There are around 168 Level 2 airports and 217 Level 3 airports globally, but what does this mean and why does it matter? This article delves into the categorization of airport coordination to consider the opportunities and consequences of these categorizations.
Defining an airport’s level
The Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines (WASG) defines the different levels of airport coordination as:
- Level 1: an airport where the capacities of all infrastructure at the airport are generally adequate to meet the demands of users at all times.
- Level 2: an airport where there is potential for congestion during some periods of the day, week, or season which can be resolved by schedule adjustments mutually agreed between the airlines and facilitator.
- Level 3: an airport where it is necessary for all airlines and other aircraft operators to have a slot allocated by a coordinator in order to arrive or depart at the airport during the periods when slot allocation occurs.
The size of an airport should be irrelevant. It is the relationship between the availability of airport infrastructure and the demand for that infrastructure which matters.
Examples:
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 |
| Paris Beauvais Tillé Airport (BVA) Seletar Airport (XSP) Exeter Airport (EXT) Kars Harakani Airport (KSY) | Hamad International Airport (DOH) Zayed International Airport (AUH) Edinburgh Airport (EDI) Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) | Singapore Changi Airport (SIN) Hong Kong International Airport (HKG) Dubai International (DXB) London Heathrow (LHR) |
The full listing of airport designations is available here.
At first glance it might be assumed that the biggest airports are typically Level 3, which is often the case. Nevertheless global hubs like Hamad International and Chicago O’Hare are Level 2. So what is going on here and how are the levels assumed?
Airport Level appointment
Airport levels should predominantly be appointed based upon a regular analysis of demand and capacity. The results of which may be considered alongside the definitions mentioned above. Since there is no strict measurement that denotes any level, gathering the opinion of affected stakeholders is important.
Opinion is of course subjective and will differ according to interpretations of potential congestion, and perhaps most commonly, what a particular level can mean to the individual organization. Consultation is therefore essential, but it is preferable for the decision to be made by an independent body. In Europe, the European Slot Regulation requires the state to make this decision, having consulted and based upon a recent and thorough demand capacity assessment.
Balancing flexibility and control
At first it may appear as though the level of an airport is not particularly important. After all, if in doubt, why not categorize the airport as Level 3 like many successful and high profile airports around the world?
The consequences of applying levels for reasons other than demand and supply can negatively impact the use of airport capacity, and the ability of airlines to align flights to demand. Contradicting the prime objective of airport coordination, “to ensure the most efficient declaration, allocation and use of available airport capacity in order to optimize benefits to consumers…”.
The risk is explained simply through a comparison of Level 2 and Level 3 policy. An analysis of Level 2 against Level 3 may be summarized as Level 2 being a flexible level of airport coordination where schedules are agreed between the airline and a schedule facilitator. The Level 3 process is much more strict. Airlines are required to operate at a particular time, and operations are monitored more strictly for compliance.
Choosing the wrong level can have consequences:
- Too much control: Airlines might be forced to operate flights at inconvenient times, leading to missed connections and inefficient networks. Passengers could also face limited choices.
- Too much flexibility: During peak periods, congestion and delays could disrupt operations for everyone.
It therefore appears that the opportunity lies in remaining sensitive to an individual airport’s circumstances, applying control where required, but remaining flexible where not. This balance is apparent at some airports:
- Chambéry Airport, France (CMF), the airport is Level 2 on Saturday and Sunday in the winter season only, and Level 1 the rest of the time.
- Auckland International (AUK) in New Zealand is Level 3 for international services, but Level 2 for domestic services.
- Some Australian airports are Level 3 for the management of the passenger terminal only.
- Some airports are temporarily made Level 3 to help manage key events like the Olympic games.
It is credible that the authorities of these and other airports have chosen what is perhaps a more complex approach to airport coordination, but an approach that balances the needs of all involved, and which tailors the coordination solution to demand.
Nevertheless, some airports are categorized incorrectly for reasons other than the demand and capacity relationship. This may sometimes be the result of poor consultation, dominant stakeholder opinion, or perhaps simply a change of circumstances at the airport over time.
Varying stakeholder opinions around level allocations
A lack of concern is probably the most common reason for airports to be incorrectly designated. Demand and supply changes over time as airports develop and markets change. However, it is all too common for airports that have been designated at a higher level in the past to remain at the higher level. It is not difficult to identify airports globally where there is minimal scope for congestion, and yet the airport remains Level 3.
A degree of rationalization appears to be required, but while there is often concern for increasing an airports level of coordination, the benefits to reducing the level of coordination are often ignored, perhaps because they are not so tangible. This may also be the result of a dynamic industry that constantly throws new priority challenges at us. Or, it could be the result of some stakeholder preferences.
Some airports are known to prefer Level 2 because it makes the airport appear more marketable and accessible. Other airports are known to choose Level 3 since it may appear to be prestigious alongside some of the best known airports globally. A Level 3 designation may suggest the airport has been so successful, it has more demand than it can manage.
From an airline perspective, more flexibility is often preferred to ensure flights can be best aligned to market demand. However, Level 3 offers greater certainty of flights through the inclusion of historic precedence. Some airlines might therefore be incentivised to support a Level 3 process for the future of their airline.
Some Civil Aviation Authorities may default to a preference for greater control, and therefore prefer Level 3. This is often the case where there is a lack of exposure and understanding of airport coordination, or if the authority is aware of there being a general lack of process and organization, resulting in operational and passenger disruption.
Airport coordinators are also often in a position to sway opinion, and while they should be neutral in their guidance, some are led by commercial opportunity. Level 3 represents the highest level of airport coordination, which may be reflected in the coordinators’ charges. Similarly, productivity may be a key concern and by aligning as many airports as possible to the same level, coordination complexity may be avoided and productivity maximized.
Unfortunately, cases exist globally of levels being applied for reasons other than the demand and airport capacity relationship. The effect has been to cover up other inefficiencies that might exist, perhaps in the service provided by the coordinator, or in the efficiency with which an airport provides its capacity. I emphasize this is not a common concern, but in some cases, and especially where airport capacity declarations are not carried out frequently or thoroughly, airline schedules are unnecessarily coordinated to fit supply, no matter whether the airport could deliver more capacity or not. In effect, this scenario is one where inefficient supply side processes attempt to manipulate demand. A tactic that only typically works where demand significantly exceeds supply, and where limited airport competition exists.
The case for independence, good regulation and transparency
The need for consultation was made earlier, as was a preference for an independent body to lead consultation and to make the final decision. The previous section demonstrates why. The Slot Report highlights the concerns that exist in some places, are not typical of the industry, but they do exist and should not become typical. Airport level decisions should therefore be:
- Regularly reviewed based upon a thorough and frequent demand and capacity analysis.
- Regularly consulted on to ensure appropriate levels of coordination are applied.
- Subject to appropriate regulation with regular consultation by an independent and transparent body without stakeholder interests.
The Takeaway
Airport coordination levels are more than just a technicality. They impact airlines, passengers, and airport operations. By understanding the system and advocating for good governance, we can ensure a smoother and more efficient air travel experience for everyone.