F
R

3
-
2
0
0
0

DUSSELDORF AIRPORT FACES PROBLEMS

FLUG REVUE: Mr Peters, up to now you have had to manoeuvre from one interim solution to the next. The same is happening this year. Will there be a final decision for Düsseldorf one day?

Hans-Joachim Peters: We obviously hope that that there will be a final decision. The interim decision has only been given, because we would not have had the certainty of the law in the short time we had. This decision was made after the Supreme Administrative Court had explained that we cannot use the permission of the noise contingency from November 1st 99. This would have led to an absolutely uncertain legal situation. In order to avoid this we made a new application, which gives us complete single runway capacity, i.e. more than the 91,000 flight movements as planned in the determination of 1983. By now the DFS and the Licence Authorities have realised that around 115,000 movements should be possible. Under normal circumstances, representatives, who supporting the public interest, have to be present during any planning authorisation process. In our case we were granted an interim permission without any of these representatives. The go-ahead will hopefully be made permanent to use the single runway system fully. This would give us much more room for manoeuvre than we have now (95,600 movements). Once we have taken this hurdle, application to use the dual runway system will be made. People will be reproachful about this step-by-step policy, this is how things happen in aviation, you simply cannot have everything at once.

FR: Compared to other commercial airports, what are Düsseldorf 's growth prospects? Frankfurt for example expects an increase of 20 per cent by 2006.

Peters: If we use the DLR's very conservative prognosis that assumes a doubling of the groth rate 2015, we estimate that at the current annual passenger number of 16 million Düsseldorf International will handle 20 million passengers by 2005, which is an increase by 25 per cent. In the long run it is not matter of demand, which is definitely there, but whether we will be allowed to actually offer the required capacity. In 1999 we only had a 1.1 per cent increase in passengers. On the one hand aircraft have become smaller and on the other we were not able to expand to accommodate more aircraft movements as other airports were. It is obvious that the market is there if you look at the growth of other airports near us. Double digit growth rates are being reported from Münster/Osnabrück, Paderborn-Lippstadt or even Cologne/Bonn. Only Düsseldorf is exempt from these developments because of the imposed restrictions. For the summer of 2000 we had requests for a total of 122,000 slots. However, we were only able to co-ordinate about 106,000 of these. You can see that there is more demand than we can satisfy. We have to concede that the building site hampers growth a little bit at the moment, because travelling to the airport is not overly comfortable for passengers. Our capacity problem is the making of our neighbouring airports which is a very bitter pill for us.

FR: In the light of runway use restrictions, can Düsseldorf still be competitive?

Peters: We will encounter massive problems in the future, if the current situation cannot be resolved. I hope that we will be able to increase our capacity from 36 to 40 movements pro hour. If we are given the permission to use both runways fully, capacity would increase by a further 30 to 40 per cent. This will give us more possibilities for development from 2004 onwards.

FR: What do you think of the possibility of using the old military airport Laarbruch near Kleve as a relief airport for DUS?

Peters: Our building site is in Düsseldorf - in the true sense of the word. This is where our market is, although we have looked into the Laarbruch possibility. Operating and investing in an airport are two different things. Both cost huge amounts of money. Once someone has been found who is willing to invest in Laarbruch then we will be prepared to sign a management contract. However, we will not been investing in that airport.

FR: Düsseldorf has always had a lot of trouble with residents. What is the current situation?

Peters: This is the most exciting question of all. There is a natural clash of interest between an airport and its neighbours. Even if it was possible to come to an agreement with the relevant communities, which is obviously very desirable, you could still not be guaranteed that there won't be any individual plaintiffs. Therefore not too much time should be spent on convincing every single person. Instead, the best possible measures for the residents should be. The licencing authority's demand that everyone's interests are to be weighed up. A compromise cannot mean that we limit our operations to such a degree that we are no longer viable. It is a misfourtune in the whole discussion that we have already fulfilled all our obligations before we even started to negotiate. We have the strictest operating conditions of all German airports. We have the toughest restrictions and we do not fly at night. Exceptions are not even granted for mail flights. We are also very restricted during fringe times. This is okay so far. We will not try to extend operation times beyond our permitted times. However, we will not accept any further time restrictions. That is why our advance concession already is our compromise. No one seems to acknowledge this. On the other hand the Ratingen residents try to tempt investors by pointing out how close they are to the airport. However, at the same time these people will seize every opportunity to take us to court.

FR: There is also a lot of trouble on the building site. To name but one, there is the cabin train, which will not be ready, while the main train station will start operating on 28 May 2000.

Peters: Unfortunately we will only be able to start operating the cabin trains in 2002. The company Siemens Verkehrstechnik (Traffic Technology) has been most unprofessional. When it was impossible to solve steering problems, various things were tried out. The first option was to install a modified steering system based on the Dortmund H-Bahn. However, Siemens found out that this did not work. After this Siemens brought the company Matra in the picture with which it had communication problems. This co-operation ended unsuccessfully, and Siemens came up with completely new plans. This is where we have the problem. After all the first carriages of the cabin train are now completed and are standing idle in the station. However, we will have to replace the peoplemover with busses for the time being. The delay costs us a lot of nervous energy and money. We will suffer damages of about DM70m because of image loss and loss in quality.

FR: Frankfurt and Amsterdam plan to co-operate in future. What are your thoughts on airport co-operation and what chances do you see for co-op contracts in general?

Peters: In my eyes co-operations like these, regarding the transfer of traffic from one place to another, do not make any sense. It is the old tale which is consatntly revieved, that a holding or co-operation with Cologne/Bonn would alleviate problems in Düsseldorf. Our capacity problem in Düsseldorf cannot be solved by anyone but the licencing authority. Capacities at Cologne/Bonn do not help us. Under this aspect co-operation would be unsuccessful.

Yet, you have to look at why Frankfurt and Amsterdam might want to work together. Frankfurt has a completely different strategic aim that we have. It wants to hold shares of as many airports as possible. Co-operating prevents both hubs from interfering with each other as far as acquisitions and tenders of international airports are concerned. This is where they want to work together. It makes sense. Synergies through joint purchases, computer systems or counceling can be seen as another positive spin off. If Cologne/Bonn would approach us with similar plans in mind, I would not have a problem with that. You have to know though that two partners must want to belong to a co-operation. Then mutual co-operating aims will have to be defined. Those in charge at Frankfurt Airport have done this, which was unfortunately not part of the public discussions. If both partners take a profit and there is a common interest, co-operation makes good sense.

FR: Is the increase in take-off and landing fees intended to compensate for the airport's costly re-construction and expansion?

Peters: Of course. We are currently in a difficult situation. We lost DM200m in 1996/97, which need to be repaid somehow. Additionally there is an investment of DM1.15bn, which has been made available by a consortium of banks, and repayment needs to be guaranteed. It goes without saying that fees or payment are an important factor in this financing concept. Airlines are understandably up in arms about this. If airlines are doing so badly that they cannot afford an increase in fees, I ask myself why they are in this dire position. The answer are not exorbitant airport costs but the fact that over-capacities are sold at any cost.

FR: BARIG says, "we will not pay". - What is your comment?

Peters: The remarkable BARIG writes to us that we make investments which are not legally valid, because we have not yet been given permission. I do not imagine a serious business partner to act like that. I am not sure whether it is commonly believed that next year when permission has been granted we can just pull the new terminal out of a hat. BARIG or IATA should be aware that a project like this has to be planned and developed. This is what the argument is all about. I do understand that no one likes to pay out of his free will. Only, we are in a very difficult position, which does not seem to interest the airline industry. During all those years when the industry was suffering, we did not increase fees at Düsseldorf. We seriously tried to help. Our gesture was taken for granted. Now that we ask for some solidarity it is seen as improper. We will have to see then how we will handle this situation. We have made an application for an increase, which is lower than the one originally intended. I assume that this application will be successful.

From page 35 of FLUG REVUE 3/2000