Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
Airport managers are used to external benchmarking on general topics such as traffic, quality, or
high-level business performance. However, most benchmarking initiatives are too high level and
do not compare "apples to apples", leaving the airport with the question: So what?
The complex nature of the industry, constraints on data availability, and limited comparability
have been an issue with benchmarking so far. These approaches have been outside-in or limited
to certain functions of the airport, such as non-aviation performance. There has been no methodology out in the market providing a complete and comparable set of benchmarks on all airportspecific business units.
Hence, A.T. Kearney designed the GCBthe Global Competitive Benchmarking for Airports.
It spans all airport activities, comparing your data with inside-out data of other airports, while
providing absolute data confidentiality. The GCB helps improve the airport across all businesses.
The level of aggregation can be modified from a holistic picture to very specific drill-downs over
six levels of detail.
The identification of improvement areas is realized by comparing financial data and key performance drivers with operational best practices. The GCB insights can be used for a multitude of
objectives, such as restructuring, cost control, revenue improvement, mergers and acquisitions,
budgeting and performance steering.
The methodology of data standardization behind the GCBto overcome various accounting
practices and national differenceshas proven itself for more than ten years and has been
successfully adopted to the airport industry for more than four years. The GCB airport panel
covers more than 30 international airport operators in 2012 and is growing steadily.
Unique
GCB is different from all other
benchmarks because ...
OPEX
Revenues
CAPEX
Revenues
Investments
Complementary analyses
Performance and
long term
Aviation
Non-aviation
Safety & security
Ground handling
Aviation revenues
Central infrastructure fees
Retail revenues
CAPEX on
Aviation
Non-aviation
Security
Process-related costs
Remaining costs
IT
Support and overhead
Infrastructure
development
Input
Analysis
Output
Standardized input
into user-friendly
allocation tools
Harmonization to
adjust for countryspecific price levels
Process-related
Consistent due to a
large set of precise
definitions in the
GCB manual
Normalization with
cost and revenue
drivers
Dashboard on all
airport activities
Detailed analyses for
each activityup to
six levels of drill-down
Beneficial
GCB provides insights and
tangible results such as
xxx
Aviation
xxx
xxx
Nonaviation
xxx
xxx
Safety and
security
xxx
xxx
Ground
handling
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
Support
and
overhead
xxxx
xxx
Airside
operations
Airside
facilities
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxx
xxx
Terminal
operations
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
Terminal
facilities
xxxx
xxx
(Profit
Benchmark)
Benchmark)
Benchmark)
xxxx
Benchmark)
xxx
Passenger
screening
xxxx
xxx
Passenger
Service
xxx
xxx
xxx
Purchasing
xxxx
xxx
Hold
baggage
screening
xxxx
xxx
Baggage
Services
xxxx
xxx
Maintain/
operate IT
app.
xxxx
xxxx
xxx
Personnel
screnning
xxx
Aircraft
Services
xxxx
Cargo
screening
xxxx
Cargo
Handling
xxx
Enterprise
infrastr.
xxx
xxxx
xx
Finance
and
Controlling
accounting
xxx
xxxx
xx
xxxx
xxx
xxxx
Concessions
Services
and licenses
xxx
Airport
security
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxxx
xxxx
Fire dept.
xxx
n.a.
xxxx
xxxx
Commercials
GAT
xx
xxxx
xxx
Aviation
overhead
Non-aviation overhead
Utilities
xxx
xxx
n.a.
Safety and
Emergency
security
mgmt.
overhead
xx
xxx
xxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxx
Human
resources
Regulatory
management
GH
Overhead
Internal
infrastr.
Office
facility
mgmt.
xxx
Baggage
systems
Retail and
Property
gastro (Profit (Profit
Development IT
application
IT
xxx
xxxx
Sanitized
xxx
Legal
xx
xxx
Planning
xx
xxxx
xxxx
Development
Strategy
xxx
xxx
General
marketing
n.a.
xxx
Communications
n.a.
Non-airport-related
Services
Project
financing
xxx
Environment
xxx
xxxx
Total
Total
position gap
Analyzed
activity
xx
S and O
Overhead
Color rating
of total gap
Not benchmarked
Fin year
XYZ
2010
xx.x%
Sanitized
Gap absolute
Revenue position
xx,xxx,xxx EUR
xxx,xxx,xxx EUR
x,xxx,xxx
x.xx
Total annual
movements
xx
xx
xxx,xxx0
xxx,xxx0
xx
xx
xx%
x%
Max monthly
PAX capacity
utilization in %
XYZ
Revenues
P Avg
Max monthly
movement cap.
utilization in %
xx%
xx%
xx%
xx%
n XYZ
Panel average
Fin year
XYZ
2010
x.xx
Sanitized
Gap absolute
Profit position
xx,xxx,xxx EUR
xx,xxx,xxx EUR
x,xxx,xxx
xxx%
xx%
x.xx
x%
xx%
x.xx
Share of
business PAX
in %
x%
Share of LCC1
PAX2 in %
Revenues
Profit
Cost
External services
Profit
Personnel costs
P Avg
Revenues
Revenue per
PAX2 in EUR
xx%
xx%
xx%
X,xx%
X,xx%
n XYZ
Panel average
10
Airport
Fin year
XYZ
2010
xx.x%
Sanitized
Gap absolute
Cost position
xx,xxx,xxx EUR
xx,xxx,xxx EUR
x,xxx,xxx
x.x
Passenger
screening sites
x.xx
x.xx
x.x
Existing
passenger
screening lines
xx
xx
Min. employees
per line
requirement
x.x
x.x
Screened PAX2
per average open
line in mn PAX2
Waiting time security screening
(av.) in minutes
XYZ
Other
Power
P Avg
External services
Personnel costs
x.xx
x.xx
x.x
x.x
xx.x
xx.x
n XYZ
Panel average
11
12
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
To identify a profit
gap split down of
sub-activities
Detailed analysis
of single stores
profitability
Good relative
performance with
gastro
Analysis of customer
flows and daily
throughput
Close of selected
shops recommended
and selection of
new concessionaires
Bad performance
with shops, especially
branded fashion
Analysis of the
Retail-dashboard
Harmonized profits per
square meter fine at the
landside and off-terminal
Drill down:
airside retail costs
Benchmarks
competitive at
sales, marketing,
billing and overhead
Cause is not a
cost gap
Branded shops
further investigated:
Process-related
cost
Revenue split
Analysis of aviation
and non-aviation
collaboration
Evaluation of the overall
center management
Stronger alignment
of concession
partners concerning
aviation flows
Concentration of
offer availability
and resources
at peak hours
Optimized center
management
13
Authors
Robert A. Ziegler, partner, Berlin
robert.ziegler@atkearney.com
http://youtu.be/qiu6FJwp-L8
14
Atlanta
Calgary
Chicago
Dallas
Detroit
Houston
Mexico City
New York
San Francisco
So Paulo
Toronto
Washington, D.C.
Europe
Amsterdam
Berlin
Brussels
Bucharest
Budapest
Copenhagen
Dsseldorf
Frankfurt
Helsinki
Istanbul
Kiev
Lisbon
Ljubljana
London
Madrid
Milan
Moscow
Munich
Oslo
Paris
Prague
Rome
Stockholm
Stuttgart
Vienna
Warsaw
Zurich
Asia Pacific
Bangkok
Beijing
Hong Kong
Jakarta
Kuala Lumpur
Melbourne
Mumbai
New Delhi
Seoul
Shanghai
Singapore
Sydney
Tokyo
Abu Dhabi
Dubai
Johannesburg
Manama
Riyadh
Middle East
and Africa
The signature of our namesake and founder, Andrew Thomas Kearney, on the front of this document
represents our pledge to live the values he instilled in our firm and uphold his commitment to ensuring
essential rightness in all that we do.