Airport Catchment and Leakage

in a Multi-Airport Region:
The Case of Harrisburg International Airport
Felix Pot (4730410), Willemijn Hut (4702719), Maya ter Laag (4151291),
Feike Nauta (4693272), Nanette Lim (4223128)

AE4446 Airport Operations

Delft University of Technology
Table of contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Demand analysis.................................................................................................................................. 5
3. Airside design and capacity ................................................................................................................. 8
4. Landside design and capacity ............................................................................................................ 11
5. Financial situation.............................................................................................................................. 14
6. Environmental issues......................................................................................................................... 15
7. Review of the article .......................................................................................................................... 16
7. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 18
Bibliography........................................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 1............................................................................................................................................. 23

2
1. Introduction
Harrisburg International Airport (MDT) was built a couple kilometres southeast from Harrisburg in
Middletown, Pennsylvania. In its early history (from 1898), the airport served as a military base for
the US Army Signal Corps. During the 1910s, the airport’s land was used to grow crops for the H.J.
Heinz Company. Only in 1918, the first military airplanes landed at the base. When the airport was
decommissioned as military base in 1969, Harrisburg International Airport began to offer commercial
services, under the ownership of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In 1998, the Commonwealth
transferred ownership to the Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority (SARAA), following the
U.S. wide trend of airport privatization. Besides Harrisburg International Airport, the SARAA also
owns Capital City, Franklin County Regional, and Gettysburg Regional Airfields. However commercial
services are centred at Harrisburg International Airport.

As of today, the main selling point for the airport is the convenience it offers of flying closer to home
without the need to travel to larger airports, making the trip less of a hassle for passengers.
However, welcoming slightly over one million passengers annually, the airport is currently struggling
to rise this number. With its location in southern Pennsylvania, Harrisburg International Airport is
within 150 kilometres driving distance from the large metropolitan areas Philadelphia and Baltimore,
see figure 1. These cities are accessed by aircraft through their own hub airports, with over 29 million
and 26 million yearly passengers in 2017, respectively. The so-called catchment areas of Harrisburg,
Philadelphia and Baltimore Airports are overlapping, which means leakage of airport markets occurs
(Fuellhart, 2007).

This overlap is a challenge for Harrisburg International. This report describes the implications of this
challenge on the future image of Harrisburg International Airport. On the one hand, Harrisburg may
be able to benefit from the presence of major urban centres in its surroundings. However, Harrisburg
not yet been able to exploit this opportunity very effectively. This will be further described through
performing a demand analysis. Then, both the airside design and landside design will be studied to
indicate if Harrisburg is able to accommodate
more passengers. Other challenges, such as
environmental issues and the financial situation
will complete the picture. A review of the original
scientific article is provided as well. The
conclusion gives a brief sketch of the future of
Harrisburg International Airport.

Figure 1: Harrisburg International Airport catchment area (F. Pot, 2018)

3
4
2. Demand analysis
Harrisburg International can be referred to as a regional airport. While it has a FAA Hub status, it
steadily handles just over 1 million passengers a year (table 1). It can be noticed that there is no real
growth pattern to be found. Figures have roughly stayed the same over the past years. Additionally,
while air traffic is slightly but steadily rising for the United States as a whole, Harrisburg International
does not follow the same pattern. For the last couple of years, the airport has experienced a slight
decrease in passenger numbers.

Table 1: Passenger flows at Harrisburg Airport (MDT) (FAA, 2018a)

Year USA (pax) % Growth MDT (pax) % Growth
2010 720.497.000 N/A 1.329.936 N/A
2011 730.796.000 1,42 1.310.588 -1,45
2012 736.699.000 0,80 1.268.739 -3,19
2013 743.171.000 0,87 1.294.632 2,04
2014 762.710.000 2,62 1.289.487 -0,39
2015 798.222.000 4,65 1.173.938 -8,96
2016 822.949.000 3,09 1.205.461 2,68

As the town of Harrisburg itself only has around 50,000 inhabitants, most of the airport’s traffic
comes from its wider catchment area. In its most general sense, an airport’s catchment area can be
defined as a concentric circle of 150 kilometres around the airport (Zuidberg and Veldhuis, 2012).
Within this area, the SARAA (2016) defines a ‘primary area’ for Harrisburg International consisting of
Adams, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Perry and York counties in Pennsylvania.
This would entail a population area of around 2 million people. Defining where demand can come
from, however, is complex as this is influenced indirectly by the number and character of air routes
available from competing airports in the region (Lieshout, 2012; Reynolds-Feighan, 2000). Some air
routes generate demand from very wide areas, while more competitive destinations that are widely
offered by other airports have more narrow catchment areas (Lieshout, 2012). This makes it hard to
generate a single catchment area for an airport. It may strongly depend on what destinations the
airport has to offer and maybe even more importantly: what destinations competitor airports offer.
The main competitors for Harrisburg International are Philadelphia Airport (PHL), Baltimore-
Washington Airport (BWI) and the regional airport of Lehigh Valley (ABE). Table 2 provides an
overview of Harrisburg International’s destinations and if these routes are serviced by competing
airports as well.

Table 2: Harrisburg Airport destinations offered by competing airports (FAA, 2018a)

MDT Destinations PHL BWI ABE

Toronto-Pearson ✔ ✔
Orlando/Sanford ✔
Punta Gorda ✔
St. Petersburg/Clearwater ✔
Charlotte ✔ ✔ ✔
Philadelphia ✔ ✔
Chicago O’Hare ✔ ✔ ✔
Atlanta ✔ ✔ ✔
Detroit ✔ ✔ ✔
Pittsburgh ✔ ✔

5
It can be concluded that Harrisburg International has no destination that is not offered by one of its
surrounding airports as well. For each destination Harrisburg International offers, there will be
competition from a near airport. Following Lieshout (2012), it should not be expected that Harrisburg
International has a significantly larger reach for any of its destinations. With slightly low traffic
volumes, the fierce competition with other airports could provide other operational and financial
threats. Airports could, however, attract passengers from a wider geographical area when lower
fares outweigh the costs of extra access time (Dresner et al., 1996; Gillen and Lall, 2004). Next to
price and time sensitivity, consumer preference heterogeneity also holds for quality of service to a
lesser extent (Jung and Yoo, 2016; Paliska et al., 2016; Pels et al., 2001). Additionally, there is a
recent trend of demand leakage from regional airports to larger hubs due to lower fares at main
airports as a result of intensified competition. For regional airports this results in fewer travel options
and higher fares due to operational cuts and airline strategies (Sharkey, 2015).

Passenger demand forecast

Taking in mind the overall US air traffic growth trend, the trend in passenger numbers at the airport,
the fierce competition in its catchment area and recent trends demand leakage towards hub
airports, there seems to be no reason to expect any significant growth in passenger numbers for
Harrisburg International. This is confirmed when projecting the historic trend onto following year.
Both the linear as the polynomial trend lines show that demand is not likely to change very much in
the following years (see figure 2).

Figure 2: Passenger demand forecast (FAA, 2018a)

Cargo forecast
Freight traffic at Harrisburg International Airport shows similar figures as passenger traffic. Cargo
flows fluctuate quite much, while the long-term trend is quite stable. Therefore, just as with
passenger traffic, both the linear as the polynomial trend lines show a fairly stable cargo flow for the
following years (see figure 3).

6
Figure 3: Cargo demand forecast (data source: FAA, 2018a)

7
3. Airside design and capacity
In this chapter, the airside design and capacity of Harrisburg International Airport will be discussed.
First, the runway design will be discussed. Then, the weather characteristics and their influence on
the runway design will be clarified. Finally, an indication of the current and future capacity of the
airfield and the runway will be given.

Runway design
Harrisburg International Airport has one runway: runway 13/31, as shown in figure 4 its magnetic
heading is 128 for the direction of runway 13, and 308 for 31 (AirNav, n.d.), which means that the
true headings are 117 and 297. The length of this runway is 10,001 feet (3,048 metres), its width is
200 feet (61 metres) (FAA, 2018b). To further specify, the accelerate stop distance available (ASDA) is
9,063 feet (2762 metres) for runway 13 and 9,122 feet (2.780 metres) for runway 31. The landing
distance available (LDA) is 8,070 feet (2,460 metres) for runway 13 and 8,129 feet (2,478 metres) for
runway 31.

Figure 4: Airport diagram

The ICAO Pavement Classification Number is 90/F/C/X/T, which means that the load-carrying
capacity of the runway is 90, the pavement is flexible, the strength of the runway is low (CBR
between 4 and 8 percent), the maximum tire pressure is 1.25 MPa and the load-carrying capacity of
the runway was determined by technical evaluation (FAA, 2006).

8
Weather characteristics
In figure 5 the wind roses for Harrisburg airport for all months of the year can be found. It can be
seen that the dominant wind direction during six months of the year (January, February, March,
April, November, December) is west-north-west (292.5). During the other months of the year, the
dominant wind direction is west (270). Considering these wind directions, it would not seem a logical
choice to build a runway with orientation 297, instead of a runway with an orientation between
292.5 and 270. However, during the months in which the wind direction is 270, the wind speeds are
considerably lower, which means that an orientation that is closer to the direction of the strong
winds, thus 292.5, would be better. Concluding: the runway design could probably have been
improved by choosing an orientation of 292.5 (and thus 112.5 for the opposite direction), instead of
297. However, the decision to build the runway with orientation 297 is defendable as it does not
deviate a lot from 292.5.

Figure 5: Wind roses Harrisburg International Airport (NRCS, 2002)

9
Table 3: Legend of wind roses (NRCS, 2002)

Colour Wind speed

> 11.05 m/s

8.49 – 11.05 m/s

5.40 – 8.49 m/s

3.30 – 5.40 m/s

1.80 – 3.30 m/s

0.51 – 1.80 m/s

Another weather characteristic is the visibility. According to FAA, visibility characteristics can be
divided into three categories (FAA, 2014):
 Visual: the ceiling and visibility are such that visual approaches can be performed.
 Marginal: the ceiling and visibility are below the minima for visual conditions, but they are
better than the case of instrument conditions.
 Instrument: the ceiling is less than 1000 feet or the visibility is less than 3 miles (statute
miles, not nautical miles). In this case, radar separation between aircraft is required.
In 2014, FAA did a study on the airport capacity profiles of the larger airports in the United States, in
which they took into account the visibility characteristics. However, since Harrisburg is a smaller
airport, it was not included in the study. Furthermore, no additional information about the visibility
characteristics of Harrisburg International Airport could be found. This is why no conclusion can be
given about the airside capacity with regards to the visibility.

Airside capacity
In 2016, Harrisburg International Airport had 50,430 operations: 29,741 air carrier operations, 11,348
local general aviation and, although the airport is not officially a military airport anymore, it had
9,341 military operations (FAA, 2018b). The airport’s airfield capacity is 161,000 aircraft operations
per year (HIA, 2016a), which is more than sufficient to accommodate current aircraft operations.
Runway capacity is sufficient to accommodate these operations as well. The airport transported 1.32
million passengers in 2013, and expects to be transporting 1.74 million passengers in 2033. The
aircraft operations are expected to increase to around 60,000 in 2033 (HIA, 2016b). Thus, it can be
concluded that the airport’s airfield and runway capacity will remain sufficient to accommodate
future demand. The challenge that remains is: how can the current demand be increased, in order to
reach this larger future demand?

10
4. Landside design and capacity
Regarding the landside design of an airport, the capacity depends on various factors, including safety
and level of service considerations. An airport terminal must be able to handle stochastic demand in
passenger flows, including peaks, and still be operating in an efficient manner. Moreover, terminal
designs should be able to accommodate passenger demand growth to a certain extent. This should
be done without compromising on the level of service offered, which is often expressed in the total
time a passenger is in the system (Solak et al., 2009). Moreover, ground access to the airport should
be convenient, hassle-free and fast, both by car and public transport.

As a regional Origin and Destination (O and D) airport without a hub function, Harrisburg
International Airport features one terminal building that dates from 2004. The terminal is built in an
inverted Y-structure and offers twelve gates, that are used for both arrivals and departures. The
configuration of the terminal may be regarded as pier finger, since every of the twelve gates is
located at one of the three short piers. Security is arranged centrally. As can be seen in figure 6, the
terminal design excels on minimising walking distances, as the gate the farthest away is about 150
meters from security (Ifly, 2018).

Terminal capacity
As noted, the SARAA, the owner of the airport, expects the number of passengers to rise moderately
in the future. It is unknown what the exact capacity of the terminal building is, however, it is known
that the present terminal will be able to accommodate the forecast increase in demand for
passenger traffic. This means the terminal is able to handle at least 1.75 million passengers per year,
equalling the expected passenger number in 2030 (SARAA, 2016).

To put figures regarding passenger terminal capacity in more perspective, a tentative comparison
with Eindhoven Airport, located in the south of the Netherlands, is made. Eindhoven Airport is a
regional O and D airport as well, offering flights to various countries across Europe. The number of
passengers at Eindhoven Airport has grown rapidly over the last years, to about 5 million passengers
annually in 2017. Besides, Eindhoven Airport is within the 150 km catchment areas of Schiphol
Airport and Brussels Airport as well, two major airports offering hub-services, with over 60 and 25
million passengers per year, respectively. It is worth noting that every of these three airports saw
increasing passenger numbers over the last year. This probably has to do with the aviation market
saturation, which is lower in Europe than the US.

11
Figure 6: Map of Harrisburg Airport’s inverted Y-shaped terminal building (HIA, 2018a)

Regarding terminal capacity, Eindhoven Airport has one terminal building as well, offering nine gates
for departures. About 43,000 aircraft operations were recorded at Eindhoven Airport in 2016
(Eindhoven Airport 2017). This sheds light on two observations regarding Harrisburg International
Airport:
 Given the fact that Eindhoven Airport with 9 gates is able to handle over 5 million
passengers, it is expected that Harrisburg International still has plenty of room for passenger
growth regarding departure gate capacity. The fact that Harrisburg Airport is able to
accommodate 161,000 flight movements per year, underlines this. However, it should be
noted that terminal capacity is dependent on more factors than the amount of gates,
including security check capacity and the size of the gates (Solak et al., 2009).
 With 40 passengers per aircraft at Harrisburg Airport, the average number of passengers per
aircraft is fairly low, compared to the Eindhoven Airport average of slightly over 100
passengers per operation. The OAG data from 2005 indicates that Harrisburg is able to
accommodate airplanes with up to 165 seats. This means, larger passenger numbers will be
reachable with the same amount of aircraft operations, by using larger aircraft.

Ground transportation
In terms of ground transportation, Harrisburg International Airport is accessible by car and bus (see
figure 7). The airport is reachable by the interstate freeways 76, 81, 83 and 283 and the airport is
home to nearly 5,000 parking spots. The available public transport options are not optimal. The

12
nearest Amtrak train station is 2 miles away with no shuttle service running between the train station
and the airport. Bus-services are only available during regular office hours. Taxi services, including
Uber and Lyft are available at Harrisburg International (HIA, 2018b).

Figure 7: Ground Transportation to Harrisburg International Airport

Cargo Capacity
In terms of cargo, the cargo section of Harrisburg International Airport will need expansion on the
short term. Parking space for cargo jets will be increased, storage facilities expanded and ultimately
a new cargo terminal should be constructed. These works are currently in the planning stage and are
expected to be carried out within three years (Penn Live News, 2017). Three cargo shippers currently
use the airport as base: FedEx, Ups and American Airlines (Fly HIA, 2018).

13
5. Financial situation
Harrisburg International airport is owned by the Susquehanna Area Region Airport Authority
(SARAA), a government authority that is the owner of several airports in South-Central Pennsylvania.
The financial department of SARAA made a budget before the beginning of 2016 due to their
expectations. Luckily, even better results are the outcome at the end of 2016.

Improved performance
SARAA planned an increase of 585.000 enplanements in 2016 and adjusted this in their budget.
However, HIA achieved a higher number of enplanements at the end of the year. Besides the
enplanements, also air carrier operations, landed weight and cargo tons are increased compared to
2015 as described in figure 8.

Figure 8: summary various activities HIA (SARAA, 2017)

This leads to an increase in operating revenues. Notable are the increase in facilities revenue (7,8%),
concession fees (13,2%) and other income (17,3%). Reasons for increasing facilities revenues are the
new tenants rented previously vacant areas, additional rent for reverted buildings and increasing
airline rentals.

Even though the performances of MDT increase, operating expenses are increasing as well. Notice
the extra costs for marketing (27.2%), repairs and maintenance (13,4%) and supplies, parts and other
(26%) compared to 2015 as are the non-operating expenses (18%). The costs for professional and
consulting fees are decreased (14,2%) compared to the year before. Extra expenses were made due
to a snowfall in January 2016 and on extra safety supplies, small equipment and furniture.

Appendix 1 shows the total overview of the statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net
Position Years Ended of 2016 compared to 2015. The expenses are divided into operating- and
nonoperating where there are only operating revenues. Besides that, the income and loss from
operations are part of the financial oversight of 2016.
SARAA concludes that the operating revenues and expenses both increased in 2016. The operating
revenues increased over $1 million, equal to 4,4% of the revenues in 2015. The expenses increased
with a total of 7% compared to 2015. This makes the total net position at the end of the year a total
of $8.1 million dollars, which is 1.5 million less than in the beginning of the year.

14
6. Environmental issues
The total CO2 aviation’s emission contain approximately 2% of the global greenhouse emissions with
an expected growth of 3-4% per year (Olja Cokorilo, 2016) and an increased number of people are
exposed to aircraft noise with health issues as effect (Jarup, 2007). The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) controls the regulation in aircraft noise and emissions.

Noise
Harrisburg International Airport started an noise relocation project that can be found in the financial
oversight. In the financial oversight there is an expense and revenue for noise relocation project
disbursements and - grants (FAA funds) of $5.861 and $5.318 in 2016 and passengers of the aircraft
pay charges (passengers facility charges, PFC’s) that should be used for the purpose of generating
revenue for airport projects that, among other things, mitigate noise for residents around the
airport. With this money and FAA funds, 24 of 47 eligible properties were voluntarily purchased to
move residents to a similar dwellings outside the noise impact area. Besides the movements of the
residents, changes where made in number of flights per day (HIA, 2015).

Pollution
In 2016, Harrisburg International Airport started an environmental treatment program to filter out
PFOS contaminants of their ground water, to improve the drinking water system. PFOS are used for
firefighting at airfields. In January 2009 the environmental protection agency (EPA) tested the
groundwater that is used to supply customers in Lower Swatara Twp. and Highspire. The level of
PFOS was within 0.4 to 1.1 parts per billion where EPA establishes a provisional health advisory of 0.2
parts per billion. (Fluoride Action, 2014).

Energy
“Finding ways to operate more efficiently and save energy and money is important to us,” said Tim
Edwards, SARAA Executive Director. “We want to be good stewards to both the environment and
also our financial resources”. In 2016 SARAA came with a press release that HIA will be modifying a
new Baggage Handling System that is more energy efficient. The energy savings are estimated at
1034 kW-hours per day (= $25.664 per year).
Besides the systems that HIA uses, they also encourage residents/visitors to drive electric. In 2016
Harrisburg International Airport unveiled a new Direct Current Fast Charging Station (DCFC) (HIA,
2016c).

In de last couple of years, HIA started an environmental treatment program to filter out PFOS,
replaced their energy using equipment to save energy and just finished their noise project positive.
“We want to be good stewards to […] the environment” is what SARAA Executive director said but no
other announcements of environmental projects are made by SARAA. An advice can be to decrease
the CO2 and NOx pollution.

15
7. Review of the article
Title and author
Airport catchment and leakage in a multi-airport region: The case of Harrisburg International written
by K. Fuellhart (2007)

Context
The paper has been published by Elsevier in the Journal of Transport Geography in 2007. The
objective of the paper is to conduct a spatial analysis of the market catchment area of Harrisburg
International Airport (MDT) by presenting a descriptive case study. A specific focus is putted on the
description of the market area in relation to a variation of push and pull factors related to distance
from MDT and competing airports.

Introduction
Airports are mostly competing for the highest yielding customers and the maximum number of
passengers. Two major changes in this market are occurring since last years. First, many low fare
carriers made their entrance to the market and second, a reduction of market information
asymmetries between airlines and consumers is taking place. This has lead to a general reduction in
fare levels. It also has resulted in an increase of the ability of consumers to distinguish between
airports on a geographical level, fares and service levels and air travel requirements. This paper
focuses on this last point. The paper shows the increased importance to study airport choice,
regional market areas and market area leakage. This leakage exists when travellers “avoid using the
local airports in their regions, and use other (out-of-region) airports to take advantage of lower fares
and more convenient airline services” (Suzuki and Audino, 2003, p.31).

Method and tools

The author uses three methods to conduct the research. First of all, a literature review has been
presented. The reviewed literature is related to airport substitution, airport choice, implications for
the consumer, airlines, airports and cities. The author assigns the research of Hess and Polak (2005)
as ‘excellent recent reviews’. The blend-in of the author’s opinion (without any supporting
arguments) gives a slight unprofessional impression of the paper. Fuellhart also states that Hes and
Polak suggests “that airport access time, flight frequencies, differences in airfares […] are all
potentially related to the choices that consumers make regarding their air travel needs” (Hess and
Polak, 2005, a,b). However, he does not describe the arguments to underpin this statement.
Fuellhart could have elaborated more on the methods and tools used in the research work he has
reviewed. Next, Fuellhart defines many factors of influence on consumers choice. This is certainly
valuable, however, a clear structure in the enumeration is missing.

In the following part of the paper, an economic assessment of Harrisburg International Airports
market area and an analysis of airport substitution comparing relative passengers ratios has been
done. MDT has been placed in its regional context and the regional airport alternatives have been
summarized. The economic assessment has many limitations. An example: to examine the regional
patterns of use of MDT, information on airport customers has been collected at MDT. This data has
been collected by asking vehicle drivers for their home zip code when they exit the parking lot.
Limitations of this way of data collection are (among others) that the data represents airports
visitors rather than flying passengers. Also, passengers who travel by public transport are left out of
the data collection. This causes an incomplete and improper dataset. Fuellhart also yields that there
are a lot of limitations of this economic assessment and explains why. The description of so many
limitations of the assessment is clear and logical. However, all these limitations raises the question if
this method still should have been used for the research.

16
Finally some examples of airport advertising are discussed to see how MDT confronts the issue of
maintaining market areas and addressing leakage. The analysis of MDT’s advertisement could be
questioned. Does this belong in a research paper in the Journal of Transport Geography or is this type
of research more related to psychological research?

Results and conclusions

The paper does not contain a separate ‘Methods and tools’ and ‘Result’ section. Fuellheart has
chosen to combine this sections and to present the results directly after the methods and tools has
been made clear. Nonetheless this more uncommon article structure, the author still succeeds in
keeping the paper structured.

From the literature review it could be concluded that that a wide range of factors (such as economic,
factors, accessibility and spatial circumstances) could be related to consumer’s airport choice.
Airports are recommended to evaluate the spatial nature of their catchment areas. There are a lot of
competing airports in the area of MDT. The market catchment area is complicated by this range of
alternatives. From the research could be concluded that the factors ‘access’ and ‘market variables’
are important in the aggregate airport choice of consumers. Finally the author concludes that airport
advertising strategy influences the choice of air travelers. The success of an advertisement campaign
could be improved by linking various appeals (such as price, convenience etc.) to the spatial
distribution. A lot of data and conclusions from other papers has been presented in the paper. This
could be valuable. However, due to the lack of description of how this data has been conducted and
how the conclusion have been drawn, the credibility of this conclusions and data slightly disappears.

Discussion
Overall, the paper has been written in a well-manner. However, it also contains several limitations.
The datasets used, mostly the home zip-codes of airport customers datasets, have many limitations.
K. Fuellhart also names these limitations in the paper. However, the consideration should still be
made if the datasets are not too limited to use for research. Also, the author heavily criticizes the
spatial econometric models he used. This gives the impression that the research does not have a high
academic value and high level of possible applicability on other cases.
Among others, it is recommended to expand the research with insights on travellers behaviour from
a more social perspective and to set up and use econometric models which are more generally
applicable on other cases.

17
7. Conclusion
Regarding it’s catchment area, airport leakage is a serious problem for Harrisburg International
Airport. With good freeway connections and many more destinations, either Philadelphia or
Baltimore could be more attractive for most passengers, within the 150 km zone. This could have
major implications for the airport’s future. In this section, a sketch of the future of Harrisburg
International Airport is given through performing a SWOT-analysis which summarizes the analysis
that has been performed in the previous sections. This summarizes the largest factors to be
considered when planning for the airport’s future.

SWOT-Analysis
Strengths
 An international airport provides quick access to international destinations for people living
in and around Harrisburg.
 The airport does not experience any congestion issues, making it a comfortable and hassle-
free option for travelers.
 Competitive parking prices

Weaknesses
 Only a limited amount of destinations are offered at the airport. This limits the opportunities
for travelers.
 No public transport access available, which makes the airport less accessible.
 Large amount of free capacity makes operating costs relatively high. Therefore, ticket prices
are relatively high.
 No profits are made due to high operating costs and low revenues.

Opportunities
 There is a large capacity for growth of traffic.
 Freight traffic is not linked to the population within the catchment area. With a large free
capacity, there are opportunities to grow cargo traffic.
 The comfort of using a regional airport could be exploited more. Targeted campaigns to the
Harrisburg communities that value comfort of travelling near home. One could think of
focussing on elderly by surveying what destinations could be relevant for them.
 Harrisburg may be a good back up airport if Philadelphia and Baltimore suffer during
frequent bad weather conditions along the East Coast during winter. It could be explored
further what Harrisburg can do for Philadelphia and Baltimore airports, achieving a higher
network reliability.
 Airport congestion at Philadelphia and Baltimore might be an opportunity for Harrisburg if
flights need to be diverted.

Threats
 Advantages of economies of scale at larger airports Philadelphia and Baltimore, result in
lower prices at these competing airports. This leads to demand leakage towards these
airports.
 Competing airports offer more destinations and connecting options.
 Low cost carriers are present at hub airports as well, which makes competing on price even
hader.
 Financial sustainability is severely under pressure. The airport fails to make any profit with
current passenger figures due to high (fixed) operating costs.
 Due to the competitive environment, no substantial growth can be expected.

18
Concluding remarks
Harrisburg International Airports is situated in a highly competitive environment. Due to the
efficiency of near larger airports, there is a high risk of demand leakage as consumers are very price
sensitive. Therefore passenger numbers are relatively low, while operating costs are relatively high.
No substantial growth is projected for the future, which entails that the unstable financial situation is
not likely to change. Subsidies from local governments may be needed for the survival of Harrisburg
airport. This is a rather political consideration: is it worth the investments to have an airport so close
or take the effort to drive one hour further. This consideration could be best assessed through a cost-
benefit analysis.

However, some benefits such as the role of the airport in attracting businesses may be very hard to
define. Additionally it is known that consumers are more price than time sensitive, which again
questions the need for a near airport. Opportunities include to exploit the large free capacity more.
However, when offering new destinations, changes are high that these are also already offered by
the near hub airports Philadelphia and Baltimore, with again a risk of demand leakage when prices
are lower at those airports. In conclusion: the airport may face a challenging future, especially in a
financial sense. However, low growth projections also mean less need for expansion investments.
Passenger figures are relatively stable over the long term. This also entails there will be little need for
expansionary investments. In this sense the future might be rather stable, but only when
governments are willing to cover the financial losses made at the airport.

19
Bibliography
AirNav (n.d.) KMDT - Harrisburg International Airport. Retrieved from
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMDT

Cokorilo, Olja (2016), Environmental issues for aircraft operations at airports, Journal of
Transportation research procedia, 14, pp. 3713-3720.

Dresner, M., Lin, J.-S.C. and Windle, R. (1996). The impact of low-cost carriers on airport and route
competition. Journal of Transport, Economics and Policy, 30 (3), pp. 309-328.

Eindhoven Airport (2017), Jaarverslag [annual report] 2016.

https://www.eindhovenairport.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/jaarverslag_2016_eindhoven_airpor
t_n.v_0.pdf. [Accessed 7 March 2018]

FAA (2006). Standardized method of reporting airport pavement strength - PCN, pp. 11-13.

FAA (2014). Airport capacity profiles, p. 4.

FAA (2018a), Passenger Boarding (Enplanement) and All-Cargo Data for U.S. Airports - Previous Years.
https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/previous_year
s/#2001 [accessed 28 March 2018]

FAA (2018b). Airport Master Report MDT.

FAA (2018c), Airport noise issues.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/noise_emissions/airport_aircraft_n
oise_issues/, [accessed 28 March 2018]

Fluoride Action, 2014. http://fluoridealert.org/news/pennsylvania-three-harrisburg-international-

airport-wells-shut-down-for-elevated-pfos/
[accessed 22 March 2018]

Hess, S., Polak, J.W. (2005a). Accounting for random taste heterogeneity in airport-choice modeling.
In: Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, January 2005.

Hess, S., Polak, J.W. (2005b). Mixed logit modeling of airport choice in multi-airport regions. Journal
of Air Transport Management 11 (2), pp. 59–68

HIA (2015). HIA Noise program to come to an end. http://www.flyhia.com/press/hia-noise-program-

to-come-to-an-end/ [accessed 21 March 2018]

HIA (2016a). Master plan - Capacity Assessment and Future Requirements.

HIA (2016b), HIA improves new building lease, http://www.flyhia.com/press/hia-approves-new-

building-lease/
[accessed 22 March 2018]

HIA (2016c), HIA Unveils new electric vehicle charging station. http://www.flyhia.com/press/hia-
unveils-new-electric-vehicle-charging-station/ [accessed 29 March 2018].

20
Gillen, D. and Lall, A. (2004). Competitive advantage of low-cost carriers: some implications for
airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 10 (1), pp. 41-50.

HIA (2018a), Airport Maps. http://www.flyhia.com/at-the-airport/airport-maps/. [Accessed 21 March

2018]

HIA (2018b), Directions. http://www.flyhia.com/at-the-airport/directions/ [Accessed 7 March 2018].

IFly (2018), Harrisburg (MDT) Airport Map. https://www.ifly.com/harrisburg-international-

airport/terminal-map. [Accessed 21 March 2018].

Jarup, L (Ed.) (2007). Hypertension and exposure to noise near airports: the HYENA study. Journal of
environmental health perspectives, 116(3), pp. 329-333.

Jung, S. and Yoo, K. (2016). A study on passengers’ airport choice behaviour using hybrid choice
model: A case study of Seoul metropolitan area, South Korea. Journal of Air Transport Management,
57, pp. 70-79.

Lian, J.I. and Rønnevik, J. (2011). Airport competition – Regional airports losing ground to main
airports. Journal of Transport Geography, 19 (1), pp. 85-92.

Lieshout, R. (2012). Measuring the size of an airport's catchment area. Journal of Transport
Geography, 25, pp. 27-34.

NRCS (2002). Wind rose resources. Retrieved from

https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/downloads/climate/windrose/pennsylvania/harrisburg/.

Paliska, D., Drobne, S., Borruso, G., Gardina, M. and Fabjan, D. (2016). Passengers’ airport choice and
airpors’ catchment area analysis in cross-border Upper Adriatic multi-airport region. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 57, pp. 143-154.

Pels, E., Nijkamp, P. and Rietveld, P. (2001). Airport and airline choice in a multiple airport region: an
empirical analysis for the San Francisco Bay Area. Regional Studies, 35 (1), pp. 1–9.

Penn Live News (2017), Building Boom taking off at Harrisburg International Airport. 14 December
2017. http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/12/building_boom_taking_off_at_ha.html.
[Accessed 7 March 2018].

SARAA, Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority (2016), Masterplan Harrisburg International
Airport, Existing Facilities and Conditions. http://www.flyhia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/HIA-
MASTER-PLAN_Existing-facilities-Conditions.pdf [Accessed 7 March 2018].

Solak, S., Clarke, J.P.B. and Johnson, E.L. (2009), Airport Terminal Capacity Planning. Transportation
Research Part B: Methodological 43(6), pp. 659-676.

Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority, independent auditor’s report and financial statements
(April, 2017)

Suzuki, Y., Audino, M.J., 2003. The effects of airfares on airport leakage in single-airport regions.
Transportation Journal 42 (5), pp. 31–41.

21
Zuidberg, J. and Veldhuis, J. (2012). The role of regional airports in a future transportations system.
Amsterdam: SEO Economisch Onderzoek.

22
Appendix 1

23