Journal of Air Transport Management 8 (2002) 239247

The benchmarking of airport performance

Graham Francisa,1, Ian Humphreysb,*, Jackie Fryc
b

a
Performance Management Research Unit, Open University Business School, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
Transport Studies Group, Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK
c
Performance Management Research Unit, Open University Business School, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK

Abstract
This paper examines how benchmarking is being used by airport managers as a means of internal performance comparison and
improvement. Drawing on interviews with airport managers and a questionnaire survey of the worlds top 200 busiest passenger
airports, the paper discusses the nature, prevalence and consequences of current benchmarking practices in airports. The authors
also include a review of the literature on airport benchmarking and a discussion of the characteristics and relevance of Best Practice
Benchmarking. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Benchmarks; Airports; Best Practice Benchmarking

1. Introduction
Benchmarking is a performance improvement technique that is of potential importance to airports because
of the challenges they face. In recent years, airports have
increasingly moved from being public utilities that focus
on operations to businesses that also focus on commercial activities. Airport privatisation, commercialisation,
congestion of airport infrastructure, rapid growth of
trafc, the formation of global airport groups, airline
market de-regulation and alliances have combined to
create a dynamic and challenging market for airports
and their managers. Within the context of such a
dynamic market environment, benchmarking has become an increasingly important performance management tool that can be used to enable managers to both
monitor and improve aspects of their own operational
performance by reference to, and learning from, other
organisations.
The purpose of this paper is to examine how
benchmarking is being used by airport managers as a
means of internal performance comparison and improvement. A questionnaire survey was used to reveal
the nature and prevalence of benchmarking across the
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1509-223422; fax: +44-1509223981.
E-mail addresses: g.a.j.francis@open.ac.uk (G. Francis), i.m.humphreys@lboro.ac.uk (I. Humphreys), j.fry@open.ac.uk (J. Fry).
1
Visiting Lecturer, Waikato University, New Zealand

worlds top 200 busiest passenger airports. This research

builds on earlier work by the authors including a series
of interviews of airport managers (see Humphreys and
Francis, 2000a, b). This paper starts with a description
of Best Practice Benchmarking which is followed by a
review of the literature on the benchmarking of airport
performance and the methods used to collect and
analyse the data. The paper discusses the nature,
prevalence and consequences of current benchmarking
practices by airports as revealed by this research.

2. Best Practice Benchmarking

Best Practice Benchmarking is typically explained as a
process involving managers in a number of fairly closely
dened activities or benchmarking steps (Spendolini,
1992). The aim of benchmarking is to search outside the
organisation for, and subsequently incorporation of,
best practice into the enterprises own repertoire to gain
competitive advantage (see for example, Camp, 1995;
Watson, 1993; Spendolini, 1992). The following denition from Holloway et al. (1999) gives an insight of what
is entailed:
The pursuit by the organisation of enhanced performance by learning from the successful practices of
others. Benchmarking is a continuous activity; key
internal processes are adjusted, performance is
monitored, new comparisons are made with the

0969-6997/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 9 - 6 9 9 7 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 0 3 - 0

240

G. Francis et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 8 (2002) 239247

current best performers and further changes are

explored. Where information about these key processes is obtained through a co-operative partnership
with specic organisations, there is an expectation of
mutual benet over a period of time (Holloway et al.,
1999).
There is a substantial body of literature on the
subject, with the more prominent writers often focussing
on how to benchmark: Camp (1995), Watson (1993)
and Zairi (1996). In this type of literature there are
ambitious claims made for the potential of benchmarking a typical example of which is the denition provided
by Camp (1989):
Benchmarking is a positive, proactive process to
change operations in a structured fashion to achieve
superior performance. The benets of using benchmarking are that functions are forced to investigate
external industry best practices and incorporate those
practices into their operations. This leads to protable, high-asset utilisation businesses that meet
customer needs and have a competitive advantage
(Camp, 1989).
Other than an obvious bias towards the objectives of
the private sector, Camps denition provides a generic
understanding of the term, which (with a little tinkering
with regards to the objectives of the process for nonprot organisations) usefully provides an insight into
how benchmarking might operate in the public and
private sectors.
In theory Best Practice Benchmarking as the name
suggests is about more than just performance measurement if it concerns learning from the practices/process
being employed elsewhere and using this to improve
ones own performance. However, the term in practice is
used to refer to a whole range of performance
measurement activities (Holloway et al., 1999). Many
of these activities would perhaps be more accurately
described as comparative performance indicators or
perhaps referred to as benchmarks rather than Best
Practice Benchmarking as results rather than practices/
processes are the focus. This is not to imply that such
activities are inherently awed because they do not t
the denition of Best Practice Benchmarking. What
should be understood is that the benets derived from
such activities may not be the same as those claimed for
benchmarking. It is important that an organisations
expectations from benchmarking reect the nature of
the activities to be undertaken.
Best Practice Benchmarking is not without its critics.
Cox and Thompson (1998) claim that there are
circumstances when benchmarking is inappropriate as
it carries serious strategic risks, such as the inability to
control effectively against loss of sensitive data to
competitors or the costly failure to implement someone

elses best practice effectively. While Wolfram Cox et al.

(1997) describe benchmarking as a mixed metaphor,
pointing out that theory is insufciently developed to
explain the differences between effective and ineffective
efforts. Elnathan et al. (1996) suggest that benchmarking suffers from hidden costs that should be understood,
such as (i) the costs of the time and effort needed to coordinate the process and the inputs of participants in
order to obtain a comparable set of data and (ii) the
quantication of costs which, while signicant, may be
hard to trace or measure, including costs relating to the
cultural change required and costs arising from resistance to change by those involved and affected.

3. The benchmarking of airport performance

Historically, comparative performance of airports
amounted to the collection and comparison of nancial
and output measures by Governments, who at the time
typically owned and operated the majority of airports.
Measures that developed were often based around the
work load unit (WLU), dened as one passenger
processed or 100 kg of freight handled (Doganis,
1978). This measure was taken from the airlines and
adopted by airports in the eighties to provide a single
measure of output for passenger and freight business.
Typical measures used included: total cost per WLU;
operating cost per WLU; labour cost per WLU; WLU
per employee; total revenue per WLU and aeronautical
revenue per WLU (Chartered Institute of Public
Finance and Accountancy, 1980; Doganis, 1978, 1983,
1992; Doganis and Graham, 1987; Graham, 1999;
Bureau of Industry Economics, 1994). In the UK,
annual airport performance results were collated on a
national basis and made available to the public by the
Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
In an era where airport management were focused on
the public utility function of their facilities, there is little
evidence of action to address measures recorded as
a starting point from which to improve airport
performance.
Other measures that have been monitored and
compared for many years include airport design and
airport operational standards. Airport infrastructure
design has used guideline standards and practices from
the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to
size, organise and plan airport facilities with respect to
passenger ows and dwell times at different terminal
facilities (International Civil Aviation Organisation,
1999; Caves and Kazda, 2000). International level of
service standards for airport terminal operation have
been calculated based on the amount of available space
per airport user (in metres squared) under given
passenger throughput assumptions. Airports conduct
surveys to examine the level of service delivered in

G. Francis et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 8 (2002) 239247

relation to benchmark standards (Ashford et al., 1995;

Caves and Gosling, 1999).
Airports have traditionally monitored their own
performance against budgets but some have now started
to recognise the potential for comparing their performance to benchmarks set against other airports in order
to improve their competitive position through the
identication and adoption of best practices (Graham,
1999, 2001; Centre for Airport Studies, 1998). New
measures for airports that reect service quality to
customers, the environment and an increased focus on
commercial, and retail revenues have begun to emerge.
Airports Council International (ACI) produces an
annual economics survey that looks at nancial
measures at airports and compares performance on a
macro-level across different regions of the world (Airports Council International, 1998, 1999). European
airport nancial performance has been compared by
Graham (2001) through a series of nancial and
business indicators such as: labour cost per WLU, cost
per WLU, non-aeronautical revenue per WLU, WLU
per employee. Such nancial measures have increased
importance for the full range of stakeholders in the new
business context in airports of privatisation and
commercialisation. Such measures make an interesting
starting point from which management can begin to ask
questions about airport performance. How far and to
what extent Best Practice Benchmarking activity follows
performance comparisons is yet to be determined.
The rise in the signicance of benchmark comparisons
for airports led the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to produce its rst Airport Monitor
publication in 1993. This has given passenger perception
ratings of the quality of service delivered by airport
facilities across approximately 60 different airports each
year. This has enabled each participating airport to
compare their performance with other sample airports
for up to 25 service features. It is based on an airline
survey and produces some interesting general comparisons (Hegendorfer and Morris, 2000; Hegendorfer and
Tyler, 1999; Tyler, 2000).
Some airports have found this survey data to have
limitations for their use and prefer to monitor their
operation against internally set benchmarks or use
consultants to get like for like comparisons (Airports
Council International, 2001). In 2001, IATA allowed
any airport to compare their own service quality
performance against the participating airports. The
way in which these benchmark measures are used to
improve performance and their usefulness to airport
managers is not recorded (International Air Transport
Association, 2001). The International Airports bodyACI has used its unique position to survey what quality
of service measures are used at 120 of its member
airports (Airports Council International, 2000a). However, the next step to see how the measures are used and

241

to assess their usefulness to those who use them has not

yet been taken.
One of the earliest publications of measures related to
International Tax and Duty free shopping performance
for shipping lines, ports, airlines and airports began in
the mid eighties and was collected by AB Generation.
The report collates information on who is selling what,
where and at what price and compares this to industry
yardsticks (Bia, 1996). It did not consider how these
indicators were being used by airport management. The
benchmarking of retail activities on a global scale is in
its infancy but has emerged due to retail being
considered as a growing area of importance in the new
commercial climate at airports. Global airport retail
surveys in 1998 and 2001 cover only 31 airports but are
producing benchmarks for gross retail sales, retail yield
and gross retail sales per square metre. (Cerovic, 1998;
Centre for Airport Studies, 2001; Favotto, 2001).
One of the few examples of airports engaging in Best
Practice Benchmarking with organisations outside the
airport eld was BAA plc who benchmarked car
parking processes and passenger throughput ow
control by examining the behaviour of Wembley
stadium and also Ascot race course. In the wider air
transport context Best Practice Benchmarking activities
by airlines have been reported such as Southwest
(Murdoch, 1997) and Britannia (Francis et al., 1999).
There is also some evidence of benchmarking activity at
seaport terminals, particularly with respect to cargo
handling rates and the practises; however, much of this
is undertaken within port companies and not widely
published.
Little evidence of formal benchmarking with regard to
the impact of airport operations on the environment
exists beyond individual airports, government and
communities tracking the size of different airport noise
footprints over time. The full extent to which environmental measures are used and whether or not there is
any benchmarking activity is unclear. First steps to
address this have been taken by the IATA who have
begun work on a study to produce environmental
measures and benchmarks of best practice at airports
(Dobbie, 2001).
Airport economic regulation has become an increasingly important activity as governments around the
world have started to introduce private ownership and
operation of airport facilities. Benchmarking has been
proposed as part of the mechanism for regulating
airports and is under consideration by the UK Civil
Aviation Authority (CAA) and Ofce of Fair Trading
with regard to it being applied to the regulation of UK
airports (Civil Aviation Authority, 2000). Instead of
airports being price capped the CAA is reviewing how
airports might be compared with best in class to ensure
acceptable levels of service and charges are delivered to
the customer.

242

G. Francis et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 8 (2002) 239247

In making comparisons there are data comparability

problems because different airports have different costs
covered and different business environments that may
profoundly affect performance comparisons (Graham,
2001; Humphreys and Francis, 2000a, b). These comparability issues are echoed by Caves and Gosling who
note that nancial indicators suggested by ICAO
(International Civil Aviation Organisation, 1991) can
be useful for airports benchmarking their own performance over time but are difcult to compare across
airports because of the unique setting of each airport
(Caves and Gosling, 1999).
Benchmarking activity is starting to appear across an
increasing range of airport functions; however, there is
limited evidence of Best Practice Benchmarking. It is
unclear what the nature and prevalence of activity
carried out in the name of benchmarking is, and so in
order to address these questions a survey of the top 200
passenger airports in the world was undertaken.

4. Methods
The main method by which data was gathered for this
paper was by means of a questionnaire survey as
outlined below. This built on an earlier pilot study that
was used to test the robustness of the questionnaire
instrument. Additional evidence has been gathered from
a series of semi-formal face-to-face interviews with
airport managers from European airports with over
one million passengers per annum. This sample included
different sized airports and information was collected on
the strict condition that they remained anonymous.
Each interviewee was asked about benchmarking and
the performance measures they used, their usefulness
and shortcomings. A number provided published
material specic to their particular airport.

4.1. Pilot survey

The ndings reported in this paper are from the world
survey outlined below; however, the questionnaire was
pre-tested. Forty-ve questionnaires were sent out, two
were returned as undeliverable, four were returned
blank and 15 were returned completed, a response rate
of 44 per cent. Twelve different airports were represented, six privately owned, four publicly owned and
two part private, part publicly owned. One handled
between ten and twenty million passengers per annum,
three between ve and ten million, four between one and
ve million and four less than one million. The results of
the pilot study were used in the development of the
survey instrument for the world survey.

4.2. World survey

The set of airports sampled was the top 200 busiest
passenger airports as ranked by the ACI in terms of
total passengers for 1999. The information was accessed
on the ACI Web site (Airports Council International,
2000b). The top 200 were chosen as these airports have
approximately three million passengers or more per
annum. Doganis (1992) and Graham (2001) have
indicated that up to this threshold there are signicant
economies of scale for airports in terms of the unit cost
per passenger or WLU unit handled.
Each questionnaire sent out was given a unique
identication number to ensure repeat mailings were
only sent to non-respondents. A copy of the questionnaire and a covering letter were sent out on the 15th
August 2000, 26th September 2000 and 7th November
2000. Two hundred questionnaires were sent out in the
rst mailing. Some questionnaires were returned as
undeliverable. Attempts were made to ensure the
address was correct and the questionnaires resent.
Despite these efforts, ve remained undeliverable. Of
the remaining 195 questionnaires, four airports declined
to participate and 58 were returned completed, a
response rate of 32 per cent.
4.3. Demographics and non-response bias
The respondent airports and the airports in the
sample were classied into geographic regions using
the categories dened by ACI: Europe, North America,
Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, Africa and the
Pacic (Table 1). The prole of the respondents was
then compared to the prole of the overall sample. In
order to perform a w2 -square test, the categories of Latin
America, Asia, Africa and Pacic were combined into a
rest of world category so that the expected values of
the categories were >5. The w2 -square test revealed that
the prole of the respondents was not signicantly
different to the prole of the sample at the 5 per cent
level (w2 4:90; ns). However, it should be noted that
the actual probability was 0.09. It can be seen from
Table 1 that North America is proportionally over
represented and the rest of the world under represented.

Table 1
Geographic proles of the respondents and the sample

North America
Europe
Pacic
Asia
Latin America/Caribbean
Africa

Percentage of
sample airports

Percentage of
respondents

34
40
11
6
6
3

48
38
5
5
2
2

G. Francis et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 8 (2002) 239247

Table 2
Number of passengers handled by the airports responding to the
survey
Passengers
handled/ million

Percentage of
sample airports

Percentage of
respondents

14a
59
1019
20 and above

30
29
19
22

29
24
23
24

Only includes up to the 200th busiest airport.

Table 3
Ownership structures of airports responding to survey
Type of ownership

Percentage of
sample airports

Percentage of
respondents

Public
Private
Part privatepart public

80
8
12

67
19
14

This high response rate by airports in North America

may be a consequence of the strong public utility ethos
at North American airports with respect to public
information provision.
The prole of the total number of passengers handled
last year in the sample and the respondents is shown in
Table 2. The prole of the respondents was then
compared to the prole of the overall sample. The w2 square test revealed that the prole of the respondents
was not signicantly different to the prole of the
sample at the 5 per cent level (w2 0:77; ns). The prole
of the respondents is a very good match to the prole of
the sample.
The pattern of airport ownership amongst the
respondents is shown in Table 3. The w2 -square test
revealed that the prole of the respondents is signicantly different to the prole of the sample at the 5 per
cent level (w2 9:38; po0:05). It can be seen from Table
3 that airports in public ownership are proportionally
under represented and airports in private ownership are
over represented.

5. The nature and prevalence of airport benchmarking as

revealed by the survey
In order to determine the relative prevalence of a
variety of performance measures the questionnaire
asked airport managers which techniques they were
using (Table 4). Best Practice Benchmarking was the
most popular technique used by airports with almost
half (46 per cent) engaged in this activity.
Table 4 shows the range of performance measurement
and improvement techniques used by the respondents.

243

Table 4
Performance management techniques used by respondents
Technique

Percentage used
by respondentsa

Best Practice Benchmarking

Total Quality Management (TQM)
Activity Based Costing
Environmental Management Systems
(e.g. ISO14000)
Balanced Scorecard
Business Process Reengineering
Quality Management Systems
(e.g. ISO9000/BS5750 or similar)
Business Excellence Model/EFQM
Value Based Management
Malcolm Baldridge Award

46
41
36
27

25
23
23
12
9
5

Note that respondents could use more than one method.

Best Practice Benchmarking, where organisations seek

to improve performance by searching for and adopting
best practices, was the most popular technique used by
airports, with almost half (46 per cent) engaged in this
activity. A specic nancial tool, Activity Based Costing
which aims to improve the airports understanding of its
cost structure and resource utilisation by trying to
determine which activities drive costs, was reported to
be used by 36 per cent of respondents. Value Based
Management, which attempts to measure nancial
performance in terms of the creation of shareholders
wealth, was used by 9 per cent of respondents. A
broader measurement system, the Balanced Scorecard
which tries to create a balance between a range of
nancial and non-nancial performance criteria was
utilised by one quarter of the airports. Various quality
improvement techniques were also frequently used with
many airports adopting one or more approaches such
as: Total Quality Management (41 per cent), Quality
Management Systems (23 per cent), Business Excellence
Model (12 per cent) and Malcolm Baldridge Award.
Just over a quarter of airports reported using Environmental Management Systems (27 per cent). A variety of
methods were used by each airport to collect performance measurement data. 95 per cent of those who
responded used surveys, 25 per cent interviews and 20
per cent used consultants.
5.1. What were the determinants of an airports propensity
to benchmark
When asked if their airport was engaged in any form
of benchmarking, 72 per cent of respondents reported
they were, as apposed to the 46 per cent reporting they
were involved in specically Best Practice Benchmarking
(in Table 4). A variety of factors seem to inuence
airports tendency to benchmark. Airports appear to

244

G. Francis et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 8 (2002) 239247

Table 5
Locating benchmarking experiences
Similar organisations

1
14%

2
40%
78%

3
24%
-

4
16%

1
3%

2
5%
27%

3
19%
-

4
8%

1
8%

2
21%
50%

3
21%
-

4
32%

Internal comparisons

1
8%

2
24%
40%

3
8%
-

Specic tasks

1
5%

2
16%
37%

3
16%
-

Process improvement

Financial performance measures

5
3%

6
3%
6%

5
19%

6
38%
65%

5
3%

6
10%
18%

4
21%

5
10.5%

6
18%
39%

7
10.5%
-

4
22%

5
24%

6
14%
41%

7
3%

reect the trend found in a broader cross section

of industry that larger organisations are more likely
to carry out some form of benchmarking activity
(see Holloway et al., 1999). Airports with more than
ve million passengers per annum were almost twice
as likely to engage in some form of benchmarking
activity, than those with less than ve million passengers
per annum (87 per cent compared to 46 per cent). It
is unsurprising that larger airports have more resources
to benchmark and perhaps have potentially more
problems related to airport congestion and terminal
management by virtue of their scale. Given this situation
the potential tangible benets of benchmarking are
likely to have more chance of winning support in terms
of resources from the Airport Board. The performance
problems faced by airports with less than ve million
passengers per annum are likely to be different but not
necessarily any less important to the overall performance of the airport. It is not surprising that smaller
airports with lower levels of resources engage in
benchmarking less. It may be worth smaller airports
considering collaboration with each other with a view to
performance improvement and comparison across
functions that relate to their economic and resource
constrained position.
There was a strong tendency for airports that were
fully or part privately owned to be engaged in some
form of benchmarking activity (88 per cent). In contrast,
a smaller proportion airports in the public sector (66 per
cent) claimed to be undertaking some form of benchmarking. These ndings are consistent with the suggestion in the literature that benchmarking is likely to be a
higher priority to private airport owners, and a now
established activity at publicly owned airports.

7
0%

Dissimilar organisations

7
8%

Performance measurement

7
5%

Non-nancial performance measures

External comparisons

General practices

5.2. The experiences of those airports which are

benchmarking
The focus on benchmarking was with similar airports,
of the 72 per cent of respondents who were engaged in
some form of benchmarking most (97 per cent)
compared themselves to other airports. Only two
airports indicated that data was used from a different
industry sector for a similar function, for example
comparing data on trolleys with large shopping centres.
One airport compared their performance data with their
own previously collected data. Some 42 per cent of
respondents compared service qualitative data and 50
per cent of respondents compared nancial data.
The questionnaire invited respondents to locate their
experience of benchmarking on a series of 7-point Likert
scales. These scales are reported in Table 5 which
demonstrate that benchmarking among the survey
airports was almost exclusively undertaken between
similar airports and that it was concerned more with
measurement than process improvement. Benchmarking
was concerned more with nancial than non-nancial
measures. Experience of internal and external comparisons and benchmarking experience related to specic
tasks and general practices were more evenly split.
From the survey response as a whole, airport
managers are making comparisons with similar airports
to their own, a trend that may be consistent with the fact
that 65 per cent of respondents who benchmarked used
it mainly for measurement purposes not process
improvement. Given these gures, the respondents
may be able to gain more benets in terms of
performance improvement from benchmarking in the
future if they place more emphasis on learning from the

G. Francis et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 8 (2002) 239247

processes that are generating the relative measures of

performance. The tendency is to focus on results more
than the underlying processes (Holloway et al., 1999).
Further benets from benchmarking may be realised if
managers consider looking for exemplar practices of the
processes they are trying to manage and improve at
dissimilar airports or even generic examples within other
industries. Looking at the management issues from this
wider perspective may be more risky but can give greater
benets.
In a number of comments made by respondents two
main themes related to airport experience of benchmarking prevailed. Firstly, that benchmarking activity
was Just implemented and a New experience for a
number of the airports, possibly a reection on the new
commercially focused approach to airport management
introducing benchmarking practices.
Finally, respondents claimed a wide variety of
practical benets as a result of benchmarking activity
such as: We are able to reduce service time and dwell
time, We use it to drive training programmes, yto
monitor and manage concession behaviour and to
identify models of best practice. However, as one
airport manager reected that in their experience
benchmarking identies areas for improvement (but
does not help on how to improve them!).
5.3. Airport relationships
Benchmarking was seen as difcult to do particularly
with respect to nding comparable data and being able
to do like with like comparisons. The view expressed by
one manager captures the feeling of many survey
respondents that for benchmarking it is, Challenging
to get needed information and to ensure apples to apples
comparisons. This nding has important implications
because global airport groups have begun to emerge2
with the potential to not only make like for like
comparisons but also overcome many of the condentiality and competitive issues that might face an airport
which is not part of an airport group. Evidence
submitted as additional information with the survey
return revealed that a major airport group within
Europe compares the quality of customer service at its
different airports. Performance information was collected via a standard Quality Service Monitor survey
involving a rolling programme of 150,000 interviews
that ask respondents to score a range of terminal
services from retail and catering to lounge and trolley
facilities. The information is reviewed by senior manage2
For example, Frankfurt airport has an ownership/management
presence at some 50 or so airport sites, TBI at over 40 airports, Aer
Rianta at more than 15 airports and BAA plc owns 7 UK airports and
has ownership/management interests in 7 foreign airports, 2 in
Australia, 3 in US, 1 in Italy and 1 in Mauritius (Francis and
Humphreys, 2001).

245

ment, summaries sent to the Board and comparisons

made with other airports in the group. Management use
this as a tool to identify areas that are performing badly
as well as those that are doing well and to start to
question why deviations from performance are occurring with the aim of identifying what is driving their
customer service delivery. The comparative use of
standardised measures allows comparison but must
respect the context and its implications for service
quality at each airport.
An interesting development is that airports are
forging relationships with each other in order to
benchmark despite being in competition with each
other. In response to our work evidence was provided
by the FLAP group3 of airports about how information
is shared to help airports cope with trafc congestion,
passenger throughput procedures and to help manage
the interface between operations, the environment and
the neighbouring communities. A key motivation for
benchmarking between these airports is that as main
hubs in Europe they face similar problems and like for
like comparisons are difcult to come by outside their
group.
The FLAP group have developed a suite of nancial
measures that reect the new signicance for management of commercial activities that are now considered
core to the airport business. For example, the FLAP
group have innovated to benchmark property income
per passenger and property income per WLU in an
attempt to reect the importance of estate/property
management for airports. Other new measures used for
benchmarking reect the importance of value added for
airport management with measures such as; contribution per passenger, contribution per employee; contribution per WLU,4 concession income per passenger,
duty and tax free income per departing international
passenger, trafc income per passenger and commercial
income per passenger. Some of the benchmark measures
were targeted towards understanding in more depth
performance related to commercial revenue streams.
Global airport groups have access to comparable data
and could seize this opportunity to exploit inter airport
learning across a variety of geographic contexts. This
could be an important source of competitive advantage.
This survey has revealed some evidence of this yet how
far some airport groups have begun to exploit this is
unclear.
5.4. Other performance measurement issues
Whilst the focus of this paper is on the benchmarking
of airport performance our study revealed other
3

The FLAP group being Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam and Paris

airports.
4
Contribution being revenue minus variable cost.

246

G. Francis et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 8 (2002) 239247

performance measurement issues which we feel relevant

to report here as performance measurement forms an
integral part of the benchmarking process. Performance
measures were frequently used to improve performance
of the airport by allowing it to monitor performance and
allocate appropriate management attention. As airport
managers commented performance measures Give us
an indication of where to concentrate our efforts.
Another airport manager stated performance measures
Highlight areas of under performance and provides a
basis to undertake investigation into reasons for
variances.
The questionnaire survey also included questions
about the introduction of new performances measures
and 58 per cent of respondents said their organisations
had introduced new performance measures in the last 2
years. The size of the airport seems to be an important
factor here. Of those airports that handle between one
and twenty million passengers per annum, 50 per cent
had introduced new performance measures. Of those
who handle more than twenty million passengers per
annum 85 per cent had introduced new performance
measures. Airport ownership structure seems to have
less impact than size as to whether or not any new
performance measures had been adopted in the last 2
years: private (64 per cent), public (57 per cent) or partprivate part-public (57 per cent). The Balanced Scorecard was the most commonly introduced new measure,
probably a reection of attempts to balance between
airports various nancial and non-nancial objectives.

6. Conclusions
The motivation for this paper was to gain a better
understanding of benchmarking practices in airports
around the world. Whilst the survey revealed a rich
picture of different practices from which certain general
trends could be discerned, there is a potential danger in
over estimating the importance of benchmarking in
airports as only 72 per cent of airports reported be
involved in any form of benchmarking. Whilst the
survey did illustrate that many airports are engaged in
Best Practice Benchmarking (46 per cent) it also
indicated that many were not (54 per cent), and these
airports seem to have developed other ways of satisfying
their performance management requirements.
The term benchmarking is clearly being used to
encompass a wide range of different activities and it is
important that the expectations of the outcomes from
these differing activities in the name of benchmarking
reect their nature. There is a similar breadth in terms of
why the benchmarking activities were being undertaken
and in part this may be the driver for the breadth of
approaches undertaken.

Benchmarking has the potential to play an increasingly important role in performance management and
improvement at airports given the pressures coming
from changing ownership patterns, increased commercial business focus, regulation, rapid passenger growth,
globalisation of airport ownership, increased concern
for the natural environment and technical innovation.
Benchmarking is one performance management technique that might be used by managers to meet the
diverse challenges that they face from the dynamic
industry context. Performance improvement can create
competitive advantage and can offer potential to
improve the efciency and effectiveness of airport
management across the range of challenges, from coping
with increased pressure of trafc growth on terminal
facilities to managing community relations.

Acknowledgements
The Performance Management Research Unit, Open
University Business School, has kindly funded this
project. The authors wish to thank all those who took
part in this survey, Dr. Jacky Holloway, Open
University Business School and Dr. Robert Caves,
Transport Studies Group, Loughborough University.

References
Airports Council International, 1998. Airport Economics Survey and
AnalysisF1997. Airports Council International, Geneva.
Airports Council International, 1999. Airport Economics Survey and
AnalysisF1998. Airports Council International, Geneva.
Airports Council International, 2000a. Quality of Service at Airports:
Standards and Measurements. Airports Council International,
Geneva.
Airports Council International, 2000b. World airports ranked
by passenger throughput 1999. (www.airports.org/trafc/td
passengers doc.html) on the 16 May 2000.
Airports Council International, 2001. A question of balance. Airport
World 16(3), 3436.
Ashford, N., Stanton, M., Moore, C., 1995. Airport Operations.
Wiley, New York.
Bia, Y., 1996. The Best and Most in Duty Free Shopping 1996.
Generation AB, Sweden.
Bureau of Industry Economics, 1994. International Performance
Measurement Indicators: Aviation. Bureau of Industry Economics
Research Report 59. Australian Government, Canberra.
Camp, R., 1989. Benchmarking: the search for best practices that lead
to superior performance, Part I. Quality Progress, 22 (1), 6168.
Camp, R., 1995. Business Process Benchmarking: nding and
Implementing Best Practices. ASQC Quality Press, Wisconsin.
Caves, R., Gosling, G., 1999. Strategic Airport Planning. Pergamon,
Oxford.
Caves, R., Kazda, A., 2000. Airport Design and Operations.
Pergamon, Oxford.
Centre for Airport Studies, 1998. Airport Retail Study. Airports
Council International World Conference, Sydney.
Centre for Airport Studies, 2001. Airport Retail Study 2000/2001.
Arthur Anderson Services Practice, Australia.

G. Francis et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 8 (2002) 239247

Cerovic, M., 1998. Global Airport Retailing. Reuters Business Insight,
London.
Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, 1980. Local
Authority Airports: Accounts and Statistics 197980. Chartered
Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, London.
Civil Aviation Authority, 2000. The Use of Benchmarking in Airport
Reviews. Consultation Paper, Civil Aviation Authority, London.
Cox, A., Thompson, I., 1998. On the appropriateness of benchmarking. Journal of General Management 23, 120.
Dobbie, L., 2001. The control of emissionsFnding solutions, market
based options. Paper Presented to the Second Annual Aviation and
the Environment Conference, Amsterdam.
Doganis, R., 1978. Airport Economics in the Seventies. Research
Report No. 5, Transport Studies Group, Polytechnic of Central
London, London.
Doganis, R., 1983. Economics of European Airports. Research Report
No. 9, Transport Studies Group, Polytechnic of Central London,
London.
Doganis, R., 1992. The Airport Business. Routledge, London.
Doganis, R., Graham, A., 1987. Airport management: the role of
performance indicators. Transport Studies Group, Polytechnic of
Central London.
Elnathan, D., Lin, T.W., Young, S.M., 1996. Benchmarking and
management accounting: a framework for research. Journal of
Management Accounting Research 8, 3754.
Favotto, I., 2001. Benchmarking retail performance. Airport World
6 (3), 2326.
Francis, G.A.J., Humphreys, I., 2001. Airport regulation: reecting on
the lessons from BAA plc. Public Money and Management 21 (1),
4952.
Francis, G.A.J., Hinton, C.M., Holloway, J., Humphreys, I., 1999.
Best Practice Benchmarking: a route to competitiveness? Journal of
Air Transport Management 5 (2), 105112.
Graham, A., 1999. Benchmarking airport economic performance.
Airport Finance Symposium, Craneld University, Craneld.
Graham, A., 2001. Performance indicators for airports. Business
Management for Airports, Loughborough University, Loughborough.

247

Hegendorfer, H., Morris, P., 2000. Competition hots up for top airport
ratings. Airport World 5 (3), 2629.
Hegendorfer, H., Tyler, C., 1999. Whos top in passenger satisfaction.
Airport World 4 (3), 3941.
Holloway, J.A., Hinton, C.M., Francis, G.A.J., Mayle, D., 1999.
Identifying best practice in benchmarking. CIMA Research
Monograph, CIMA, London.
Humphreys, I., Francis, G.A.J., 2000a. A critical perspective on
traditional airport performance indicators. Transportation Research Board No. 1703, pp. 2430.
Humphreys, I., Francis, G.A.J., 2000b. The past present and future
performance measurement of airports: the impact of changing
ownership patterns. In: Neely, A. (Ed.), Performance Measurement
2000 Past Present and Future. Craneld University, Craneld,
pp. 251258.
International Air Transport Association, 2001. Global Airport
Monitor. Aviation Information and Research Department, International Air Transport Association, London.
International Civil Aviation Organisation, 1991. Airport Economics
Manual, 1st Edition, Doc 9562. International Civil Aviation
Organisation, Montreal.
International Civil Aviation Organisation, 1999. AerodromesFAnnex
14 Vol. 1 Aerodrome Design and Operations. International Civil
Aviation Organisation, Montreal.
Murdoch, A., 1997. Lateral benchmarking or what formula one taught
an airline. Management Today, November, pp. 6467.
Spendolini, M.J., 1992. The Benchmarking Book. American Management Association, New York.
Tyler, C., 2000. Pleasing the passenger. Airport World 5 (3), 1922.
Watson, G.H., 1993. Strategic Benchmarking. Wiley, New York.
Wolfram Cox, J.R., Mann, L., Samson, D., 1997. Benchmarking as a
mixed metaphor: disentangling assumptions of competition and
collaboration. Journal of Management Studies 34, 285314.
Zairi, M., 1996. Benchmarking for Best Practice: Continuous Learning Through Sustainable Innovation. Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.