F7.2 IATA Recommendations.......................................................................... 173

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Section F8: Aircraft Stand

F8.1 Aircraft Stand Overview.......................................................................... 174
F8.2 Aircraft Stand Capacity........................................................................... 174
F8.3 Improved Stand Capacity ...................................................................... 175
F8.4 Gate and Stand Assesments................................................................... 176
F8.5 IATA Recommendations.......................................................................... 177
Section F9: Passenger Terminal Facilities
F9.1 Passenger Terminal Design: Introduction .............................................. 178
F9.2 Passenger Behaviour ............................................................................. 181
F9.3 Passport Control .................................................................................... 185
F9.4 Hold Room ............................................................................................. 186
F9.5 The Loading Area ................................................................................... 186
F9.6 Baggage Claim Unit................................................................................ 187
F9.7 Level of Service Balance......................................................................... 188
F9.8 Maximum Queuing Time ........................................................................ 189
F9.9 Capacity and Level of Service Assessment............................................. 189
F9.10 Rules of Thumb....................................................................................... 193
F9.11 IATA Recommendations.......................................................................... 212
Section F10: The Airport Scheduling Process
F10.1 Airport Capacity and Traffic Congestion ................................................ 213
F10.2 Levels of Airport Activity ........................................................................ 214
F10.3 IATA Recommendations.......................................................................... 215
Section F11: Computational Fluid Dynamics
F11.1 Computational Fluid Dynamics: Overview .............................................. 216
F11.2 When to Use CFD Software Effectively ................................................... 216
F11.3 IATA Recommendations.......................................................................... 218



The problem of traffic peaking at airports has been the subject of increasing concern by airlines and
airport operators around the world. This problem is a complex one and has tended to defy easy or
widespread solution. Extreme traffic peaking at airports generates congestion and severe economic
penalties, or delays to aircraft and passengers.
These problems may become even more acute if the timely expansion of airport facilities to
accommodate increasing levels of traffic cannot be undertaken, for whatever reason, but especially
due to environmentally imposed runway/airport curfews. Curfews do not directly affect hourly
computations, but they do affect the total airport capacity. While a principal objective should be to
increase airport capacity to meet increasing demand, in the interim the need to maximize the
of existing airport and airline resources is becoming more critical than ever before. Effectively
available airport capacity/demand in such an environment presents a major challenge to airport
operators and airlines alike.
Every reasonable effort should be made by the airlines, airport operators, and involved government
agencies to identify airport capacity limitations and potential congestion problems well before these
problems actually occur. Co-ordinated efforts can then be undertaken to avoid such problems to the
benefit of all concerned, and will require continuing and open communications and cooperation
between all parties involved. Demand/capacity and level-of-service investigations at airports where
congestion exists or is anticipated can be arranged in this type of co-operative climate in order to:

(a) Establish the time, degree and cause of congestion.

(a) Seek to agree on a methodology for determining the capacity of the airport, taking into
the levels of service to be provided, and compare this with typical peak demand to identify
(b) Consider means of removing such limitations in the short term, at a relatively small
cost, taking
account of the effect of any related delay factor. It is often possible to increase capacities
significantly through relatively inexpensive changes in procedures or personnel deployment.
(c) Where larger expansion is not possible, consider other temporary expedients, such as
construction or lower service levels, pending improvements in capacity in the longer term or a
significant infrastructure expenditure.
(d) Where capacity can only be increased in the longer term or at significant cost,
produce estimates
of those measures required to increase appropriate capacity, and consider whether the capacity
should be increased either to a higher level, or to a lower level involving either increased delays
or the adjustment of schedules.
Although various alternative methods of managing demand to match capacity limitations have been
considered in the past, the most satisfactory one is that of schedule co-ordination. Such schedule

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual


F1.IR1 Use of schedule co-ordination to manage capacity demand

In general, schedule co-ordination represents the most effective means of managing capacity
demand issues. Schedule adjustments should be made in an international forum where pertinet
industry representatives can discuss the changes required at any airport concurrently with their
varying repercussive effects at other airports.
IATA Airport Capacity



Capacity measurements vary from one subsystem to another. The term capacity has many
but it generally makes reference to a limit, when reached or exceeded, which affects an airport's
operations and level of service.
Capacity is often use to describe the variable measurement of a specific airport system or
throughput, or the system's capability to accommodate a designated level of demand.
capacity assessments are based on five fundamental measurements, noted in the following sub-

F2.1.1 Dynamic Capacity

Dynamic Capacity refers to the maximum processing or flow rate of persons (i.e. occupants)
F2.1.2 Static Capacity
Static Capacity is used to describe the storage potential of a facility or area, and is usually
as the number of occupants that a given area will accommodate at any one moment. It is a function
of the total useable space available and the level of service to be provided; i.e., the amount of space
each occupant may occupy. Static capacity standards are stated as square meters per occupant
(m2/occ.) for each level of service.
F2.1.3 Sustained Capacity
Sustained Capacity is used to describe the overall capacity of a subsystem to accommodate traffic
demand, over a sustained period within the space and time standards of a particular level of service.
It is thus a measure of the combined dynamic and static capacities of the processors, reservoirs and
links. IATA recommends using level of service C to determine the sustainable capacity. The
for level of service C is shown in section F9.1.2.
F2.1.4 Maximum Capacity
Maximum Capacity refers to the maximum traffic flow which can be achieved for the chosen time
unit only, but not sustained for a longer period, in accordance with safety requirements and
of delay or level of service.

F2.1.5 Declared Capacity

Declared Capacity refers to site specific limiting capacities, in numeric terms, of individual facilities
and resources. These capacities are forwarded to the appropriate bodies to be used in the
of flight schedules.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual



An airport is more than a large paved area, a set of plans or an architectural concept. An airport
should be seen and planned as a dynamic system that handles the flow of pedestrians, vehicles,
aircraft, baggage, cargo and mail. The passengers, baggage, greeters & well-wishers, vehicles and
aircraft must pass through inter-related systems to be queued, processed and circulated on various
links such as taxiways, corridors, escalators, etc.

F3.1.1 Airport Facilities/Systems

Airport facilities should be planned according to the following principles:
• Airports should be developed to operate in an efficient manner, taking into account the safety
the users and clients.
• Aircraft flows should be designed to operate with maximum efficiency across the airside sub
systems; i.e. the gate, apron, taxiways, runways, and airspace.
• Passenger flows should be designed to minimize inconvenience and confusion as passengers
proceed through the network of terminal subsystems.
• Baggage systems should be designed to provide an efficient, fast, reliable and cost-effective
of hold baggage from check-in to aircraft, from aircraft to aircraft, and from aircraft to baggage
reclamation. See chapter U for information on Baggage Handling Systems (BHS).
• Vehicular flows should be designed to provide an efficient and reliable access/egress to the
terminal facilities.
• The passenger terminal building should be designed to provide an efficient and seamless flow
between the landside and airside elements.

• Airports should be designed to offer a balanced flow through the interface points of the system.
• Each system should be flexible enough to accommodate future requirements in order to
the balance of the overall airport system.
An airport can be subdivided into several main, interrelated systems. The airside network has a
space requirement, while the terminal building represents the transfer portion of the overall system
through which passengers move from their ground access modes to the apron, vice versa, or
between flights.
The ground access/terminal building transition point is at the curb, while the apron/terminal building
transition point occurs at the bridge/gate. These transition or interface points between the systems
mark the points where the nature of the flow changes. In the deplaning process, for example,

TATA* Airport Capacity

This relationship is shown in the following schematic diagram:

Arriving Vehicles Occupants Aircraft
Departing Vehicles Occupants Aircraft Deplaning

F3.1.2 Capacity Balance

A primary objective of the planning process is to find the correct, balanced capacity and level of
service between facilities, operations, rules & procedures and airline schedules. Balancing capacity
is primarily required to avoid displacing a bottleneck to another critical facility. It often means
the terminal, gate and apron systems do not limit the runway throughput. Six major system studies
are considered when balancing capacity and determining the reliable throughput of the airport.
Terminal Airspace
Terminal airspace studies are undertaken to determine when existing capacity and limiting
require improvement prior to considering investment in new facilities. The maximum reliable
terminal airspace throughput for landings and departures is determined separately.
A runway capacity study is undertaken to determine the exiting and maximum reliable runway
capacity. The runway system is a critical component to the overall system, and runway capacity
ultimately determines a given airport's maximum capacity. Every effort should be made to
that other airport facilities are not limiting runway throughput and performance.
Simulation is often required to ensure that the apron acts as an effective link between the gate
and the runway systems and does not become a bottleneck.
The number of stands and aircraft parking positions for different types/sizes of aircraft is
to meet the current and future year requirements up to the ultimate runway capacity. This,
information is essential to develop realistic and cost-effective airport concepts.
Passenger Terminal
The number of counters/processors, a building's reservoir (holding) potential, levels of service,
and requirements by facility or area are calculated for the passenger and greeter/well-wisher
flows for the passenger terminal.
Enplaning passengers must pass through some or all of a series of subsystems, while
passengers must pass through some or all of a separate series. In some cases, the same
subsystems are used by both flows. Additionally transfer passengers must be considered since
they utilize some of the subsystems of both passenger flows. In the case of 'hub' airports, the
volume of transfer passengers may be very significant. Passenger terminals also process
flows. See chapter U for information on baggage handling systems.

Passenger Flow Routes
A general aircraft baggage and passenger flow chart should be established. It is usually essential
to show originating, terminating, transfer and transit passengers, split by domestic and
passenger flow, in order to properly analyse passenger terminals. The passenger flow routes
should be flexible and should:
• Be as short and straight as possible, unimpeded by obstructions from cross-flows or
Be capable of use by all airlines and not restricted to individual aircraft loads.
Govern control positions in order to avoid bottlenecks.
Be sufficiently flexible to permit the establishment of temporary channels which can be used
as by-pass routes by other passengers (e.g., for individual health control processing of a
particular arriving aircraft passenger load) or to permit regulation evolution.
Permit processing of passengers individually or in groups.
Introduce a minimum number of level changes.
Allow flow separations for government regulations or security reasons.
Provide one flow route for departing domestic passengers and one for international
One flow route for arriving domestic passengers and one for international passengers.
Separate departing passengers from those arriving after security check-points.


F3.2 IR1 Airport as a Dynamic System

An airport should be seen and planned as a dynamic system that handles flow of pedestrians,
vehicles, aircraft and baggage going through inter-related systems.

F3.2 IR2 Airport Facilities

Airports in general should be planned in accordance with the principles defined within Clause
F3.1.1. ~

F3.2 IR3 Balancing Capacity

Balancing capacity is required to avoid displacing a bottleneck to another critical facility
considering runway capacity ultimately determines the maximum capacity of an airport.

F3.2 IR4 Passenger Flow

Passenger flow should be planned in accordance with the principles in clause F3.1.2.
IATA Airport Capacity



Determining airport capacity and requirements largely depends on predicting the impact of projected
airline schedules on the various airport facilities. Requirements, capacity and level of service are
based not only on operating conditions and rules, but also upon the particular demand profiles
by the mix of flights and flight sectors for a typical busy day.
Typical peak period or peak hour demand should be used wherever possible for planning purposes,
rather than annual figures. The typical peak is the maximum level of traffic, lower than the absolute
peak, reached in busy periods of a typical busy day. The second busiest day in the busiest or
busiest week of normal airport traffic is a good example of a typical 'peak day', specifically excluding
peaks associated with, for example, religious or other holiday festivals.
De-seasonalized time series can thus be used to segregate monthly passenger and aircraft
data into their major cycle, trend, seasonal and random constituents. It is useful to identify
peak passenger and aircraft days of the week, distinguishing hard trends from random fluctuations.
Historical peak period statistics such as the 30th busiest hour in the year, the 90th percentile of
Detailed planning, concept validation, level of service assessment, facility optimization and design
studies should be conducted with site-specific planning schedules as a key input. Baseline planning
schedule(s) by cargo and passenger traffic sector should be developed and adapted from actual
schedules to reflect the existing and future fleet mix and route structure.
Planning schedules should reflect the basic traffic characteristics of the users of the systems being
studied. A passenger flow study would typically require more information than a runway capacity
study, including:
Airline flown.
Aircraft type.
Aircraft ID.
Departure and arrival time.
Origin/Destination passenger volumes, transfer passenger volumes, transit volumes.
Traffic sector (International, Domestic, Schengen, etc.).
Gate assignment (gating).


F4.IR1 Site-specific Planning Schedules

Detailed planning, concept validation, level of service assessment, facility optimization and
design should be based on site-specific planning schedules reflecting the basic traffic
characteristics as a key input.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

F5.3.3 ATC Procedures and Equipment

The performance of radar equipment and ATC limitations sometimes impose a separation greater
than the minima shown in Table F5.1. These limitations should be dealt with prior to considering
investing in new runways.

F5.3.4 The Mix of Aircraft

As shown in Table F5.1, separation between aircraft depends on the aircraft category. Therefore,
mix of successive aircraft operating will have an impact on the overall separation and the runway
capacity. For example, an airport operating with a majority of medium size aircraft will have an
arrival separation of 3NM. The same airport serving a mix of small, medium and heavy aircraft will
have a separation of 3 to 6NM, depending on the sequence of arrivals, and will have a significantly
reduced runway capacity.

F5.3.5 The Mix of Arrivals and Departures

An airport is part of a network and has a mix of arrivals and departures during the day. Aircraft that
land at an airport will eventually take-off. The distribution of arrivals and departures has an impact
on runway capacity. ATC not only needs to consider separation between successive arrivals and
successive departures, but also gaps between arrivals preceded or followed by departures.

F5.3.6 The Mixed or Segregated Mode

Airports with two or more runways sometimes dedicate runways to departures and runways to
However, the arrival and departure peaks rarely coincide, and the separation between successive
arrivals and successive departures are different. This results in gaps on one runway when another
is at capacity; in these situations mixing arrivals and departures as if operating with a single runway
can increase capacity.

F5.3.7 Runway Configuration

Parallel runways with adequate spacing (1035 m or more) can process independent arrivals.
between runways is a constraint that limits capacity when the distance between runways does not
meet the minimum distance requirement or runways intersect. Independent parallel runways are
recommended for that reason.
The layout of an airport and the runway configuration is another factor having an impact on aircraft
F5.3.8 Precision Runway Monitor (FAA)
The PRM is a surveillance radar that updates essential aircraft target information 4 to 5 times more
often than conventional radar equipment. PRM also predicts the aircraft track and provides alarms
when an aircraft is within ten seconds of penetrating the non-transgression zone. Use of the PRM
allows air traffic controllers to ensure safe separation of aircraft on the parallel approach courses
maintain an efficient rate of aircraft landings during adverse weather conditions. In December 2001,
the FAA determined that the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) may be operated
in the resolution advisory (RA) mode when conducting a PRM approach.
The FAA has commissioned PRMs at Minneapolis and St. Louis, and at Philadelphia International
Airport in September 2001. PRM's were scheduled for commissioning at San Francisco and John F.
Kennedy in late-2002, Cleveland in late-2004, and Atlanta in 2006, coincident with the completion of
the fifth parallel runway. The FAA has also approved procedures using a PRM to allow
instrument approaches in adverse weather.

IATA Airport Capacity

F5.3.9 Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (FAA)

The SOIA procedure would allow simultaneous approaches to parallel runways spaced from 230 m
(750 feet) to 910 m (3,000 feet) apart. It requires the use of a PRM, a straight-in ILS approach to
one runway, and an offset Localizer Directional Aid (LDA) with glide slope approach to the other
The SOIA concept involves the pairing of aircraft along adjacent approach courses separated by at
least 910 m (3,000 feet) with a designated missed approach point approximately 3.5 nautical miles
from the runway threshold. The pilot on the offset approach would fly a straight-but-angled approach
until descending below the cloud cover. At that point, the pilot would have a period of time to visually
acquire the traffic on the other approach before continuing to the runway. If the pilot does not see
the other aircraft before reaching the missed approach point, the approach would be discontinued.
San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and Lambert-St. Louis International Airport (STL) are the
first candidate airports for SOIA. At SFO the arrival rate is 60 aircraft per hour in clear weather using
both parallel runways, which are 230 m (750 feet) apart. In times of heavy fog and low-ceiling
conditions, aircraft are placed in-trail to one runway, reducing the airport arrival rate by half. The
SOIA procedure will enable SFO to maintain an arrival rate of up to 40 aircraft per hour with a cloud
base as low as 490 m (1,600 feet) and four miles of visibility.


Simulations are strongly recommended to determine the runway capacity before and after proposed
improvements, procedures and rules are implemented. Delays (including where and why they
are a primary indicator of level of service and that capacity is being reached or exceeded.
Simulation models, such as Total AirportSim developed by IATA, are effective to predict the impact
of projected airline schedules on the various airport facilities. They can be used to identify the
location and degree of congestion and to measure delays. Care must be exercised in the provision
of accurate data and it must be recognized that operation of such software should be entrusted to
highly skilled and experienced operators who fully understand airport operations.
The sustainable runway throughput at airports not currently at capacity is calculated by increasing
the daily demand until the runway system is saturated, and by assuming the same hourly
of traffic and fleet mix. Unlimited gate supply should be assumed.
Figure F5.1 shows an example where departure delays are greater than the arrival delays.
is therefore the limiting factor.


♦ Landings
■ Departures

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


ÊATA Airport Development Reference Manual
Figure F5.2 shows the excessive queuing associated with peak departure demand exceeding
departure capacity. The number of aircraft queuing increases rapidly when runway capacity is
and typically takes a long time to dissipate.
Figure F5.2 — Example of Departure
(Location and Degree of Congestion)


IATA proposes the following rules of thumb based on the ICAO departure and landing wake vortex
separation and assuming a runway occupancy time of 50 seconds or less.

Table F5.2 — Typical Maximum Hourly Runway Throughput

— Segregated Mode
% Heavy % Medium Departures Landings(1> Landings<2>
25 75 48 39 +5
50 50 40 37 +3
75 25 34 36 +2

(1) based on the wake vortex separation shown in table 1

(2) additional capacity assuming a 2.5 NM separation for medium size

Fr ER1 Runway Simulation

The simulation of runway movements is recommended as defined within the ADRiV C' use
F5.4 ^SEÉilC^Éil

IATA Airport Capacity



Taxiways provide the necessary link between various parts of the airport, including to the
and the runway system. As such, the individual elements constitute a network serving access and
aircraft movement functions.
Figure F6.1 — shows schematically the basic functions served. The taxiways should be designed
(dimensions) according ICAO Annex 14 requirements for the future critical aircraft to operate at the
Figure F6.1 — Functional Design of a Taxiway System

Access to Cargo
Main Parallel and G.A., etc. Area
Taxiways \
/I Passenger Terminal Area \

R.E.T.s (Heavy,
Medium and Light) Multiple Queuing
for Aircraft Sequencing
at Departure


The taxiway system should be designed so as to optimise runway throughput. Implementation of
taxiway functionality such as Rapid Exit Taxiways (RETs), parallel taxiways and departing multiple
queuing taxiways improve the system capacity.
RET vacate landing aircraft from the runway. They are designed to minimize runway occupancy
and therefore create the necessary conditions to optimise runway utilization, since a succeeding
aircraft can't touch down until the preceding aircraft clears the runway. They can provide the
conditions for High Intensity Runway Operation (HIRO), minimizing the occurrence of 'go-around'
and enabling departures in-between continuous in-coming traffic in mixed mode operation. The
and location of RETs depends on the aircraft fleet mix, the distance from the threshold to
the aircraft speed at touchdown, the initial exit speed and the rate of deceleration.
De-icing pads are an integral part of taxiway systems at many airports. It is important to design and
locate de-icing pads to accommodate the peak demand and to match the maximum runway
in bad weather conditions.

ÈATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Runways and taxiways are inter-related systems. The runway simulations described in section F5
should include the taxiways to get from/to the gate or aircraft stand in the model. Figure F6.2 shows
an example of 'where' departing taxiing aircraft are delayed from an aircraft flow simulation. Taxiing
distance and delays should be carefully studied considering their significant impact on operation
and performance.
Figure F6.2 — Example of Identification of
Potential Bottlenecks from Simulation


F6.IR.1 Taxiway System

The taxiway system should be designed to maximize runway throughput, minimize taxiing
distance and delays and improve aircraft flow and operations.

F6.IR.2 Runway Simulations

Runway simulations should include the taxiway network.

SECTION Airport Capacity


The apron provides direct access to aircraft stands for purposes of loading and unloading
mail or cargo, or for fuelling, parking or maintenance. An apron's taxilanes serve two main

(I) The aircraft stand taxilane, intended to provide access to the aircraft stand only.
(II) Apron taxiways, intended to provide a through route across the apron.
Apron and gate design should reflect the various characteristics and volume of traffic to be handled.
Significant ground delays can be experienced on aprons as they are an aircraft flow merging point
and provide an entry/exit point to aircraft for pushing back and powering up engines. The traffic
volume and characteristics can also change over time.
Single aircraft stand taxilanes giving access to more than 6-8 high-turnover cul-de-sac gates should
be avoided. Apron taxiways providing through taxi routes should be included in the ground aircraft
flow simulation for runway capacity studies in order to avoid displacing a bottleneck to the next link.
An apron aircraft flow simulation, including realistic gate assignment and push-back procedures, is


F7.IR.1 Apron and Gate Design

Apron and gate design should reflect the various charactenstics and volume of traffic to be


A single taxilane giving access to more than & to 8 cul-de-sac gatvs should be

F7.IR.3 Aircraft Fiow Simulation

An aircraft flow simulation should be considered to verify the functionality of apron layouts.

F7.IR.4 Apron Location

The apron should be located in such a way as to minimize or eliminate the need for crossing

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual



An aircraft stand is a designated area intended for parking an aircraft where passengers can be
loaded/unloaded with a bridge or by bus. The aircraft stand system is effectively an interface
passenger and aircraft flow; i.e. where passenger/baggage flow become aircraft flow and vice
This system should be carefully planned so as not to become a limiting factor of runways. Gate
should be calculated to match the runway throughput, and ultimately the runway saturation
plus the overnight parking requirements. Stands should not be used as a buffer for late arrivals/
departures due to ATC delays. At some airports, aircraft subject to an ATC departure delay will
actually vacate their stands at their scheduled departure time and absorb the delay on specially
designed remote stands near the runway.
Gate (contact) stands have a significant impact on the quality of service to users because they
for more rapid and comfortable handling of passengers, avoid the need for buses, and enable better
turnaround times. Contact gates are often essential to improve the quality of service and reliable
MCTs, in support of airlines commercial objectives — especially at hub airports. Contact gates are
required at airports with frequent adverse weather conditions, and designers should keep in mind
that an airport is part of airline network and therefore linked to operational commercial objectives.


The capacity of the runway, taxiway and apron systems is dynamic, as it relates to the ability to
process flows. The capacity of the aircraft stand system is related to the ability to accumulate
which is a static capacity. The number of stands and aircraft parking positions by different types/
sizes of aircraft is calculated to meet the current and future year requirements. This information is
essential to develop realistic and cost-effective airport concepts and to ensure capacity balance.
Some schedules, particularly long-haul flights, require that aircraft remain for several hours. Home-
based aircraft are likely to remain at their stands overnight, however the majority of flights seek a
rapid turnaround.
There could be a shortage of gates either (i) because of demand exceeds capacity (ii) because
is a higher than expected large aircraft demand or (iii) because aircraft remain in occupancy for an
extended number of hours or because of the current operations and rules applied. This highlights
that the key aspects of stand availability are:

• The number of stands provided for different types/sizes of aircraft.

• The availability of these stands as influenced by occupancy times (possibly ranging from less
than an hour to in excess of 6 hours).
• Availability of multiple aircraft ramp stands.
• Which terminal(s) are served by the stands.

IATA Airport Capacity

Table F8-1: Typical Aircraft Processing and

Servicing Time (In minutes) at Gate

Aircraft Pax Load Unload Aircraft Through Turnaround

Type Load Passenger Passengers Servicing Flight Flight
B 40 10 5 10 - 25
C 130 20 10 15 25 45
D 250 30 15 30 45 75
1 DOOR 350 40 25 45 45 110
2 DOORS 350 25 15 45 45 85
1 DOOR 470 55 30 80 60 165
2 DOORS 470 30 20 80 60 130

(*) IATA Recommends two doors wherever possible for Code F aircraft. (**) A third door reduces the
turnaround time by only 10-15 minutes to a total of approximately 115 minutes. The boarding and
deboarding processing times are no longer in the critical path. The catering process is on the critical
path because of the high number of trolleys to be loaded and off-loaded.


Possibilities for flexible use of aircraft operational stands (e.g. two small aircraft on one large aircraft
stand) should be kept in mind when assessing the maximum capability of a layout. The parking
configuration adopted, for example nose-in versus self manoeuvring, may not impact on stand
but could have a significant impact upon the apron capacity. Availability of facilities such as hydrant
refuelling, loading bridges etc., which help to reduce congestion, should also be considered.
Gate (contact) stands have a significant impact on the quality of service to users because they
for more rapid and comfortable handling of passengers, avoiding the need for buses and enabling
better turnaround times.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual
While there is a physical limit on the number of aircraft which can be simultaneously accommodated
at the airport, operational factors such as gate assignment policy, exclusive/preferential use,
sectorization, and operational parameters impact the practical capacity of the system. The inputs
required to conduct a gate assignment study include:

• Busy day flight schedule.

• An apron plan indicating all contact gates and remote stands.

• List of all contact gates and stands by range of aircraft accommodated and sectors accepted/

• Policy regarding exclusive and/or preferential use.

• Operational parameters, such as the buffer time between flights using the same gate (either
a gate by gate basis or globally), minimum tow-on and tow-off time by aircraft, and minimum
ground time before an aircraft is considered a candidate for towing.
Gate assignment study results (i.e. the number of gates by class of aircraft and by sector) and gate

Figure F8-2: Example of Gate Assignment Chart

Sahp I H^ute| StatttUct| M«tug«| Hsporl Gan»Chat|

_________ ________ 3i 10H 11H
'_, Gate F1 1GH
Concourse A
Concourse A
Concourse A
Gate F5
Concourse A
Concourse A
Gate 12
Concourse C
Gate 13
Concourse C
Gate 14
Concourse C
Gate 15
Concourse C
Gate 16
Concourse C
Gate 17
Concourse C
Gate 24
Concourse E

-TkmOlfsatjO _Ú

G_F€£tLS 223


F8.IR.1 Gate Supply

Gate supply should be calculated to match the runway throughput and ultimately the runway
saturation schedule plus the overnight parking requirements.


Contact Gates
Gafes (contact) should be considered to improve the quality of service to users and to provide
for more rapid and comfortable handling of passengers, avoiding the need for buses.

F8.IR.3 Gate/stand Planning

When planning gate/stands, they should be designed with full consideration of the instructions
stipulated in Clause F8.2.

F8.IR.4 Gate Percentage
A high percentage of contact gates is required when an airline's strategy
times, good quality of service, short and reliable MCTs and dealing with frequent adverse
conditions. Designers should keep in mind an airport is part of airline network and therefore is
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual



Terminal design and level of service should reflect the various characteristics and volume of
passengers and baggage to be handled. Managing terminal capacity and designing with level of
service in mind are key requirements in the development of competitive airports, and have long-
financial and operational implications for passenger facilities. Once a terminal is built, its size and
features tend to be effectively permanent unless major additional investments are made with
commensurate financial commitments.
Planners and decision-makers must keep in mind that passengers visit an airport for one primary
reason: to catch a flight. Passengers' expectations and needs should be at the very heart of the
planning process. The mark of a successful airport is its natural and unobstructed passenger flow
between objectives, easy navigation through the terminal, simplicity and cost-effectiveness.
Unfortunately, terminals are not always designed to take passenger attitudes and user needs into
consideration. This is partly related to how decisions are made. Too often, a maquette or elaborate
3-D drawings presenting the basic aesthetic approach or 'look' are presented to the selection
committee, and a given design will be chosen before airport specialists and operations consultants
can properly appraise it for effectiveness and efficiency. Changes to the chosen concept then tend
to be resisted and compromises only reluctantly considered. The result is often new terminals
the required capacity and with an expensive juxtaposition of subsystems that leave users with a
disappointing passenger experience.

F9.1.1 Passenger Characteristics

Different flight segments have different characteristics and needs. The amount of individual
space required for comfort and adequate level of service is examined from the point of view of
changing passenger behaviours and perceptions. The space standards developed in the 1970's,
for example, are currently being expanded to reflect newer segmented passenger behaviour and
Changes like these affect design attributes such as how much more queuing space might be
for passengers who use luggage carts and tend to carry a certain amount of luggage (this varies
depending on their passenger segment). Demand always exceeds capacity at some point, and
providing space for the formation of a queue is part of terminal design. A fundamental question is:
How much space is required to offer an economical level of comfort?
The answer should go beyond the study of operations research specialists and should be done with
passengers behaviour and expectations in mind. Passengers are one source of uncertainty and
of fluctuation not only in demand but in capacity as well. Queuing phenomena at check-in counters
is a good example of this. The arrival pattern may change from flight to flight and from day to day.
The time to process passengers also fluctuates and is not entirely under the control of the agent.
Different passenger segments have different characteristics and needs. Space standards for a
IATA Airport Capacity

Figure F9.3: Pedestrian Dimensions

Source: Davis and Braaksma (1987)

F9.1.2 Level of Service

Level of service can be considered as a range of values, or as assessments of the ability of supply
to meet demand. To allow comparison among the various systems and subsystems of the airport
and to reflect the dynamic nature of demand upon a facility, a range of level of service measures
from A through to F may be used, similar to the standard employed in highway traffic engineering.
The evaluation criteria and actual standards for each subsystem are developed separately.

Table F9.1 — Level of Service Framework

A — An Excellent level of service. Conditions of free flow, no delays and excellent levels of
B — High level of service. Conditions of stable flow, very few delays and high levels of comfort.
C — Good level of service. Conditions of stable flow, acceptable delays and good levels of
D — Adequate level of service. Conditions of unstable flow, acceptable delays for short periods
of time and adequate levels of comfort.
E — Inadequate level of service. Conditions of unstable flow, unacceptable delays and
inadequate levels of comfort.
F — Unacceptable level of service. Conditions of cross-flows, system breakdowns and
unacceptable delays; an unacceptable level of comfort.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual
Since the traffic demand at each airport is dynamic and varies according to such factors as
flight sector, and aircraft size and load factor, the level of service measures must reflect these
aspects. In this sense, the nature of the traffic demand plays an important role in affecting the level
of service experienced by a passenger.
On the supply side there are various systems and services which comprise the airport complex.
of service space can be considered as a range of values, or as an assessment of the ability of
to meet demand, and combines both qualitative and quantitative measures of relative comfort and
The framework of level of service measures permits comparison between often unrelated
within the airport complex. This aids management in the evaluation of airport components through
the use of common terminology. It is much easier to describe level of service in this manner and to
achieve capacity balance.
Level of Service C is recommended as the minimum design objective, as it denotes good service at
a reasonable cost. Level of service A is seen as having no upper bound. The total number of
passengers in an area provided for queuing tends to be fairly constant for any given flight. The
per occupant when the queue overflows is seen by IATA as the frontier between level of service C
and D. Passengers manage to avoid experiencing a level of service lower than C unless forced to.
Passengers queuing in corridors that are sharing space with passengers walking through can
experience a lower level of service.

F9.1.3 Check-In Queue Area

Table F9.2: Level of Service Space Standards

(sq. Meter/Occupant) at Check-In for Single Queue
1. Few carts and few passengers with check-in 1,7 1,4 1,2 1,1 0,9
luggage (row width 1.2m).
2. Few carts and 1 or 2 pieces of luggage per 1.8 1,5 1.3 1,2 1,1
passenger (row width 1.2m).
3. High percentage of passengers using carts (row 2,3 1,9 1,7 1,6 1,5
width 1.4m).
4. 'Heavy' flights with 2 or more items per passenger 2,6 2,3 2,0 1,9 1,8
and a high percentage of passengers using carts
(row width 1.4m).
Many factors, such as passenger behaviour patterns, cultural backgrounds, psychological
IATA requirements and passenger comfort can affect the space required in relation
Airport to the occupancy
Passengers don't necessarily use all the space available to them at certain key points in the
process, and they manage to secure a good level of space comfort even under congested
unless they are prevented to do so by a physical constraint or the threat to lose their priority in the
queue. Figure F9.1 and F9.2 illustrate that point for 8 economy-class counters served by a single
Figure F9.1: A Queuing System not at Capacity




T3T cos eoJ ■53 ~

5Õ5 ix& «t

In their attempt to maintain a comfort zone, passengers do not use all the space available for
The number of passengers divided by the total area for queuing may represent a level of service
better than C but in reality passengers occupy the space for a good level of comfort and experience
a space level of service C.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual
Figure F9.2 (below) shows the situation when the system is congested. The passengers waiting in
the queuing space area do not squeeze in, thereby lowering their level of service, to make space for
the passengers waiting behind in the corridor. Instead, the queue tends to overflow. This behaviour
is consistent with research showing that humans tend to maintain a buffer zone to prevent the
of intimate contact.
Figure F9.2: Queuing System Exceeding Capacity

cos ~ccg C
tos 63"

This observation regarding unconstrained environments has a practical application on determining

performance, capacity, level of service and requirements.

Figure. F9.4: Queuing at Check-In Based on Physical Characteristics

Passengers and a Maximum Queuing Time of 30 Minutes

*< *fr som;

an^aiili fornam,
jm& MJ^'aiD «D »* run
g°qm am^amgrj^ y


The peak demand load and the level of service C standards are translated into recommended
dimensions. As shown in figure F9.5, IATA recommends a 24 to 26 meter separation between
islands (32 — 34 meters per module) to provide 2.5 meters for processing and circulating in front of
the desk, 7.5 to 8.5 meters for queuing and 4 meters for circulation and passenger queue overflow.
Twenty-four (24) meters provides enough space for a maximum queuing time of roughly 30 to 35
minutes for the case 1,2 and 3 of table F9.2. Twenty-six (26) meters provides the flexibility to process
heavy flights, or is required when the maximum queuing time exceeds 30 — 35 minutes on a regular
basis. More than 26 meters may be considered after a comprehensive demand/capacity study is
conducted to reflect site-specific particularities. Twenty-two (22) meters is sufficient at airports with
maximum queuing time of 30 minutes or less and for case 1 and 2 (see Table F9.2).

Figure F9.5: Recommended Dimensions for Check-In Island with Single


..p .p^ssi .g.^

.r .D

E in

Corridor and Queue overflow


F9.2.1 Frontal Type Check-in Counters

Figure F9.6: Recommended Dimensions for Frontal Type Check-

Maximum Queuing Time of 30-35 Minutes
2.5 m

Processing[and ..Circulating _\_

| Queuing |


Building facade
4.0 m
F9.2.2 Wait/Circulation Area
Walking distances for passengers should be as short as possible. In determining the distance
major functions in the terminal, the planner must consider whether baggage is to be carried or not,
the availability of baggage trolleys, changes in levels, and the accessibility of the aircraft without
resorting to ground transport.
The suggested maximum walking distance between the major functions (i.e., car park to check-in/
baggage claim; check-in/baggage claim to gate lounge) is 300m.
Greater distances can be accepted provided a form of mechanical assistance is made readily
to passengers. Such systems are costly and therefore a full cost/benefit analysis is necessary
installation. In all terminals where progressive expansion must incorporate a people-mover system,
due provision for the necessary right-of-way and other related factors must be included in the
If passengers are required to change levels when walking, escalators or moving ramps should be
provided, at least in the upward direction. Passengers should not be required to move baggage
than hand baggage between levels. Experience has shown that the use of elevators to enable
passengers, other than disabled passengers, to change levels is not satisfactory from a capacity
point of view.
Pedestrians adapt their walking speed to the environment based on the following variables:
• The occupancy or flow in the corridor.
• The proportion of passengers with baggage and carts.

Table F9.3: Space and Speed for Level of Service C

Space (mVpax) Speed (m/s)
Airside — no carts 1,5 1,3
Public area after check-in — few carts 1,8 1,1
Departure before check-in — carts 2,3 0,9
IATA Airport Capacity


Passport control systems are similar to check-in systems. The generic comments for the check-in
system apply to passport control inbound and outbound traffic.

Figure F9.7: Passport Control Desks and Queuing Space


Multiple Queues (Lines) Single (Bank) Queue

0 0 0 -w-

L=MAX*Qx0.9/#PCD L = Max#Q x LOS Standard / W
Where: Where:
MAX#Q is the maximum number of pax MAX#Q is the maximum number of pax
queuing queuing
#PCD is the number of passport control desks LOS Standard: see table F9.4
staffed (see sections F9.9.2 and F9.9.5 for details)

The main criterion for determining the queue length for multiple queue systems is the average
between two individuals waiting in the same line (inter-person spacing). The comfort distance varies
from person to person and from culture to culture. IATA recommends using 0.8 to 0.9 metres if site-
specific standards are not available. Less than 0.8 metres is possible, but could conflict with other
passengers or carry-on luggage.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Space requirements for a single queue at passport control is based on the space standards shown
in table F9.4.

Table F9.4: Level of Service (A to E) for a

Single (Bank) Queue at Passport Control
Passport Control (sqm) 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6


A distinction should be made between space requirements for standing or seated passengers. 1.7
m2 is assumed for seated passengers and 1.2 m 2 for standing passengers. The occupancy rate is
used to measure the level of service.

Table F9.5: Level of Service A to E in Hold Rooms

Maximum Occupancy rate 40% 50% 65% 80% 95%

Note: 100% = maximum capacity


The flow of passengers between the terminal building and the aircraft should be smooth and
uncomplicated, with clearly defined flow routes which are safe and operationally acceptable.
Passengers should be able to enter and leave the aircraft without steep changes in floor level and
under protection from weather, blast and noise.
Use of loading bridges is favoured by the airlines where they can be justified by traffic requirements,
commercial strategies and weather conditions. Bridges foster smooth, undirected, embarkation and
disembarkation of passengers. They have proven particularly advantageous with high capacity
At airports where loading bridges are not installed, and the aircraft is not parked in front of the exit
from the terminal building, transporters (buses, mobile lounges) should be used to convey
directly between the aircraft and the terminal.
Having groups of passengers conducted across the apron is not encouraged by the airlines, as
passengers are exposed to the effects of weather and aircraft blast or noise. However in the case
of small commuter aircraft which are unable to use loading bridges, or where the latter are
to minimise danger it is essential that passenger movement on the apron be constrained to clearly
marked walkways with a minimum number of access points onto the apron, and that such

IATA Airport Capacity


The space around a baggage claim unit serves distinct functions. Figure F9.8 shows a typical
The baggage claim unit frontage provides the required positions or channels for the passenger to
wait and collect their luggage. The retrieval area is effectively the space required for the motion of
retrieving a suitcase. The peripheral area is used: to wait for an opening in the retrieval area; for a
passenger waiting for a spouse or friend to collect their luggage; to park the cart; and to circulate in/
out of the retrieval area.

The retrieval and peripheral area is a roughly 3.5 meter wide band around the unit. This area is used
to measure the level of service for the passengers waiting around the carrousel and the static
(accumulation) of the unit. The capacity is determined by dividing the total area by the level of service
C space standard shown in table F9.6. An 11 to 13 meter separation is recommended to process
passengers, to circulate, and to store carts.
Table F9.6: Level of Service (A to E) for Baggage Claim
Space standard (nf/occupant) 2.6 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.0

Note 1: Sustainable capacity is at level of service C.

Note 2: Assuming 40% use of trolleys.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual
Passenger departure and arrival facilities are often on different levels of the same building. The
building grid/structural design may become a constraint when selecting the module's dimensions to
achieve level of service C at check-in counters and baggage claim. It is recommended to select the
module's width or grid to achieve level of service balance with the objective of providing level of
service C at the critical sub-systems. The impact of the building grid on a module's width is shown
in figure F9.9.

Figure F9.9: Building Grid and Module Dimensions


1 I" H I—
.1 I*'

h h

Baggage Claim

11.0 m 12.0 m

■- 18.0
i- 17.0 m

The occupancy patterns in various subsystems change rapidly and thereby affect the space
to occupants. In addition, the occupancy time for a subsystem can vary, resulting in a change in
comfort. For this reason, time is a significant factor in determining the quality of service and must be
considered as a primary variable in level of service measures. It is very difficult to establish a
quantified relationship between available space, time, and level of service. This may explain why
time is often neglected as a factor of level of service and standards are sometimes set purely to
space requirements.
ICAO has set a goal of 45 minutes for the clearance of arriving passengers, from disembarkation to
exit from the airport, for all passengers requiring not more than normal inspection at international
airports (ICAO Annex 9, ninth edition, recommended practice 6.28). Although this includes time
by government inspection services, it provides an indication of an acceptable time framework.
Table F9.7 shows maximum queuing time guidelines. It is however recommended to use site- and
airline-specific standards when available.

Short to acceptable Acceptable to long

Check-in Economy 0 — 12 12 — 30
Check-in Business Class 0—3 3—5
Passport Control Inbound 0—7 7 — 15
Passport Control Outbound 0—5 5 — 10
Baggage Claim 0 — 12 12 — 18
Security 0—3 3—7


Capacity is a measure of throughput or system capability. Since a terminal system is capable of
operating at varying degrees of congestion and delay, capacity must be related to the level of
being provided.
Capacity and level of service calculation is a key step in the following airport development
1. Airline strategy, traffic assignments and forecasts.
2. Planning peak period demand and planning schedules.
3. Facility requirements and level of service assessments.
4. Balance capacity and evaluate concepts.
5. Design, land use plan, masterplan.
6. Programming.
7. Construction.
Unlike the runway, where the laws of physics are used to calculate the capacity, the capacity of a
passenger terminal relates directly to the extent of congestion that will be tolerated. The sustainable
capacity should be based on the level of service C standard for each subsystem for the busiest 10-
minute period of a typical busy day.
Pedestrian flows in the terminal building are comprised of both passengers in the enplaning or
deplaning process, and greeters/well-wishers. Enplaning passengers must pass through some or all
of a series of subsystems, while deplaning passengers must pass through some or all of a separate
series. In some cases the same subsystems are used by both flows. Additionally, transfer
must be considered since they utilize some of the subsystems of both passenger flows. In the case
of hub airports, the volume of transfer passengers may be very significant.
It should be noted that these surges tend to be sector-specific for both enplaning and deplaning
activity. Studies have shown that sector-specific behaviour patterns are generally stable and can
therefore be predicted. In this way, it is possible to calculate the maximum load before causing

F9.9.1 Terminal Sub-systems and Demand/Capacity Characteristics

Terminal design should reflect the various characteristics and volume of passengers to be handled.
Managing terminal capacity and designing with level of service in mind are key issues in optimising
terminal capacity with long-term financial and operational implications.
A passenger terminal capacity and level of service study normally includes the following systems:
• Departure facilities, including check-in, passport control, security, departure/bus lounges and
• Arrival facilities, including immigration, customs, baggage reclaim, and a well-
• Transfer facilities which typically include security.
• People movers and bus operations.
• Baggage handling in the areas, which directly relates to passenger processing.
Performance and level of service are based on operating conditions and rules, but also upon user
characteristics. Passengers and other users are a source of uncertainty and thus of fluctuation not
only in demand but in capacity as well. Demand/capacity characteristics form the basis of the
work needed to get a realistic evaluation of the requirements, performance and level of service.
The basic characteristics by segment include:
• Passenger arrival patterns.
• Processing class type.
• Processing rates.
• Passenger/bag ratio.
• Time of delivery of the first baggage.
• Transfer passenger ratios.
• Passenger path by class or type of passenger.
• Gate assignment.
• Personnel deployment schedule.
Individual subsystems can either be designed against a given level of service, or evaluated to
Airport Capacity

F9.9.2 Simulation
When a flight arrives or departs at the terminal building, there is a surge of occupants into the
subsystems. As long as the arrival rate of passengers does not exceed the dynamic capacity of the
various components, there will be minimal delay and queuing. However congestion will occur when
demand is systematically greater than the sustainable capacity, and only simulation can properly
reflect the complex dynamic overflow/saturation interaction.
Airport capacity and level of service problems are usually simple to comprehend but may be difficult
to solve because of the inter-related systems and flows considered. Many tools are available,
lATA's Total AirportSim aircraft and passenger flow model, to predict the impact of an airline
on the various airport facilities. The model was developed to reflect lATA's worldwide experience
Simulation is used to analyse passenger flow throughout the selected planning period to determine
the performance, bottlenecks, level of service, Mean Connection Time (MCTs), total time in the
terminal, etc. Flights are assigned to facilities and the passenger demand pushed or pulled through
the inbound and outbound steps in the terminal according to the planning schedules. Information
regarding passenger arrival patterns, processing rates, discretionary time use, passenger/bag ratio,
rules for system operation such as the level of common check-in, rules for allocation of flights to
chutes/make up belts, and information regarding terminal area allocations are considered.
The first and often the most valuable benefit of conducting a simulation study is that it forces
and management to closely look into the functional and physical passenger flows, into the rules and
procedures to define the causal problems, and to assess the impact on both upstream and
processes to avoid displacing the problem. The maximum reliable throughput, level of service,
factors and requirements of the major processors, reservoirs and links in the passenger paths can
thus be identified.
The terminal arrival and departure systems should be reviewed qualitatively to identify any areas in
which the layout could be negatively impacted by the configuration of facilities, and through
to quantify the capacity of the various elements as well as the system as a whole. Where
the base year busy schedule can be augmented to represent future demand volumes to push a
concept or design to its limit and to optimise existing facilities.
It is natural to make the basic assumption in the calculations that flow between individual elements
is natural and unobstructed. However, the integrity of the capacity assessment can be compromised
and result usefulness diminished if the assumption is not realistic. Good simulation models, unlike
rules of thumb, do not require the making of such assumptions. Simulation should be able to
if the pattern is disrupted by the introduction of any obstruction in the flow, such as ill-conceived
concession locations and passenger cross-flows.

The information usually required to conduct a passenger flow simulation study is:
• Typical busy day schedule including arriving, departing and transfer passenger volumes per
sector of flights.

• Floor plans in electronic format.

• Passenger flow chart (path).

• Information regarding passenger arrival patterns, processing rates, discretionary time use,
passenger/bag ratio, passenger/visitor ratio, greeter arrival patterns, and transfer passenger

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

A graphic interface providing real time editing, simulation, and animation (including speed control) is
an asset. Reports and graphs on time, accumulation, flow, etc., should be built into the model to
provide instant results and an easy way to identify problems and bottlenecks, as well as reducing
the time to develop new 'what if scenarios.
Using simulation tools to design or improve facilities requires expertise knowledge. A multi-
team including demand/capacity experts, operations personnel and users is recommended.
IATA Airport Capacity


The methodologies used to conduct capacity and level of service assessments can be more or less
elaborate, depending on the complexity of the system and the problem studied. Mathematical
assessment methods can be employed to determine relevant facility requirements if actual or
throughput figures are known. The capacity assessment of the elements of a terminal building is a
highly complex exercise involving elements such as queuing theory, simulation and statistical
together with detailed studies of people movement patterns to, within, and between these elements.
Those responsible for initiating a capacity analysis, or for sizing facilities, should carry out the
in as much detail as possible in order to eliminate likely sources of error and bias that can result from
neglecting interaction from and to upstream and downstream systems.
However in some instances it may be necessary to obtain fairly quickly some idea of either the
capacity of an existing facility or the size that a facility needs to be in order to handle a given
A variety of simplified formulae have been developed for this purpose. The equilibrium between
supply, demand and level of service is expressed in these formulae.
It must be emphasized that such formulae employ many simplifications and approximations and are
not intended as a substitute for the detailed evaluation referred to above. Not all formulae will be
applicable to all airports since not all local factors are included.
2. Passport control departures.
3. Centralised security check.
4. Gate hold room.
5. Passport control arrivals.
6. Baggage claim units.
7. Arrival hall.

F9.10.1 Check-in Counter Requirement
The departure flight schedule generates originating passengers arriving at the terminal from several
minutes to several hours before departure time. The originating passengers are first processed at
the check-in counters or at electronic check-in servers. The passenger outflow from the check-in
system regulates the demand on the subsequent sub-system (i.e. the maximum throughput from
check-in is 10 pax/min, therefore the 10pax/min is the peak demand at the next sub-system).
Check-in counters are key facilities with huge footprints and significant impact on level of service,
terminal development costs and operations. The following rule of thumb determines the
for common use check-in counters.
Step A Calculate the peak 30 minute demand at check-in.
Step B Determine the intermediate result using the chart provided.
Step C Calculate the number of economy class (common use) check-in counters.
Step D Calculate the total number of check-in counters (including business class).
Step E Make adjustment for dedicated facilities.

Step A: Calculate the peak 30-minute demand at check-in.

The peak 30-minute demand is a good predictor of the performance and requirements at check-in.
It should be based on the site-specific planning schedule and hourly distribution of passengers
arriving at check-in. The following procedure is recommended if the site-specific demand/capacity
characteristics required to determine the peak 30-minute load are not available:

Peak 30-minute at check-in = PHP economy class x F1 x F2

PHP = Peak hour originating passengers — economy class.
F1 = % of the PHP in the peak 30-minute from table 1.
F2 = Additional demand generated by the flights departing before and after the peak hour
period from table 2.

Table 1 — F1: Peak 30-Minute at Check-In as a

Percentage of the Peak Hour Period
Number of flights duringDomestic/Schengen/Long-Haulthe peak hour periodShort-
haul InternationalInternational139%29%236%28%333%26%4 or more30%25%
Table 2 — F2: Additional Demand Generated by the
Flights Departing Before and After the Peak Hour Period
Average passenger load in the
hour before and after the peak hour
period in % of the PHPDomesticSchengen/Short-haul

Step B: Determine intermediate result, S, which takes into account the MQT using
the following charts:
X = Peak-30 minute at check-in.
S = Intermediate result.
MQT = Maximum Queuing Time (minutes).

o oo oo oo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o oo oo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
T- icoNc cDor ^^ -omocoDoi ^Ta- ac cMncoo-í-
^ rCi o
N c o -sí-
T-i-T-T-^-^-T-T-^-T-CNCNtNCNCNtN X
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Step C: Calculate the number of check-in servers: economy class, common use
during peak period.

#CIY = Number of economy class check-in servers assuming common use.
PTci = Average processing time at check-in in seconds.
iata Airport Capacity

Step D: Calculate the number of check-in servers including desks dedicated to

business class passengers.

#CIJ = #CIYx20%

#CI = #CIY + #CIJ

#CI = Number of check-in servers including business class counters assuming common use.
#CIY = Number of economy class check-in servers assuming common use.
#CIJ = Number of business class check-in servers.

Step E: Dedicated facilities

Due to the widely varying applications of dedicated facilities from airport to airport, it is difficult to
develop a general rule to account for the impact of dedicated facilities on supply. Experience shows
the total number of check-in positions should be increased by 30 to 40% for dedicated facilities.
Alternatively, planners may calculate and add up the number of check-in servers per alliance or user
group if the individual peak loads are known.
Determine the number of check-in counters for a group of airlines processing 2500 peak hour
originating passengers on 10 international flights and a maximum queuing time of 30 minutes. The
hour before the peak hour has 1900 passengers (80% of PHP). The demand in the hour after the
peak period is 1500 passengers (60% of PHP). Most flights have business class passengers
representing about 15% of all passengers. The average processing time is 150 seconds. All check-
in facilities are common use.

Step A: Peak 30-minute economy class demand at check-in.

No site-specific information is available for the peak 30-minute at check-in. lATA's rules formulae
should be used. The average passenger load in the hour before and after the peak hour period is:

Peak 30-minute demand =

2500 (PHP) x 85% (Y class pax) x 25% (from table 1) x 1.47 (from table 2)

Peak 30-minute demand = 781 passengers


IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Step B: Determine intermediate result S, using the chart.

MOT = 30 min
S = 31

120 MQT10
100 ^MQT 20
80 ^MQT 30
70 ^MQT 40
50 r
30 —

20 _ I

10 L















Step C: Number of check-in servers: economy class and common use.

#c,v = s x ( ^ )
#C ,Y = 31 x (150^C0°ndS)

#CIY = 38.7 = 39

39 economy class counters

IATA Airport Capacity

Step D: Number of check-in servers including the desks for business


#CIJ = #CIY x 0.2

#CIJ = 7.6 = 8 business class counters

#CI = 39 + 8 = 47

47 total counters including business class

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

F9.10.2 Passport Control Departures

The peak 10-minute number of passengers exiting check-in is used to estimate the peak inbound
demand at passport control departure.
The following rule to thumb is used to determine the number of passport control desks required for
departing passengers:
Step A: Calculate the peak 10-minute check-in throughput.
Step B: Calculate the number of passport control desks required.
Step C: Calculate the number of maximum number of passengers in queue assuming a single
(bank) queue.

Step A: Calculate the peak 10-minute check-in throughput.

#CIY = Number of economy class check-in servers assuming common use.
PTci = Average processing time at check-in in seconds.
%J = % of business class passengers.

Step B: Calculate the number of passport control desks.

#PCD = Peak 10-minute demand from A x

#PCD = Number of passport control desks.
PTpcd = Average processing time at passport control in seconds.

Step C: Calculate the maximum number of passenger queuing (Max # Q)
assuming a single (bank) queue:

.. (MQT x #PCD x 60)

MaX#Q = i

MQT = Maximum queuing time in minutes.
#PCD = Number of passport control desks.
PTpcd = Average processing time at passport control in seconds.


Step A: Peak 10-minute check-in throughput.

We know from the previous example that 39 economy class desks are required and 15% of the
passengers travel business class.

Peak 10-minute demand = #CIY x x (1+%J)

Peak 10-minute demand = 39 x x (1.15)

Peak 10-minute demand = 180 passengers

Step B: Number of passport control desks.

The average processing time (PTpcd) is 15 seconds

#PCD = Peak 10-minute demand from A x ^QQQ^

#PCD = 175 x (e
#PCD = 4.5 = 5 desks

Step C: Maximum number of passengers queuing (Max # Q) assuming a single

queue and for a maximum queuing time of 5 minutes.

Ma x# Q = ÍMQTx#PCDxA0)

Max # Q =
(5 x 5 x 60)
Max # Q = 100 passengers
F9.10.3 Centralized security check
The centralized security check system is also designed to process the check-in maximum
to ensure overall capacity balance.
The rule of thumb is used to determine the number of security servers required. The following
procedure is used:
Step A: Calculate the peak 10-minute check-in counters throughput.
Step B: Calculate the number of security check servers.
Step C: Calculate the maximum number of passengers queuing (Max # Q) assuming a single

Step A: Calculate the peak 10-minute check-in counters throughput.

#CIY = Number of economy class check-in servers assuming common use.
PTci = Average processing time at check-in in seconds.
%J = % of business class passengers.

Step B: Calculate the number of security check servers.

#SC = Peak 10-minute demand from Step A) x

#SC = Number of security servers.
PTsc = Average processing time at security check in seconds.
Step C: Calculate the maximum number of passenger queuing (Max # Q)
assuming a single queue:


MQT = Maximum queuing time in minutes.

#SC = Number of security servers.

PTsc = Average processing time at security check in seconds.


Step A: Peak 10-minute check-in throughput.

As calculated in the previous example, the 39 economy class desks plus the business class desks
generate a peak 10-minute demand of 175 originating passengers. The average processing time is
12 seconds.

Peak 10-minute demand = #CIY x x (1 + %J)

Peak 10-minute demand = 39 x (^^j x (1.15)

Peak 10-minute demand = 180 passengers

Step B: Number of security check servers

#SC = Peak 10-minute demand from A) x l"õõõ~)

#SC = 180 x

#SC = 3.6 = 4 servers

Step C: Maximum number of passenger queuing (Max # Q) assuming a single

queue a maximum queuing time of 3 minutes.

„ _ (MQT x# S Cx 60)
Max # Q =----------==------------

.. u r s (3 x 4 x 60)
Max # Q =-------Y 2-
Max # Q = 60 passengers
F9.10.4 Gate Hold Room
The Gate hold room space requirement is based on passenger load, the percentage of passengers
seated, and the percentage of passengers standing. The rule of thumb calculates the area required
based on aircraft capacity.

Gate hold room space required in m2 =

(80% aircraft capacity x 80% seated pax x 1.7) +
(80% aircraft capacity x 20% standing pax x 1.2)


Assuming an aircraft capacity of 420 passengers, 80% of the passengers seated and 20% standing.

Gate hold room space required in m2 =

(80% x aircraft capacity x % passengers seated x 1.7) + (80% x aircraft capacity x % passengers
standing x 1.2)

Gate hold room space required in m2 =

(80% x 420 x 80% x 1.7) + (80% x 420 x 20% x 1.2)

Gate hold room space required = 538 m2

Note: IATA does not recommend enclosed single flight holdrooms. IATA recommends open spaces
allowing shared space between multiple gates. The 80% aircraft capacity expressed within the
above should be replaced by the peak accumulation for an open hold room.
IATA Airport Capacity

F9.10.5 Passport control arrivals

Arrival flights generate a sudden flow of terminating and transfer passengers at the opening of the
aircraft door, while transfer passengers are processed at transfer desks or go directly to a lounge or
their connecting flights.
The terminating passengers demand arriving at passport control is concentrated over a short period
of time; i.e. the time required to exit the aircraft and to walk to passport control.
The number of terminating passengers and the sum of the number of exit doors from all the flights
during the peak hour are the key demand inputs. The methodology to determine the number of
passport control desks is:
Step A: Determine intermediate result S using chart provided.
Step B: Calculate the number of passport control desks required.
Step C: Calculate the maximum number of passengers queuing (Max#Q).

Step A: Determine intermediate result, S, using the following chart.

(PHP x # doors used to exit the aircrafts)


S = Intermediate result.
PHP = Terminating peak hour passengers.
MQT = Maximum queuing time.

0 -f^

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Step B: Calculate the number of passport control desks required.

#PCD = S x

#PCD = Number of passport control desks.
Ptpca = Average processing time at passport control in seconds.

IATA Airport Capacity
Step C: Calculate the maximum number of passenger queuing (Max#Q) assuming
a single (bank) queue is:

Max#Q = < M Q T x * P C D x 6 0 >


MQT Maximum queuing time in minutes.
#PCD Number of passport control desks.
PTpca Average processing time at passport control arrival in seconds.


Determine the number of passport control desks for 2400 terminating passengers (PHP) on 12 flights
for a maximum queuing time of 10 minutes. The average processing time (PTpca) is 30 seconds.
One flight is a wide-body aircraft with two exiting doors. The total number of exiting door is thereforel

Step A: Determine S.

Y _ (2400 terminating passengers x 13)

X _

X = 312

S = 13 (see chart)

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800


IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Step B: Number of passport control desks.

.PCD = Sx(^)

#PCD = 13 x

#PCD = 19.5 = 20 desks

Step C: Maximum number of passenger queuing (Max#Q) assuming a single


„_ (MQT x #PCD x 60)

Max#Q = J--------==-------------

„_ (1 0 x2 0 x60 )
- ^----30- - - -

Max#Q = 400 passengers

IATA Airport Capacity

F9.10.6 Number of Baggage Claim Units

The number of baggage claim units is determined as follows:

Wide-body aircraft


(60 X NWB)

Narrow-body aircraft


(60 x NNB)

PHP = Peak hour number of terminating passengers, international/domestic transfer
passengers, where applicable.
PWB = Proportion of passengers arriving by wide-body aircraft.
PNB = Proportion of passengers arriving by narrow-body aircraft.
CDW = Average claim device occupancy time per wide-body aircraft (minutes) or assume
45 minutes.
CDN = Average claim device occupancy time per narrow-body aircraft (minutes) or assume
20 minutes.
NWB = Number of passengers per wide-body aircraft at 80% load factor or assume 320
NNB = Number of passengers per narrow-body aircraft at 80% load factor or assume 100
"Please refer to Chapter U — Baggage Handling Systems — Clause U5.3 for confirmation of
baggage reclaim sizes for wide body and narrow body aircraft."


Assume 2375 terminating passengers, 80% of these passengers on wide-body aircraft and 20% on
narrow body aircraft.

Wide-body aircraft


(60 x NWB)
(2400 x 80% x 45)
BC = 4.5 = 5 devices
(60 x 320)

Narrow-body aircraft


BC =
(60 x NNB)

D„ (2400 x 20% x 20) . _ _ . .

= (60 x 100) = 1 6 = 2 deV,CeS
F9.10.7 Arrival Hall
The rule of thumb to determine the arrival hall space requirement for greeters and passengers,
excluding concessions, is:


A = SPP x

PHP = Peak hour number of terminating passengers.
AOP = Average occupancy time per passenger (minutes) or assume 5 minutes.
AOV = Average occupancy time per visitor (minutes) or assume 30 minutes.
SPP = Space required per person (m2) for level of service C or assume 2.0 m2.
VPP = Number of visitors per passenger.


Assume 2400 terminating passengers and 0.7 greeters per passenger.

A = 2080
IATA Airport Development Reference Manual



F9.IR. I

Due consideration for passenger expectations, needs, characteristics and behaviour should be
taken into account when planning facilities and determining level of service.

L ■:■■-■■:< of sen/ica C should be used as the lower limit to design facilities and to determine
sustainable capacity for the end of the design year.

The level of service A to E framework should be used to balance capacity between unrelated

IATA s space and time standards should be used when site-specific standards are not available.

Facilities should be designed with full copsideration of the dimensions stipulated in clauses 9.2
to 9.5, unless a site-specific comprehensive study shows they can be modified to provide the
required level of service.

F .IR.6
Passei' ffow simulation as stipulated in clause 9.8.2 should be used to optimise existing
facilities, to validate concepts, '§0, when saturation or interaction between subsystems and
overflow conditions are expected.

The passenger formulae defined in Clause F9.10 should be used as preliminary calculation

IATA Airport Capacity



The capacity of an airport is dependent on the demand for one or more of its limiting components,
such as the runway system, aircraft parking positions, gates, passenger terminal throughput (e.g.
check-in and baggage delivery) and surface access. Good management of these components will
determine the extent to which the airport can reach its full capacity potential.
The increasing demand for air transport services implies that all facilities at an airport will remain
under constant pressure to expand. The problems associated with expansion are complicated by
fact that services must be provided to the maximum possible extent at times when the public
them. This causes demand peaks in certain seasons of the year, on certain days of the week and
at certain hours of the day.
Without an expansion in capacity or resolution of the problem by other means, an airport becomes
congested at certain times. This occurs when the demand for one or more of its limiting components
exceeds capacity in a certain time period.
To resolve the situation, airports, ATC authorities, governments and the airlines must continually
the means to develop the capacity of their own elements of the system to satisfy public demand.
Increases in capacity should be undertaken to the point where the cost of doing so becomes
unreasonable, or where political, sociological or environmental factors form insurmountable barriers.
Additionally, all appropriate measures to mitigate congestion by making more efficient use of
should be taken.
Overall, there are relatively few airports where all components of the facility infrastructure are fully
utilised over extended periods of the day. While these airports can generally meet the needs of their
customers, there are others that do not have the facilities or infrastructure to meet demand. Before
embarking on costly ventures to expand capacity, airports need to regularly assess the actual


IATA Airport Development

While airports Reference
will continue to come Manual
under pressure to maximise their capacity potential, the aviation
industry must deal with the realities of airport congestion and find ways to minimise its impact.
Depending on the level of activity at airports, certain procedures to ensure acceptance of airline
schedules have been developed to cover various situations.
For the purposes of schedule clearance, there are three broad categories of airports:
Level 1
Those airports whose capacities are adequate enough to meet the demands of users. Such
airports are recognised from a schedule clearance viewpoint as non-coordinated.
Level 2
Airports where the demand is approaching capacity and a more formal level of co-operation is
required to avoid reaching, if at all possible, an over-capacity situation. These airports are
to as schedules facilitated.
Level 3
Those airports where demand exceeds capacity during the relevant period and it is impossible
to resolve the problem through voluntary co-operation between airlines, and where after
consultation with all the parties involved there are no possibilities of resolving the serious
in the short term. In this scenario, formal procedures need to be implemented at the airport to
allocate available capacity and coordinate schedules. Airports with such high levels of
are referred to as fully coordinated.

IATA Airport Capacity


F10.IR1 Change of Level Status

Level 1 to Level 2
Having Level 1 status at an airport is the ideal situation for airlines and in the event of facilities
coming under pressure from increased demand, any move to change to Level 2 must be
discouraged until all practical opportunities for facilities expansion have been exhausted}
When after a thorough capacity analysis and full consultation, it is necessary to change the
status from Level 1 to Level 2, the relevant authority should notify all interested parties (airlines,
airport managing body, government, IATA Manager of Scheduling Services) as soon as a
decision is reached to change the status. In any event, that notification in the change of status
should be made no later than April 1 for the next Northern Hemisphere Winter Season and
September 1 for the next Northern Hemisphere Summer Season. A change in status from
Level 1 to Level 2 should only be made after a thorough capacity analysis has been
completed by the relevant authority and there has been full consultation with the airlines,
ground handling agents, immigration, customs and the airport authority.

Level 2 to Level 3
if elements of the airport infrastructure come under pressure from increase 'affic ievels. or if
the schedules facilitator is unable to persuade t airlines to adjust their schedules in order to
cope with capacity limitations, the question ofch jf/ng the activity level of the airport to Level 3
may arise.
In such a situation, the following will apply:
(a) when incumbem airlines representing more than half of the operations at an airport,
the airport managing body, consider that the capacity is insufficient for actual or planned
operations at certain opriods or
(b) when airlines wishing to operate through the airport for the first time encounter serious
problems in securing acceptable timings at the airport in question or

(c) when the government responsible for the airport considers it necessary,
then the government concerned should ure that a thorough capacity analysis is carried
em out
as soon as possible, organised by the
methods for capacity assessment.
The analysis should examine the critical sub-systems and consider the practicalities of
capacity constraints through infrastructure or operational changes, with estimates of time and
cost required to resolve the problems.
In the process of this analysis, the government concerned should ensure that z Mines, ground
handling agents, immigration, customs and the airport authority are consulted on the
capacity situation. If there is no possibility of resolving the problems in the short-term, either
through removal of capacity constraints or by voluntary adjustment of airline schedules, then
the airport concerned should be designated as a fully co-ordinated airport.
It is imperative that every opportunity is explored to avoid this situation.
However, once the decision has been made to change the status of the airport, the government
concerned should notify the airport authority, the Co-ordination Committee, the airlines using
the airport and the IATA Manager Scheduling Services. In any event, thai notification shouldJ


Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis can add tremendous value to the design of airport
terminal buildings, where the internal and external environments can be predicted well before the
airport building ever gets built. This can allow the designer to refine designs to optimize the building
performance, safety and energy characteristics.
CFD is extensively used to predict the behavior of fires in or around a building. Fire prediction and
fire spread scenarios can be evaluated to determine the time it takes a fire to reach a critical point
in a building and how long people have to escape a building before heat and smoke takes total
control. It is possible to model the effects of sprinkler systems and their effectiveness using CFD
software. It is also possible to model the effectiveness of fire escape signage and lighting systems
using CFD where it can predict the time it takes for such items to be obscured by smoke.
CFD has been extensively used to model the behavior of CO 2 from heating and cooling plants and
the affects of airborne emissions from aircraft engines, in an attempt to fine tune airports to have the
minimal impact on the local community and the environment.
Where advantageous the environmental performance of airport buildings should be evaluated using
CFD software, as it gives an approximation of running costs and extreme condition performance
characteristics of airport terminal buildings.


Figure F11-1 shows a typical medium sized departures hall and the resultant CFD study graphical
output (3D visualization is available) where a fire source has been placed in the airside lounge. CFD
software is used to statistically and graphically represent the behavior of the fire and the 3D spread
of smoke within the terminal. The results have been frozen at a specific time interval sometime after
the start of the fire. As well, a people movement evacuation simulation has been produced and
at the same time interval, and both sets of data have been overlaid. The combined diagram explains
where the smoke would be, its intensity, and what the effectiveness of the size and location of the
emergency exits would be. It is likely these terminal exit variables would be changed to assess the
best evacuation sequence for the terminal. This use of CFD software is recommended for terminal
CFD software can also be used in the following areas of terminal and support infrastructure design.
Please refer to the table below for areas where CFD software can be utilized effectively.
Table F11-1: Analysis of CFD Effectiveness on Infrastructure
Study Area Objective of Study Comments
Fire Strategy To determine the effectiveness of the Highly recommended. Useful to
Study fire strategy for the building. To use with a people movement
understand what could happen within simulation developed in parallel.
the building in a fire situation.
Heating and To understand the effectiveness of Optional. Useful to airport
Ventilation System the position of the heating and wishing to minimise long term
Design Study ventilation vents and the mass flow operational costs.
rates of the air and the resultant
temperature and water saturation
Environmental The C02 emissions from heating, Recommended. Useful where
Impact Study ventilation and general power plants environmental issues are highly
can be assessed. Useful to sensitive.
understand the effect of de-icing
agents on the environment and in
particular local rivers.
Building Fabric The thermal performance of the Optional — Can produce useful
Performance building envelop can be assessed, energy saving design
Study taking account of the internal and modification options.
external air conditions surrounding
the building.

Figure F11-1: Example of CFD Fire and Smoke Propagation




F11 .IR1 Use of CFD Software

Fire prediction and fire evacuation scenarios should be evaluated using CFD software to
determine safer terminal operation of existing terminals and better design of new terminal
Where it can be demonstrated that CFD studies will provide useful data, which might ultimately
improve the design and operation of the airport facility, then environmental performance of
airport buildings should be evaluated using CFD software.
Chapter G — Airport Flight Operations Issues
Section G1: Aircraft Characteristics
G1.1 Planning Parameters............................................................................... 221
G1.2 Ground Servicing Equipment ................................................................... 232
G1.3 IATA Recommendations .......................................................................... 233
Section G2: Visual Aids
G2.1 Visual Aids: Introduction ......................................................................... 234
G2.2 Facilities and Requirements for Non-Precision Approach and Landing
Operations.............................................................................................. 234
G2.3 Facitities and Requirements for Precision Approach and Landing
Operations (Cat I) .................................................................................. 235
G2.4 Additional Facilities and Requirements for Precision Approach and Landing
Operations (Cat I l/l 11) .......................................................................... 236
G2.5 Visual Docking Guidance Systems........................................................... 237
G2.6 IATA Recommendations .......................................................................... 238
Section G3: Non-Visual Aids
G3.1 General — Non-Visual Aids...................................................................... 239
G3.2 Facilities and Requirements for Non-Precision Approach and Landing
Operations.............................................................................................. 239
G3.3 Facilities and Requirements for Precision Approach and Landing Operations
(Cat I) ..................................................................................................... 239
G3.4 Additional Facilities and Requirements for Precision Approach and Landing
Operations (Cat I l/l 11) .......................................................................... 241
G3.5 IATA Recommendations .......................................................................... 242

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual





The layout of the apron and aircraft stands is dependent on many factors, both technical and
With respect to the financial objective of an aircraft stand, it is essential for an airport to be as
as possible so that the stand layout can accommodate the optimum number of foreseeable parked
aircraft combinations.
The planning of the aircraft stand may allow for either dedicated narrow or wide body aircraft.
Alternatively, certain modes of operation may require the stands to be configured to permit the
of wide body and narrow body aircraft on a single Multi Aircraft Ramping 1 Stand (MARS) layout. All
layouts must be technically in accordance with ICAO stand and taxiway layout directives as defined

Figure G1-1: Typical MARS Arrangement Figure G1-2: Comparable Single Stand
It is essential that the airport can provide the necessary number of stand centerlines, and of the
correct type, to accommodate the perceived business forecast and need. To this extent the use of
future flight schedules to assess the 'on ground, within stand' times and aircraft types is a necessity.
The mix of parked aircraft on the ground and the perceived forecasted growth all then attribute to
layout requirements. These requirements are then mapped to the technical limitations of the location,
both from an availability of stand area, and to the more technically demanding assessment of soil
mechanics. Community environmental issues will need to be addressed and the impact envelope of
exhaust and noise emissions from aircraft approaching and parking on the stands will all need to
accounted for. Only when all of this information has been analysed can the decision to accommodate
a specific stand geometry be concluded.

Ramping refers to the centerline of the stand where the nose wheels are driven and ultimately parked.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

The aircraft apron is part of the terminal complex and is greatly influenced by the choice of terminal
concept. However it must also be considered in relation to the taxiway and runway system. The
can be divided into the following aircraft movement areas:
• Aircraft Contact Stands (Terminal gate or remote positions) — The area on the apron
for parking of aircraft.
• Apron Taxiways — A portion of a taxiway system located on an apron and intended to provide
a through taxi route across the apron.
• Aircraft Stand Taxilanes — A portion of an apron designated as a taxiway and intended to
provide access to aircraft stands only.
• Apron Service Roads — Routes designated for the movement of service vehicles within the
apron area.
The apron must be planned in relation to the taxiway and runway system, as well as the terminal
buildings, to ensure maximum efficiency, operational safety and allow operational users to provide
cost effective standards of service.

G1.1.1 General
The airport apron and airside concourse designer should review the following items and factor them
in when embarking on the design of future stand layouts:
• Required aircraft stand combinations.
• Available stand area.
• Aircraft clearance criteria.
• Aircraft manoeuvring capabilities.
• Airports future master plan development strategy.
• The requirement to serve aircraft via airbridges.
• Capital costs.
• Airline operating schedules.
• Airport geology/soil mechanics.
• Control tower line of sight requirements.
• Pilots line of sight for all aircraft considered.
• Design standards recommended by ICAO Annex 14, Part 1.
• Position of runway, taxiway and service road locations.
• Type of push back equipment available.
• Position of sub soil ground fuel pipelines and hydrants.
• Local community environmental issues (impact, planning and noise considerations).
• International and state safety regulations governing airline and airport operations (e.g. FAA, DfT
and ACI publications).

• Aircraft dimensions plus resultant static and dynamic aircraft weights.

• The architectural concept design of airside concourse and terminal buildings.

IATA Airport Flight Operations Issues

• Aircraft ground servicing equipment.

• Fixed servicing installations.
• Jet blast screening requirements.

G1.1.2 Aircraft Characteristics

For every aircraft type manufactured in the world, the aircraft manufacturer publishes a document
entitled Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning. This document, which may be obtained directly
from the respective aircraft manufacturers, contains the minimum aircraft data required for general
airport planning.
The data presented by manufacturers on aircraft manoeuvring represent the maximum capability in
terms of the geometry of each aircraft type. Since airline operational practices vary, it is always
necessary for this information to be modified in consultation with user airlines, in order to determine
values which are appropriate to the planned function of the apron prior to commencement of
The following figures listed within this section show the type of planning material that is readily
from the Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning documents from most aircraft manufacturers:
• Aircraft Characteristics (FIG. G1-3a).
• Aircraft Servicing Arrangement — Typical Turnaround (FIG. G1-4. & FIG G1-5).
• Aircraft Servicing Points (FIG. G1-6).
• Theoretical Aircraft Turning Radii (FIG. G1-8).

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Figure G1-3a: Airbus and Boeing Commercial

Key Characteristics

Airport Flight Operations Issues

Figure G1-4: Example of Terminal

— Turnaround Station for B777 200LR

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Figure G1-5: Example of Aircraft Servicing

— Typical Turnaround for B777 200LR


ELECTRICAL....................... -. -. — ----.......-..
0 10
20 30
IATA Airport Flight Operations Issues

Figure G1-6: Table of Aircraft Ground Handling Equipment

Type of Equipment IATA Length Width Area Height Turning
AHM (m) (m) (m) (m) Radius
Number (m)
Main Deck Loader 932 12.0 4.5 54.0 3.0 20.0
Lower Deck Loader 931 8.5 3.5 29.7 2.9 12.0
Transporter 969 6.5 3.5 22.8 1.5 5.5
Aircraft Tow Tractor (Wide 9.0 2.8 25.2 2.0 7.5
Aircraft Tow Tractor (Narrow 5.5 2.5 13.7 2.3 5.5
Pallet Dolley — Side Loading 966 4.5 2.6 11.7 3.0 5.5
(End Towing)
Pallet Dolley — End Loading 966 3.8 3.4 14.4 3.0 5.5
(Side Towing)
6m ULD Dolly 967 8.0 2.6 20.8 3.5 8.0
Container Dolly 965 4.0 1.8 7.2 2.2 4.5
Baggage Cart 963 3.5 1.5 5.3 2.0 6.0
Belt Conveyor 925 7.5 2.0 15.0 1.0 7.6
Passenger Stairs (Wide Body) 920 10.0 2.5 25.0 4.0 12.2
Catering Truck (Wide Body) 927 9.0 2.5 22.5 4.0 12.2
Air Conditioning Unit 6.5 2.5 16.3 2.5 6.5
Lavatory Vehicle 971 6.5 2.5 16.3 2.2 6.5
Potable Water Vehicle 970 6.5 2.5 16.3 2.2 8.0
ULD Transport Semi-Trailer 960 16.0 2.5 40.0 4.0 9.0
(4 Pallet)
Tugs (Ramp Tractors) 968 2.5 1.3 6.5 1.7 2.5

The IATA Ramp Services and Equipment Group has developed the above table of dimensions of
typical aircraft ground handling equipment for use in producing the layout of airport terminal aprons.
Numerous models of each type of ground handling equipment are produced by many manufacturers
in at least a dozen countries. The dimensions provided should be considered as typical of each type
of equipment and should be used as a 'rule of thumb' for general airport planning purposes.
Airport Planning Documents published by the aircraft manufacturers give for each model typical
servicing arrangements (in composite drawings) identifying each service vehicle. See FIG. G1-5

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

Figure G1-7: Example of Aircraft Servicing Points — B777


IATA Airport Flight Operations Issues

Figure G1-8: Example of Turning Radii, No

and Line of Sight B777 200LR



30 122.4 37.3 164.8 50.2 168.8 51.5 253.0 77.1 177.4 54.1 207.4 63.2
35 97.2 29.6 139.6 42.5 147.7 45.0 228.1 69.5 157.7 48.1 186.1 56.7
40 77.6 23.7 120.0 36.6 132.3 40.3 208.8 63.7 143.6 43.8 170.3 51.9
45 61.7 18.8 104.1 31.7 120.7 36.8 193.3 58.9 133.2 40.6 158.0 48.2
50 48.4 14.7 90.8 27.7 111.8 34.1 180.2 54.9 125.3 38.2 148.3 45.2
55 36.8 11.2 79.2 24.2 104.8 32.0 169.0 51.5 119.3 36.4 140.4 42.8
60 26.7 8.1 69.1 21.0 99.5 30.3 169.1 48.5 114.7 35.0 133.9 40.8
65 17.5 5.3 59.9 18.2 95.3 29.0 150.2 45.8 111.1 33.9 128.3 39.1
70 (MAX) 9.0 2.7 51.4 15.7 92.1 28.1 142.0 43.3 108.5 33.1 123.7 37.7

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

G1.1.3 Future Aircraft Development Data

The introduction of new aircraft types can have a significant effect on apron and stand design and
operations at airports. Please refer to Section L1, Current and Future Aircraft Types, of this
for further details. For comprehensive details on aircraft manoeuvring and aircraft parking
please refer to the aircraft manufacturers directly. The implementation of full length of fuselage dual
deck aircraft, such as the ICAO code F rated A380, will have a large impact on the planning
requirements of aprons and of stands layouts. The following table details some of the differences in
Aircraft B747 B777 A340 A380 A380
Characteristic (400) (300) (600) (800) (900)
Aircraft Length (m) 70.7 73.9 75.3 72.7 79m
(Part Double (Single (Single (Full Double (Full Double
Deck) Deck) Deck) Deck) Deck)
Wingspan (m) 64.4 60.9 63.45 79.6m 79.8m
Height (m) 19.4 18.5 17.3 24.1m 24.1m
Passenger 421 386 380 555 656
Capacity (3 class
Ramp/Stand 385,400 340,194 365,009 562,000 602,000
Weight (Mass —
Kg) Maximum
Airport Flight Operations Issues

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

The following table is replicated from ICAO Annex 14, Table 3.1, and defines the taxiway minimum
separation distances for the various code letters.

Distance between taxiway center line

and runway center line (metres) Taxiway other than Aircraft
Code 1 Non-instrument runways center line aircraft stand
Letter Instrument runways to taxiway stand taxilane
Code number center line taxilane, center line
Code number (metres) center line to object
1 2 3
to object (metres)
2 3 4 (metres)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

A 82.5 82.5 - - 37.5 47.5 23.75 16.25 12

B 87 87 - - 42 52 - 33.5 21.5 16.5

C - - 168 - 93 44 26 24.5

D - - 176 176 101 101 66.5 40.5 36

E - - - 182.5 107.5 80 47.5 42.5

_ _
F 190 115 97.5 57.5 50.5

Note /. - The separation distances shown in columns (2) to (9) represent ordinary
combinations of runways and taxiways. The
basis for development of these distances is given in the Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 2.
Note 2. - The distances in columns (2) to (9) do not guarantee sufficient clearance
behind a holding aeroplane to permit the


The apron must also provide for the manoeuvring and parking requirements of the various units of
ground equipment employed in connection with aircraft handling and servicing. Please refer to FIG.
G1-6 for a summary listing of the more common ground equipment types and sizes. For more
comprehensive details in this regard please refer to the IATA Airport Handling Manual.
Aircraft ground servicing equipment varies considerably according to the types of aircraft and airline
methods of operations. Ground servicing equipment includes the following:
• Passenger boarding — All the devices used to transfer passengers between the terminal and
aircraft; e.g. airbridges, stairs and transporters.
• Baggage, cargo and mail processing — All equipment used to transport baggage, cargo and
mail between the terminals and aircraft or for loading or unloading at the aircraft. Among the
most widely used are tugs and baggage carts, container and pallet dollies, belt conveyors,
transporters, loaders and trucks.
• Aircraft catering and cleaning — All equipment used to provision the aircraft for passenger in-
flight service; e.g. hi-lift catering trucks, lavatory service trucks, water trucks, cabin service
• Aircraft towing — Tow tractors used for aircraft towing and push-out operations. The size and
weight of this equipment is related to the size of the aircraft handled.

• Aircraft fuelling — Including mobile tankers as well as hydrant dispensers.

• Other equipment — Including fixed facilities and mobile equipment such as ground power
air starters, air conditioners, de-icing vehicles, etc.



G1.IR1 Reference Material

The tables and diagrams provided within this section pertaining to the B777 200LR aircraft is
typical of the comprehensive data that is made available by the various aircraft manufacturers
across the world, and observe the factors defined within clause G1.1.1.
IA TA recommends that airport planners review Flight
the airport Operations
planning Issues
data provided by the
aircraft manufacturers of interest. The designer should in all instances refer to the
latest infomiation.
Useful typical aircraft manufacturer's information can be obtained by viewing the following web

G1.IR2 Apron Design Considerations

Items such as ground handling equipment types} e.g. catering vehicles employed at airports,
should be discussed with the operators of this equipment. Items such as the power and potable
water provision equipment should also be specifically accounted|pf:by make, model and usage.



Visual aids are designed to increase the conspicuity of the runway, provide visual reference in the
final stages of the approach and landing, and to expedite ground movement. Their importance
increases as visibility becomes limited. There are three basic groupings of visual aids used by pilots
for specific types of positional reference:
• Approach lighting, runway centre line, and runway edge lighting and markings allow pilots to
assess lateral position and cross track velocity.

• Approach lighting and threshold lighting and markings provide a roll reference.
• Touchdown zone (TDZ) lighting and markings indicate the plane of the runway surface and
the touchdown area providing vertical and longitudinal reference.
The visual guidance derived from runway lights and/or markings should be sufficient to ensure
adequate take-off alignment and directional control for take-off and stopping, whether after landing
or in an emergency. Although additional instruments, such as head-up displays, may enhance the
safety of the operation, reference to visual aids is a primary requirement even when some form of
ground run monitor and displays based on the use of external non-visual guidance are being used.
The criteria for approach lighting, runway lighting and runway markings are contained in Annex 14,
Volume I.
Visual aids are also important for the safe and expeditious guidance and control of taxiing
Special attention is required for taxiway lighting, stop bars and signs. Annex 14, Volume I, contains
specifications for markings, lights, mandatory- and information- signs (see Annex 14 Figure 5-6
Taxiway marking, Figure 5-7 Runway Hold Position Markings) and markers. Requirements may
but they consist of markings and signs supplemented by taxi holding position lights to denote
positions, taxiing guidance signs and markings on the centre lines and edges of taxiways.


For non-precision approach and landing operations the visual aids for paved instrument runways
required by Annex 14, Volume I are:
(a) Markings:
• Runway designation.
• Runway centre line.
• Threshold.
• Fixed distance.
• Runway side stripe, where there is a lack of contrast.
• Taxiway centre line markings, from the runway centre line.
IATA Airport Flight Operations Issues

(b) Lights:
• Approach slope indicator system (PAPI, VASIS).
• Simple approach lighting system.
• Runway edge lights, where the runway is intended for use at night.
• Stopway lights, where a stopway is provided.


For Category I precision approach and landing operations the visual aids for paved instrument
required by Annex 14, Volume I, are:
(a) Markings:
• Runway designation.
• Runway centre line.
• Threshold.
• Fixed distance.
• Touchdown zone.
• Runway side stripe, where there is a lack of contrast.
• Taxiway centre line markings, from the runway centre line.
• Taxi-holding position marking.
(b) Lights:
• Approach slope indicator system (PAPI, VASIS).
• Precision approach Category I lighting system.
• Runway edge, threshold and end lights.
For Category I precision approach and landing operations the following visual aids are also
recommended by Annex 14, Volume I:
(a) Markings:
• Runway side stripe.
(b) Lights:
• Runway centre line lights, under specified conditions.
• Taxi-holding position lights, where there is a need to improve the conspicuity of the
of the holding position.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual


Approach, threshold, touchdown zone, runway edge, centre line, runway end and other aerodrome
lights are required in compliance with Annex 14, Volume I, appropriate to the category of operation
for which a runway is intended. Where the runway may in future be upgraded so as to be suitable
for Category II and III operations, it is advantageous to provide the necessary improved lighting
the initial construction or resurfacing of precision approach runways. This would eliminate the need
for extensive future modifications.
For daylight operations, experience has shown that surface markings are an effective means of
indicating the centre lines of taxiways and holding positions. A holding position sign is required at all
Category II and III holding positions.
Signs may also be needed to identify taxiways. Taxiway centre line lights or taxiway edge lights and
centre line markings providing adequate guidance are required for Category II and III operations.
conspicuity of runway markings and taxiway markings deteriorates rapidly, particularly at airports
with higher movement rates. Frequent inspection and maintenance of markings cannot be over-
emphasised, especially for Category II and III operations.
Stop bars can also make a valuable contribution to safety and ground traffic flow control in low
operations. The primary safety function of the stop bar is the prevention of inadvertent penetrations
of active runways and Obstacle Free Zones by aircraft and vehicles in such conditions. Stop bars
when provided should be used at least in visibility conditions corresponding to RVRs to less than
350 metres (CAT III). They also may contribute, in conjunction with other elements of the SMGCS,
to effective traffic flow when low visibility prevents ATC from effecting optimum flow and ground
separation by visual reference.
It may also be advantageous to partly automate the operation of selected stop bars so that the air
traffic controller will not be required to operate them manually every time, thus avoiding possible
human errors. For example, manual switch-off of a stop bar after issuance of a movement clearance
would be followed by an automatic re-illumination by the crossing aeroplane. Or a 'limited visibility'
setting on the control panel would automatically illuminate stop bars across taxiways which are not
to be used in limited visibilities.
It will be possible that some lights in a particular system may fail, but if such failures are distributed
in a manner that does not confuse the lighting pattern, the system may be regarded as serviceable.
It is both difficult and expensive to provide monitoring of individual lights, except by regular
of all sections of the lighting system, and consideration may, therefore, be given to monitoring only
the lighting circuits. To help safeguard recognisable patterns in the event of failure of a single circuit,
circuits should be interleaved so that the failure of adjacent lights or clusters of lights will be

IATA Airport Flight Operations Issues
With the adoption of nose-in parking and use of aircraft loading bridges, it is necessary to provide a
guidance system to assist the pilot in positioning his aircraft accurately. The Civil Aviation
(CAP) 637 entitled Visual Aids Handbook, produced by the Civil Aviation Authority in the United
Kingdom, should be referred to as current best industry practice on AGNIS/PAPA installations and
their subsequent usefulness.
The following are topics which must be addressed during the planning and development of visual
docking guidance systems:
Pilot Responsibility
The pilot should be provided with a system which guides him accurately to the final parking
position for his aircraft without ambiguity, and indicates to him his rate of closure with the
stopping position.
The system must provide the accuracy of parking which is required on the particular airport or
apron, and this should be established by airport authorities and airlines jointly. Points to be
considered include:
• The clearances involved. For some aircraft this includes distances between the pitot tube
probes and the forward edge of the passenger door when open (i.e. B737).
• The performance of the loading bridges.
• The positions of fuelling hydrants and dispenser hose lengths available.
• The space required for all apron servicing activities including ULD loading/unloading.
When fixed loading bridges are installed, the docking guidance system must be particularly
as the accuracy of this system must match the tolerance of the proposed fixed bridge. On
serviced by apron-drive loading bridges, parking accuracy requirements may be less stringent.
Multi-Aircraft Type Capability
The system must accommodate as many different aircraft types as are likely to operate and this
factor should be established by airport authorities and airlines in joint consultation. In a multi-
aircraft system the problem of providing stopping guidance is more difficult and it is important
that the correct stopping position for the specific aircraft type using the stand should be clearly
identifiable by the pilot, irrespective of his height above apron level.

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual


G2.IR1 ICAO Annex 14 Parts 1 and 2

IATA recommends the application of the ICAO Annex 14 Standards and Recommended
Practices, pertaining to the design of runways, taxiways and parked aircraft stands.

G2.IR2 Precision Approach Path Indicators
Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) installations should supersede or replace other visual
approach síêPg indicator systems as soon as practically possible. Where a visual approach
slope indicator system is installed on an ILS runway, it is recognised that the signals received
from the (non-precision) visual system may conflict with the ILS signals in such a manner as to
cast doubt on the safety or validity of the precision approach guidance being provided by the
IATA endorses the visual approach slope indicator systems specified in Annex 14, as follows:
Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) — As the ICAO International Standard, replacing
the present VASIS Standard after January 1, 1995.
VASIS and 3-bar VASIS — Specified in Annex 14 as the International Standard until
January 1, 1995.
Regardless of the protection date of January 1, 1995, for VASIS and 3-bar VASIS, IATA
advocates the immediate installation of PAPI.
V___________________________________ . ___________________________>
IATA Airport Flight Operations Issues



The term 'non-visual aids' refers to the approved radio and radar aids used to assist the pilot in
carrying out approach and landing under cloud or other visibility-impairing conditions. In conditions
of moderate cloud base and visibility, the purpose of the aid is to establish the aircraft in a position
from which the pilot can safely complete the approach and landing by visual means, and in such
conditions a relatively simple aid may well suffice. In very low cloud base and/or visibility conditions,
visual contact may not be available to the pilot and a much more accurate and reliable system will
be required to effectively locate the aircraft.
Specifications for radio and radar aids are given in ICAO Annex 10, Volume I. The criteria for
area fixes and information on the construction of instrument approach procedures are given in
OPS (Doc 8168), Volume II.
The non-visual aids for which standards have been defined range from non-precision aids such as
VDF, NDB, VOR, surveillance radar, ILS localizer only and MLS azimuth only, to the precision
approach aids PAR and complete ILS/MLS. In general terms the non-visual aids can support
in decreasing cloud base and visibility conditions in the order listed.


Non-precision approach aids provide azimuth and/or distance information only. When using a single
non-precision aid for an instrument approach, the position of the aircraft can only be fixed by over-
flying the facility. Position fixes may also be obtained by an intersection of bearings or radiais from
more than one navigational facility, or by the use of DME or marker beacons in association with
azimuth guidance. En-route surveillance radar generally may be used to provide fixes prior to the
final approach fix. Terminal area radar may be used to identify any terminal area fix including step
down fixes after the final approach fix.
It is essential that all non-precision aids be ground- and flight-checked at the time of commissioning,
and at regular intervals thereafter.


Precision approach aids provide vertical (i.e. glide path) information in addition to azimuth guidance
and, possibly, distance information. The ICAO standard non-visual precision approach aids are ILS
and MLS.
ILS is the aid in common use while MLS is in the process of evaluation/introduction. PAR is also
recognised as a precision approach aid. ILS ground equipment comprises a localizer, a glide path
and at least two marker beacons, or, where the siting of marker beacons is impracticable, a suitably
sited DME, provided that the distance information so obtained is operationally equivalent to that
furnished by marker beacons. ILS may be used for ail categories of operations, but the beam
specifications, monitoring requirements and continuity of service requirements are more stringent
Category II and III operations (see clause G3.4).
MLS ground equipment comprises azimuth and elevation transmitters, DME and for some

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

It is essential that all ILS/MLS installations be ground- and flight-checked at the time of
and at regular intervals in accordance with the requirements of Annex 10, Volume I, Part I, to ensure
an adequate and uniform standard of non-visual guidance. In the event that a facility fails to meet
the requirements for which it was commissioned, or if a routine flight test cannot be completed within
the appropriate time interval, its status must be reviewed and the facility downgraded as necessary.
Users should be advised of changes in ILS/MLS status through the AIS. Guidance material on flight
testing is contained in the Manual on Testing of Radio Navigation Aids.
To ensure that the integrity of the guidance signal radiated by the ILS/MLS is maintained during
aircraft approaches, all vehicles and aircraft on the ground must remain outside the ILS/MLS critical
areas as described in Annex 10, Volume I, Attachment C to Part I. If a vehicle or aircraft is within
the critical area it will cause reflection and/or diffraction of the ILS/MLS signals which may result in
significant disturbances to the guidance signals on the approach path.
Diffraction and/or reflection may also be caused by one or more large aircraft or vehicles in the
of the runway. This may affect both the glide path elevation and localizer azimuth signals. This
additional area, outside the critical area, is called the sensitive area\ The extent of the sensitive
areas will vary with the characteristics of the ILS/MLS and the category of operations. It is essential
to establish the level of interference caused by aircraft and vehicles at various positions on the
so that the boundaries of the sensitive areas may be determined.
Critical areas must be protected if the weather conditions are less than 800 ft (250 m) cloud base or
3000 m visibility when instrument approach operations are being carried out.
Various ILS ground installations of suitable quality are routinely used to gain automatic approach and
landing experience in visibility conditions permitting visual monitoring of the operation by the pilot.
They should therefore be protected by interlocks from interference due to the simultaneous radiation
of opposite direction localizer beams (Annex 10, Volume I, Part I). Where this is impracticable for
technical or operational reasons, and both localizers radiate simultaneously, pilots should be notified
by the appropriate ATS unit, by ATIS broadcast, by NOTAM, or in the relevant part of the AIP.
Similar harmful interference can occur if aircraft in the final phase of approach or roll-out pass closely
in front of the ILS localizer antenna serving another runway. The provisions listed above should
therefore be applied to any such installations where experience shows this to be necessary. The
interim policy for MLS protection should be the same as that outlined for ILS mentioned above, until
such time as more definite information is available and has been operationally validated.
It is possible for ILS signals in space to be affected by the presence of signals from radio and
transmitters, citizen band radios, industrial plasma welders, spark erosion equipment, etc. The MLS
system design and signal spectrum protection have been selected to protect against interference.
Periodic measurements should be made, the level of any signals detected, and then these can be
compared with an accepted maximum. Such measurements can be made by positioning a wide
frequency band receiver in the vicinity of the middle marker.
Complaints by flight crews of signal disturbances should be investigated, and special flight checks

Terminology and protection criteria for ILS/MLS critical and sensitive areas may vary between States. For example, some
States use the
term 'critical area' to refer to both ICAO critical and sensitive areas as specified in Annex 10. Thus, when terms used or
protection provided

IATA Airport Flight Operations Issues


The ILS ground equipment must meet the facility performance requirements specified in Annex 10,
Volume I, Part I. The guidance material in Attachment C to Part I of that document also provides
information for the planning and implementation of the ILS.
The Manual of Testing of Radio Navigation Aids (Doc 8071) provides guidance on ground and flight
testing of radio navigation aids; Volume II of the manual is concerned with ILS facilities. The quality
of the ILS signals in space is not determined solely by the quality of the ground equipment; the
suitability of the site, including the influence of reflection from objects illuminated by the ILS signals
and the manner in which the ground equipment is adjusted and maintained, also has significant
on the quality of the signal received at the aircraft. It is essential that the ILS signal in space is flight-
checked in order to confirm that is meets in all respects the appropriate standards of Annex 10,
Volume I, Part I.
All facilities associated with the ILS ground equipment must be monitored in accordance with the
requirement of Annex 10, Volume I, Part I. Guidance material on monitoring is contained in
C to Part I of Annex 10, Volume I.
ILS critical and sensitive areas must always be protected if the weather conditions are lower than
60 m (200 ft) cloud base or 600 m RVR (i.e. CAT ll/lll conditions) when instrument approach
are being carried out. In the latter case, aircraft which will overfly the localizer transmitter antenna
after take-off should be past the antenna before an aircraft making an approach has descended to
a height of 60 m (200 ft) above the runway.
Similarly, an aircraft manoeuvring on the ground, for example when clearing the runway after
should be clear of the critical and sensitive areas before an aircraft approaching to land has
to a height of 60 m (200 ft) above the runway. The protection of these areas when the weather
conditions are better than the minimum specified above will facilitate the use of automatic approach
and landing systems, and will provide a safeguard in deteriorating weather conditions and when
actual weather conditions are lower than is reported.
To ensure that the integrity of the guidance signal radiated by the ILS is maintained during aircraft
approaches, all vehicles and aircraft on the ground must remain outside the ILS critical and
areas as described in Annex 10, Volume I, Attachment C to Part I, when the aircraft on final
has passed the outer marker. If a vehicle or aircraft is within the critical area it will cause reflection
and/or diffraction of the ILS signals which may result in significant disturbances to the guidance
signals on the approach path. Additional longitudinal separation between successively landing
contributes to the integrity of ILS guidance signals.
Diffraction and/or reflection may also be caused by large aircraft in the vicinity of the runway which
may affect both the glide path and the localizer signals. This additional area, outside the critical

Some States do not distinguish between critical and sensitive areas as defined in Annex 10. These States define instead an area, larger
than that defined in Annex 10, but still called the critical area. In addition, this area is protected when an arriving aircraft is within the
middle marker, or when cloud and visibility conditions are below specified values. This affords protection equivalent to that described

IATA Airport Development Reference Manual

The reliability of the ILS ground equipment is a measure of the frequency of unscheduled outages
which may be experienced. Reliability will be increased by providing on-line standby equipment and
by duplication or triplication of key functions, including power supplies. The lowest value of
minima can only be achieved with ILS that have high standards of reliability. The specifications in
Annex 10, Volume I, Part I, indicate the total maximum periods of time allowed outside the specified
performance limits for each ILS facility performance requirement.
For Category III operations it is requested to publish the classification of the ILS ground equipment
in the Aeronautical Information Publication


G3.IR1 ICAO Annex 10

Specifications for radio and radar aids are given in ICAO Annex 10, Volume I. The criteria for
terminal area fixes and information on the construction of instrument approach procedures are
given in PANS-OPS (Doc 8168), Volume II.

G3.IR2 Specification Between ILS Critical and Sensitive Areas

Certain States fail to distinguish between critical areas and sensitive areas, or el