1. Europe’s preferred airport: Amsterdam Airport Schiphol
Stefan Talen
Graduate student at the research department Aviation Management, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences.
Abstract
Hub-and-spoke networks increase connectivity but besides this and other advantages, transferring flights at a hub-airport
is also accompanied by disadvantages such as the detour, increased travel time, an extra stop and even less reliable services.
European hub-airports like London Heathrow and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol envision being Europe’s hub of choice or
Europe’s preferred airport. The theoretical perspective on hub-airport preference is obtained from a critical literature review
and concludes that passengers’ hub-airport choice is dependent on travel related factors like ticket price, travel time and
frequency as well as airport related factors like speed through the terminal and courtesy of staff. Moreover, the perception of
airport quality is found to influences the reuse intentions of transfer passengers and therefore triggers preferredness.
Interviews with experts from different perspectives within the aviation industry indicated that connectivity is the main
competition factor for hub-airports. Connectivity factors like the number of destinations, operating airlines and minimum
connecting time contribute to the preferred position of a hub-airport since these factors attract passengers to fly via the
specific hub-airport. Unpublished research from Copenhagen Airport indicatse that the primary need of the transfer passenger
is information about where they are and where they need to go. Secondary needs include relaxation and pleasure and only
arise when the primary needs are met. The preferred hub-airport therefore needs to offer short connection times and many
destinations with high frequencies for competitive ticket prices, operated by many different airlines or even different
alliances. The preferred hub-airport therefore only exists to a certain extend because it only exists for experienced travellers
who’s airport choice is often affected because they are member of frequent flyer programmes. It is not found that a preferred
hub-airport is likely to influence itinerary choice and a benchmark study did not conclude one single preferred hub-airport in
Europe.
Introduction
After the US deregulation in 1978, hub-and-spoke
networks quickly emerged. Hub-and-spoke networks are
highly centric network structures and the centres are called
hubs (Goedeking, 2010). In transportation theory, hubs are
described as facilities, serving as switching and sorting
points in distribution systems (Alumur and Kara, 2008).
The four largest hub-airports in Europe, based upon
passenger numbers from 2013 provided by the airport
websites, are London Heathrow (LHR) followed by Paris-
Charles de Gaulle (CDG), Frankfurt Airport (FRA) and
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AMS). LHR has the vision to
be Europe’s hub of choice (Heathrow, 2013) and AMS
wants to become Europe’s preferred airport (Schiphol
Group, 2014). Both visions refer to airport customers that
prefer a hub-airport.
Operating a hub-and-spoke network increases the
connectivity. Connectivity is defined as the ability to offer
competitive connections (Goedeking, 2010). Competitive
connections must satisfy some criteria:
• The connection time must at least equal the
Minimum Connecting Time (MCT), a value given
by the airport to indicate the minimum time
required for transferring flights.
• The detour, the ratio of the actual connecting
flight distance over the direct flight distance must
be sufficiently convenient1
.
• The connection must be bi-directional.
With an airline network including 5 airports (𝑛), 20
flights (𝑄) are required to directly connect all airports
(Formula 1). Such a network is called a point-to-point
network (Figure 1). If an airline operates a hub-and-spoke
network, only 8 flights (𝑄) are required to connect all
airports (Formula 2). Formula 1 is a quadratic equation and
formula 2 is linear. Therefore the advantage of hubbing, the
difference between the required number of flights to
1
Convenient detour factors for long haul and short haul are
respectively 1.2 and 1.35-2.5 (Goedeking, 2010).
connect all airports, becomes larger when the number of
airports within a network increases.
𝑄 = 𝑛 × 𝑛 − 1
Formula 1
𝑄 = 2(𝑛 − 1)
Formula 2
Point-­‐to-­‐point
Hub-­‐and-­‐spoke
Figure 1 Number of flights required to connect all airports
Hubbing enables the airline to consolidate all traffic
onto a relatively small number of flights, resulting in a
higher volume of passengers per flight (Hansen, 1990). This
enables the hub airline to operate more frequent to
destinations and to operate to destinations that would not be
profitable without consolidating passengers from different
origins. It also strengthens the competitive position of the
airline. The airline can compete by reducing ticket prices on
routes that face competition and increase the ticket price on
routes that face no competition to compensate the reduced
revenues on the other route (Doganis, 2010). This strong
competitive position might even suppress direct routes
(Dennis, 1994). Hubbing is based on many grounded
aircraft at a short moment in time to maximize the number
of possible connections. Hub-airports therefore have to deal
with the high peaks that are caused by hubbing. These peaks
are cost intensive in terms of personnel, resources, capacity
and schedule recovery (Theis, Adler, Clarke and Ben-Akiva,
2006). Furthermore, a hub-airport with a high percentage of
transfer passengers is likely to have a lower average
spending per passenger because transfer passengers are
unlikely to make major purchases during their transfer
(Graham, 2009). Passengers have to deal with the extra
travel time and the extra stop (Rietveld and Brons, 2001).
In addition to the increased travel time, the reliability might
decrease. Congestion at hub-airports during peaks has larger
consequences than for originating and destination airports
and might lead to less reliable services and more delays
(Dennis, 1994).

2. For the government, the additional hub activities
compared to airport without hub activities, result in extra
jobs and increased economical activities that add to the
Gross Domestic Product (Ministerie van Verkeer en
Waterstaat, 2009). The disadvantages for the government is
however the extra noise production, air pollution and
accident risk (Schipper, 2004).
To enable an effective hub operation, three main factors
are critical (Dennis, 1994):
• A geographical central location
• Good airport facilities
• Coordination of schedules
Other factors that are important are for example weather
conditions, opening hours, airport charges, capacity
constrains and the socio-economic indicators of the
catchment area (Graham, 2008; Berechman and de Wit,
1996; Janic and Reggiani, 2002).
Hubbing seems to be the ideal solution for airlines to
maximize connectivity. This increased connectivity is also
an advantage for both the passenger and the government.
Hubbing is however also accompanied by several
disadvantages as for example the increased travel time for
passengers and the increased noise production for the
government. Therefore a hub-airport is unlikely to be
preferred. Nevertheless, large European hub-airports want
to be preferred. This article elaborates on the question if and
how a hub-airport can become preferred and what the effect
is on the passenger’s itinerary choice.
Methodology
To get a better understanding of hub-airport
preferredness, the methodology is based on a decision-
making theory called the Analytic Hierarchy process (AHP)
(Saaty, 1990; Saaty, 2008). The AHP is based on four steps;
define the problem, structure the decision hierarchy,
construct pairwise comparison matrices and use the
priorities to obtain the prioritized alternative. This work
limits itself to the first two steps. An applied and qualitative
research is conducted with a mixed strategy to get insight in
the requirements to become a preferred airport (Figure 2).
Quantitative data from real travellers would become time-
consuming and hard to obtain, therefore qualitative data is
used for this fundamental research about the preferred hub-
airport.
Figure 2 Methodology to research the requirements of a
preferred hub-airport
A literature review is conducted to examine relevant
literature and obtain the theoretical perspective about the
hub-airport choice. Interviews as well as the analysis of
unpublished researches from Copenhagen Airport provide
the practical perspective on hub-airport choice.
The practical perspective is researched to verify or extend
the theoretical perspective. Respondents to the interviews
came from all over the industry. A senior researcher at SEO
Aviation Economics, a travel consultant from Egencia, a
passenger research and intelligence manager from Schiphol
Group as well as a quality manager from Fraport AG and a
network planning manager from KLM Royal Dutch
Airlines.
The obtained knowledge and opinions from experts are
combined to obtain the practical perspectives on several
commonly discussed topics like hub-airport pros and cons,
competition and choice. This data is combined with the
main results from unpublished researches regarding transfer
passenger needs and passenger segmentation at Copenhagen
Airport.
Combining the theoretical and practical perspective
creates the decision hierarchy, required in order to complete
the second step in the AHP. Completing the second step and
understanding the hub-airport decision-making process is
required to draw a conclusion about Europe’s preferred
airport.
Results
Theoretical perspective of hub-airport choice
Airport competition on the transfer passenger market is
mainly based on the offered services, quality of connections
and additional services. Offered services include factors like
ticket price, frequency of flights, destinations and departure
times and addition services are factors like shopping areas,
restaurants and casinos (Bruinsma, Rietveld and Brons,
2000). Since geographical location is the common
performance driver for airlines, the competition is fierce
since hub-airports in different continents, compete for the
same city-pairs (Redondi, Malighetti and Paleari, 2011).
The customer is defined as a person who buys goods or
a service and therefore the customer is the decision-maker
in the AHP. Airports tend to define airlines and passengers
as key customers (Halpern and Graham, 2013). Revenues
are likely to be greater if companies match their products
and marketing mixes to particular segments within the
market (Freathy and O’Connell, 2000). Airlines are often
segmented by type and business model. Passenger airlines
are divided into the Full-Service Network Carrier (FSNC),
the Low Cost Carrier (LCC) and the charter model The
FSNCs focus on providing a variety of pre-flight and on-
board services including different classes and connecting
flights (Reichmuth, 2008). Passengers can be segmented by
the airline they use, trip characteristics, passenger
characteristics, travel behaviour and shopping behaviour.
Passengers are often segmented into business and leisure
passengers. Business passengers tend to be more time-
conscious and demanding while leisure passengers are more
price sensitive and less demanding (Halpern and Graham,
2013). Passengers can also be segmented by loyalty towards
an airport (Freathy and O’Connell, 2000).
Airlines most likely want an effective hub operation
with the lowest operating costs and the highest revenues.
Therefore a hub-airport should meet all factors to support
the effective hub-operation such as the geographical
location, airport facilities, coordination of schedules,
weather condition and socio-economic indicators of the
catchment area.
Passengers’ hub-airport choice is dependent on travel
related factors like ticket price, travel time and frequency.
These factors are highly dependent on the operating airlines
(Lieshout, Veldhuis, de Wit and Matsumoto, 2009).
Passengers’ hub-airport choice can also depend on airport
quality factors based upon previous experiences like
queuing times and delay times. The most common
competitive factors regarding airport quality for passengers
are service attributes like speed through the airport,
cleanliness and ambiance at the airport, selection of
concessions, gate experience and exceptional customer
services or courtesy of staff (Kramer, Bothner and Spiro,
2013).
What is a
preferred hub-
airport?
How are hub-
airports chosen?
Practical
perspective
Theoretical
perspective
Literature
review
Analyse
unpublished
researches
Interviews
The requirements for the
preferred hub-airport

3. For transfer passengers, courtesy of security staff and
quality of flight information displays are found to be the
most and second most important factor that contributes to
the overall airport rating (De barros, Somasundaraswaran
and Wirasinghe, 2007). The perception of airport quality is
found to influence the transfer passengers’ reuse intentions
(Park and Jung, 2011).
The theoretical perspective on hub-airport choice is
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 Theoretical perspective on hub-airport choice
Customer Choice factors
Airlines Demand
Geographical location
Airport facilities
Coordination of schedules
Weather conditions
Socio-economic indicators of the catchment
area
Passengers Travel related factors
Ticket price
Travel time
Frequency
Airport quality factors
Speed through the terminal
Cleanliness and ambiance
Selection of concessions
Gate experience
Exceptional customer services
Courtesy of staff
Practical perspective on hub-airport choice
Based on the knowledge and opinions from the
respondents to the interviews, with different perspectives on
hub-airport choice, it is found that hub-airports compete in
connectivity. Connectivity competition is based on the
number of destinations, frequency of flights, minimum
connecting time and surface access modes. Besides
connectivity, hub-airport also competes on airport quality
factors with lounges, shops, parking facilities and baggage
systems. Hub-airport choice is found to be mainly
dependent on travel related factors like ticket price,
frequency of flights and travel time including connecting
time. Travel related factors also include factors like frequent
flyer programmes and corporate contacts but these are hard
to take into account since they are hard to quantify. Because
these travel related factors are almost similar for the large
hub-airports in Europe, airport quality related factors
become more relevant for Europe’s preferred airport.
The other main finding from the interviews is that hub-
airlines do not choose hub-airports because hub-airports are
fixed in time.
The analysis of the unpublished researches, provided by
Copenhagen Airport resulted in knowledge about the needs
of the transfer passenger. The primary need of transfer
passengers is information about where they are, where they
need to go to and how long it takes. Once the primary needs
are met, the secondary needs arise. Secondary needs
consider relaxation is pleasure like comfort, entertainment,
shopping and other activities as wellness and personal care.
The results from their research suggest that connecting time
is the number one selection criteria as well as being
confident that the connection can be made without stress or
any discomfort.
At Copenhagen Airport, the so-called experiences
segment considers the largest proportion of transfer
passengers. This segment mainly considers leisure
passengers that love the atmosphere and browsing in the
shops is part of their trip. A good airport for this segment
offers a wide and exciting range of products, both on the
shopping and the restaurant side. This supports the earlier
mentioned importance of airport quality.
According to the practical perspective on hub-airport
hub preference connectivity factors are important as well as
airport quality factors. A benchmark amongst the four
busiest airports in Europe, based on public available data2
,
did not result in a single conclusion about preferredness
(Table 2). The airports are benchmarked on their number of
destinations, yearly movement, operating airlines, alliance
presence, airport quality rating and minimum connecting
time. AMS offers the highest number of destinations but has
the lowest amount of yearly movements. LHR offers the
lowest number of destination but has the highest amount of
yearly movements. This suggests that AMS has the lowest
frequency and LHR has the highest. FRA has the most
operating airlines and together with AMS the lowest
minimum connecting time. All airports are the primary hub-
airport of an alliance. The airport quality rating requires
more detail to be able to draw a conclusion. It cannot be
confirmed that AMS is Europe’s preferred airport or LHR
is Europe’s hub of choice and therefore it remains a vision
Table 2 Benchmark amongst Europe’s busiest airports
LHR CDG FRA AMS
Passenger total (x106
) 72,37 62,29 59,04 52,57
Destinations 180 315 295 323
Yearly movements 469.464 474.559 465.699 430.130
Airlines 82 77 107 80
Alliance OneWorld Skyteam Star Alliance Skyteam
Airport quality 4 3 4 4
MCT 45-90 60-90 45 25-50
Conclusion
Europe’s preferred airport or Europe’s hub of choice
does exist to a certain extend. Airlines do not choose a
primary hub-airport since it is fixed in time. Passengers
choose the hub airport based on ticket price, travel time and
frequency of flights. Airline and airport quality becomes
relevant for the more experiences travellers. The perception
of airport quality however influences passengers’ reuse
intentions and therefore trigger preferredness.
Most of the preference factors are dependent on the
airline but travel time and airport quality are to some extend
or fully controllable by the airport. Travel time depends on
the uncontrollable flight, the uncontrollable geographical
location of the hub-airport and the controllable connecting
time at the hub-airport. Airport quality of controllable but is
a factor that is only relevant for more experienced travellers
in relation with preference.
These experienced travellers are often member of a
frequent flyer programme and therefore prefer an airline.
Their preferred hub-airport is therefore likely to be the
primary hub of the specific airline. Therefore the
preferredness of a hub-airport is not controllable based on
travel time or airport quality.
The preferred hub-airport should offer short connection
times and many destinations with high frequencies for
competitive ticket prices, operated by many different
airlines or even different alliances. In this way the airport
meets all decision criteria to be chosen as the preferred hub-
airport. If the hub-airport also offers an excellent airport
quality, the passengers’ reuse intentions are positively
influenced.
2
Data is gathered from airport facts and figures, ICAO+,
airtravel.about.com for MCT values, alliance websites and Skytrax.
The validity of the MCT values cannot be guaranteed.

4. The effects of a preferred hub-airport on the itinerary
choice of passengers can only be analysed with more
experienced travellers. These travellers are often member of
a frequent flyer programme and therefore itinerary choice is
dependent on the airline. The itinerary choice is not found to
be affected by a preferred hub-airport.
To indicate Europe’s preferred airport, airport quality
should be researched with more detail and further research
should be conducted on the weightings attached to the
requirements to become a preferred hub-airport.
References
Alumur, S., & Kara, B. Y. (2008). Network hub location problems: The state
of the art. European Journal of Operational Research, 190 (1).
Barros, A. G. De., Somasundaraswaran, A. K., & Wirasinghe, S. C. (2007).
Evaluation of level of service for transfer passengers at airports. Journal
of Air Transport Management, 13 (5) 293-298.
Berechman, J., & Wit, J. de. (1996). An analysis of the effects of European
aviation deregulation on an airline’s network structure and choice of a
primary west European hub airport. Journal of Transport Economics and
Policy, September, 251-70.
Bruinsma, F., Rietveld, P., & Brons, M. (2000). Comparative study of hub
airports in Europe : Ticket prices , travel time and rescheduling costs.
Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 91 (3), 278–292.
Dennis, N. (1994). Airline hub operations in Europe. Journal of Transport
Geography, 2 (4), 219–233.
Doganis, R. (2010). Flying off course: Airline economics and marketing.
London: Routledge.
Freathy, P., & O’Connell, F. (2000). Market segmentation in the European
airport sector. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 18 (3), 102–111.
Goedeking, P. (2010). Networks in aviation: Strategies and structures.
Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Graham, A. (2008). Managing airports: An international perspective.
London: Routledge
Graham, A. (2009). How important are commercial revenues to today’s
airports? Journal of Air Transport Management, 15 (3), 106-111.
Halpern, N., & Graham, A. (2013). Airport marketing. London: Routledge.
Hansen, M. (1990). Airline competition in a hub-dominated environment: An
application of noncooperative game theory. Transportation Research
Part B: Methodological, 24 (1), 27–43.
Heathrow. (2013). Full business plan. Retrieved June 19,2014, from
http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/P
DF/Q6_Heathrow_Full_Business_Plan.pdf
Janic, M., & Reggiani, A. (2002). An application of the multiple criteria
decision making (MCDM) analysis to the selection of a new hub airport.
European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 2 (2), 113–
141.
Kramer, L. S., Bothner, A., & Spiro, M. (2013). How Airports Measure
Customer Service Performance (Vol. 48). Transportation Research
Board.
Lieshout, R.B.T., Veldhuis, J., De Wit, J., Matsumoto, H. (2009). Measuring
transfer passenger shares at hub-airport: an application to passengers
departing from Japan. Paper presented at the Conference on Applies
Infrastructure Research (InfraDay).
Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (2009) Luchtvaartnota. Retreived
April 15, 2014, from
http://www.luchtenruimtevaart.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/O
verig/luchtvaartnota_tekst.pdf
Park, J. W., & Jung, S. Y. (2011). Transfer Passengers' Perceptions of
Airport Service Quality: A Case Study of Incheon International Airport.
International Business Research, 4 (3), 75-82.
Redondi, R., Malighetti, P., & Paleari, S. (2011). Hub competition and travel
times in the world-wide airport network. Journal of Transport
Geography, 19 (6), 1260–1271.
Reichmuth, J. (2008). Analyses of the European Air Transport Market,
Airline Business Models. Cologne: DLR-German Aerospace Center.
Rietveld, P., & Brons, M. (2001). Quality of hub-and-spoke networks; the
effects of timetable co-ordination on waiting time and rescheduling
time. Journal of Air Transport Management, 7 (4), 241–249.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process.
European Journal of Operational Research, 48 (1) 9-26.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process.
International Journal of Services Sciences, 1 (1), 83-98.
Schiphol Group. (2014). Ambitie: Europe’s Preferred Airport. Retrieved
March 20, 2014, from
http://www.schiphol.nl/SchipholGroup1/Onderneming/Strategie/Missie
EnAmbitie.htm
Schipper, Y. (2004). Environmental costs in European aviation. Transport
Policy, 11 (2), 141–154.
Theis, G., Adler, T., Clarke, J.-P., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2006). Risk aversion to
short connections in airline itinerary choice. Transportation Research
Record, 1951 (1), 28–36.