Airport Planning and Management

This study focuses on the planning and management of airports, specifically Hong Kong Airport and Changi Airport. It analyzes their organizational structures, conducts SWOT and Porter's Five Forces analysis, and discusses their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The study concludes that the future growth of these airports depends on government planning and infrastructure development.

Running head: AIPRORT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
AIPRORT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1AIPRORT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Introduction
The study is in regards to understanding the aspects connected with planning and
management of airports. The Honk Kong Airport of Hong Kong and Changi Airport of
Singapore have been focused on to understand the factors that determine the effectiveness of
operational management across airports. The organizational structures of the two airports are
assessed. The two Airports have been evaluated through systematic analysis involving SWOT
and Porter’s Five Forces.
HK airport SWOT Analysis
Strength
The significant strength of the Hong Kong Airport is that it serves as a gateway for passengers
across 45 destinations of mainland China and other areas of Asia. The Airport is administered by
the Airport Authority of Hong Kong. It is the hub of Cathay Pacific Airlines which is the flag
carrier of the Country (Hong Kong International Airport 2019). Another significant strength is
that the airport is run by the Airport Authority of Hong Kong.
Weakness
The Airport is located at a small island making expansion of the Airport a challenging task. The
airport is divided into two terminals that is currently unable to handle excessive passenger traffic.
Opportunity
The growth opportunities in the future are good for the airport. The midfield site would be the
area that is to be developed to incorporate 20 gate concourse of passengers. Meaning that a much
larger passenger traffic can be managed.

2AIPRORT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Threats
Delay in implementation of the government plans can result in the loss of business for the
Airport. If the scheduled work is not completed by 2020, the passengers can decrease.
HK Airport Porter’s Five Forces
Bargaining power of customers
It is one of the most important airline hubs of Hong Kong. The customers bargaining
power is low.
Bargaining power of suppliers
The bargaining power of suppliers are moderate to high as the same suppliers provide
materials to other airports in South Asia.
Threat of new entrants
Apart from the Shek long airfield there are no other threat of new entrants. The threat of
new entrants is low.
Competitors
In the South East Asian region there other significant competitors such as Kualalumpur
airport, Changi Airport that can pose a major threat.
Substitute products
The port of Hong Kong is a major substitute area for the Airport. Hong Kong has a long
history of being a significant waterway in the South East Asia.

3AIPRORT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Changi Airport SWOT Analysis
Strength
Changi Airport located in Singapore and one of the largest hubs of air transportation in
the country and South East Asia. It is the home of the Singapore airlines, Jetstar Asia, SilkAir
and many other airline companies. The airline serves 100 airlines across 400 cities in 100
nationalities (Bok 2015).
Weakness
Some of the major changes to optimize the functional effectiveness of the organization is
scheduled to take another decade. The airport had faced significant downturn due to the SARS
outbreak.
Opportunity
Upon completion of the terminal 5 the Airport can increase its capacity to effectively
handle passenger movement of 50 million (Changiairport.com 2019). The Jewel Changi Airport
can provide increased effectiveness of the organization.
Threats
The major threat is the long amount of time it can take to complete the scheduled
changes. This can affect the essential growth of the organization.
Changi Airport Porter’s Five Forces
Bargaining power of customers

4AIPRORT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
The bargaining power of customers is low as Changi is one of the largest and efficient
Airports in the South East Asia.
Bargaining power of suppliers
The suppliers in this case are the cargo providers, the various airlines and the raw
material providers. Changi being one of the largest Airports, the Bargaining power is low.
Threat of new entrants
There are no new entrants that can be threat to the business of the Changi Airport. Hence,
the threat is low. In the south east Asian region no new airports have been opened recently.
Competitors
One of the biggest competitors in the South East Asian region is Soekarno-Hatta
international Airport in Jakarta (Li and Loo 2016). The Airport has grown its business recently to
surpass the airport in South East Asia. Hence, the threat of Competition is high.
Substitute products
The Singapore port is one of the most important ports in the country with a long history. It can
provide similar revenue to the country in terms of estimation of cargo. Thus, it can be said that
the threat of substitute products are also high.
Conclusion
It can be said that the future growth of both the Hong Kong and Changi Airport depends
on the government planning to move the infrastructural development of these organizations

5AIPRORT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
further. More importantly, it becomes crucial that the airport lives up to the reputation it has been
able to garner.

6AIPRORT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
References
Bok, R., 2015. Airports on the move? The policy mobilities of Singapore Changi Airport at
home and abroad. Urban Studies, 52(14), pp.2724-2740.
Changiairport.com, 2019. EN. [online] Changiairport.com. Available at:
<http://www.changiairport.com/corporate.html>
Hong Kong International Airport, 2019. Passengers - Hong Kong International Airport. [online]
Hong Kong International Airport. Available at: <https://www.hongkongairport.com/>
Li, L. and Loo, B.P., 2016. Impact analysis of airport infrastructure within a sustainability
framework: Case studies on Hong Kong International Airport. International Journal of
Sustainable Transportation, 10(9), pp.781-793.