Cargo The change in reign


> T


2010 Airport


Hong Kong Memphis


Shanghai Pudong Incheon


Anchorage Paris CDG


Frankfurt/Main Dubai


Tokyo Narita Louisville


As Hong Kong becomes the world’s top air cargo airport, Dr Steve Appold and Dr John D Kasarda assess the state of the global air cargo industry.


2010 Cargo (metric tons) 4,168,394 3,916,937 3,227,914 2,684,500 2,578,396 2,399,067 2,275,106 2,270,498 2,167,843 2,166,226


Table 1: Top 10 air cargo airports, 2010, 2009, 2008 2009 Airport Memphis


Hong Kong


Shanghai Pudong Incheon


Paris CDG Anchorage Louisville Dubai


Frankfurt/Main Tokyo Narita


2009 Cargo (metric tons) 3,697,054 3,385,313 2,543,394 2,313,001 2,054,515 1,994,629 1,949,528 1,927,520 1,887,686 1,851,972


Memphis Hong Kong


Shanghai Pudong Incheon


Anchorage Paris CDG


Frankfurt/Main Tokyo Narita Louisville


Singapore Changi 2008 Airport


2008 Cargo (metric tons) 3,695,438 3,660,901 2,602,916 2,423,717 2,339,831 2,280,050 2,111,031 2,100,448 1,974,276 1,883,894


Source: Airports Council International


he crown has been passed from Memphis to Hong Kong. Memphis International Airport (MEM), which


had been the leading cargo airport every year since 1992, handled 3.9 million metric tons of cargo in 2010. Hong Kong International Airport (HKG) processed 4.1 million metric tons last year – an increase of 23% over the previous year. The change in reign corresponded with a dramatic 15.2% growth in world air cargo following a disastrous 2009 for the industry. With the global economy recovering, international air freight fared even better in 2010, expanding 20.5%. Yet, unless the air cargo industry


significantly restructures, its resurgence will be threatened by other transport modes that have already begun to ship many products that were previously the domain of air cargo. Likewise, HKG must continue to improve the efficiency of cargo processing since regional competitors are aggressively going after its China market – and the stakes are high.


24 Issue 1, Volume 5


Memphis utilised its reign to develop a prominent aerotropolis (airport- integrated economic region) around its two decades of cargo pre-eminence. Now, Hong Kong, which spawned its own aerotropolis stretching deep into southern coastal China, is facing its own challenges to cargo supremacy. To an extent, all major cargo airports are in similar positions nowadays, with the possible exception of Dubai, which has defied economic gravity to mushroom in cargo volumes, despite its own and the world’s recent economic crisis. Even as air cargo rebounds worldwide from the global recession, short-term external shocks and year-to-year fluctuations in volume can make for a bumpy ride. In addition, the distribution of cargo among airports has been shifting, in part because of changes in regional economic strengths, the evolution of hub airline strategies and routes, and the ups and downs of airport policies and performance.


The change in the rank ordering of


cargo airports, especially Hong Kong and Memphis, highlights some critical factors determining airport cargo volumes. Although both airports are exceptionally well-managed, in some ways, they could not be more different. HKG’s cargo volumes have surged on its proximity to China’s booming Pearl River Delta—“the factory of the world”; the renewed strength of the global economy and Asia’s trend towards substantially greater use of air cargo. As Asia’s most connected international airport, Hong Kong also builds on the extensive route structure of its predominantly widebody passenger and cargo aircraft.


Memphis’ situation differs. Interestingly, international shipment volume at Memphis increased by 50% in 2010 over the previous year. This growth was actually more than that at Hong Kong’s, though from a much lower base since the mix of cargo at Memphis is heavily slanted towards domestic shipments.


GLOBAL AIRPORT CITIES


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52