Approach to Hub Design by Leah Dupuis

Approach to Hub Design India

Dr Emre Serpen, Executive Vice President ,Intervistas Mr Joeri Aulman, Director Naco Airneth Delhi Conference, 5 April 2011

Overview of Hub Design Process • Competitive analysis of demand and supply Situation • Benchmark competing hubs Analysis' • SWOT and targets for hub design/improvement

Market Forecast

Hub Design

• Top down and bottom up market forecast • Analysis of future markets: growth, yield,

• Airline service design criteria and scenario formulation • Hub Design to maximise revenue/contribution

• System improvement and consolidation Multi Hub • Multi hub system design Design

Con straints

• Establish constraints • Develop and value impacts

Does hub have sufficient S curve effect ? •

High yielding business passengers, prefer airlines that offer the most frequency in a given O&D markets

•

Market dominance, is a an airline’s ability to achieve a passenger or revenue share in excess of its capacity share

•

Dominant airlines typically have positive share gaps, and achieve yield premiums vs. competitors.: S curve effect Revenue Share 100%

75%

S-Curve Effect 50%

25%

S-Curve Effect 0% 25%

50%

75%

Capacity Share

100%

Overview of Indian airports

#1 Mumbai YE(BOM) JUNE 2010

#2 Delhi (DEL) 2011 YE JUNE

Delhi (DEL) Other 18%

Emirates 2%

Delhi (DEL) NACIL 22%

Other 18% Emirates 2% Go Air 6%

Go Air 4% SpiceJet 10%

Jet Airways 20%

IndiGo 10%

Jet Airways 19%

SpiceJet 10%

Kingfisher 14%

IndiGo 11%

Mumbai (BOM) Emirates 3%

Other 15%

Kingfisher 12%

Mumbai (BOM) Jet Airways 30%

Go Air 5%

Emirates 3%

Other 15%

Jet Airways 29%

Go Air 5% NACIL 20%

SpiceJet 7% IndiGo 7%

NACIL 22%

Kingfisher 13%

Source: OAG July 2009 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; June 2011, NACIL Includes Air India, Air India Express and Indian Airlines, Jet Airways includes Jet Lite

SpiceJet 8% IndiGo 9%

Kingfisher 13%

NACIL 18%

Overview of Indian Airports

YE JUNE 2010

YE JUNE 2011

Chennai (MAA) Other 21%

Chennai (MAA) Jet Airways 24%

Other 18%

Jet Airways 25%

SriLankan Emirates 2%

SriLankan 2%

Emirates 4% Kingfisher 10% IndiGo 6%

NACIL 25%

SpiceJet 8%

Kingfisher 9% IndiGo 10%

Hyderabad (HYD) Qatar Airways 1% Emirates 5%

Other 9%

IndiGo 17%

SpiceJet 15%

SpiceJet 12%

Hyderabad (HYD)

Jet Airways 18%

Kingfisher 15%

NACIL 20%

Source: OAG July 2009 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; June 2011, NACIL Includes Indian Airlines, Air India, and Air India Express, Jet Airways includes Jet Lite

Qatar Airways Emirates 1% 5%

Other 9%

Kingfisher 11%

SpiceJet 18%

Jet Airways 19%

IndiGo 19% NACIL 18%

Comparison with other hubs worldwide we see a dominant carrier with leading share

38%

41% London LHR

46% Chicago ORD

53%

Amsterdam Frankfurt Paris

44%

57%

Newark

21%

49%

Atlanta

59% 53%

Abu 67% Dhabi

Dubai

Beijing

Delhi

47% Shanghai

Mumbai

Hong Kong 35%

22% Singapore

24%

Source: OAG Apr 2009,

42%

Benchmark competing hubs: identify opportunities and weaknesses Nonstop Competition from Comparative Hubs

Total Seat Capacity (Millions)

Total Capacity at Major Hubs over time 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1.1% 5.2%

10.0%

10.5% 34.1%

36.4% 46.2%

36.0%

46.1% 20.9%

22.0%

58.4% 43.4%

CDG

FRA

MUC

43.4%

44.0% 32.0%

TK - IST AF - CDG LH- FRA EK - DXB SQ - SIN No Competition 1 Competitor 2-4 Competitors 3+ Competitors

Quarter

DXB

EK - DXB

Total Seats Capacity 45

160

140

120

100

15 10

Total Seat Capacity AF*/LH* (Millions)

Total Seat Capacity EK/SQ/TK (Millions)

10.3%

Region Africa Domestic Europe Far East Latin America Middle East North America Oceania South Asia TOTAL

SQ - SIN

Destinatio Frequencie Countries ns s 16 18 159 0 0 0 13 24 288 9 12 168

Countries 2 0 11 11

Destinatio Frequencie ns s 3 14 0 0 14 100 18 344

1 10

1 13

7 200

0 3

0 5

0 32

2 2 5 58

5 6 17 96

38 98 275 1,233

1 2 4 34

5 7 9 61

45 113 69 717

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 EK

AF*

LH*

Comparison of circuitry (un-directional) advantage of own hub with other hubs

PVG

DOH

DEL DXB

TPE

HKG BOM BKK

KUL SIN

Average One-Stop Circuitry From Europe and North America to Asia Circuitry 56%

60% 50%

49% 44%

40%

40% 30%

41%

39%

36% 35%

24% 17%

20%

17%

14%

10% 0% SIN

PVG

HKG

DXB

BKK

BOM Hub

Source: Great Circle Distance calculator; Note: Circuitry represents pct. diff. in distance between a non-stop flight vs. connection over a given hub. For trips from the 20 largest inter-regional origins (by seats) in North America (blue) and Europe (green) to the 20 largest hubs in Asia and Australia (by seats)

Review competing hub structures in detail and identify opportunities leveraging strengths of own hub Hub Wave Pattern at SIN by Region (SQ) 8

Arrivals

2 0 -2 -4

-6 -8 -10

Departures -12 0:00

1:00

2:00

Domestic

3:00

Africa

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Caribbean/Central/South America

Europe

Far East

Middle East

Hub Wave Pattern at DXB by Region (EK)

North America

Oceania

South Asia

Arrivals

Average Daily Departures / Arrivals

Completion Time of day advantage Non stop advantage

Average Daily Departures / Arrivals

-5

-10

Departures -15 0:00

1:00

Domestic

2:00

3:00

Africa

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Caribbean/Central/South America

Europe

Far East

Middle East

North America

Oceania

South Asia

Identify changes in region and market level in both demand, supply, considering circuitry and yield RegionRegion EU-NO NO-EU AP-AF AF-AP

Circuitry 108% 109% 107% 106%

Relative growth of region to region flows considering yield and circuitry

Benchmark connectivity with key competitors considering yield

Historical growth O/D growth

Relative growth of airline market share share compared to O/D market flow considering yield and circuitry

Yield Aug-09 8.8 8.7 9.4 9.4

Onboard O&D Aug-09 Aug-10 869,909 1,019,118 835,797 986,496 657,943 703,314 655,028 701,660

Aug-10 9.0 9.1 9.3 9.3

Industry O&D Aug-10 Aug-10 8,330,229 8,479,367 8,330,229 8,479,367 5,776,835 5,630,906 5,776,835 5,630,906

Region EU-EU LA-EU EU-NO AP-EU

Connect Markets CDG-MED DAM-MXP PEK-ODS BKK-TLV

Connect Markets BKK-ARN PEK-TIP IKA-YYZ ALG-MED

Service Share

Jan-09 0.8% 0.6% 1.4% 50.2%

Jan-10 0.9% 0.7% 1.3% 100.0%

2005 87 1,452 847

2006 391 35 2,050 1,294

O&D Share

2009 2.0% 1.6% 7.3% 86.0%

Growth A1 Share A1 Industry of Industry 17.2% 1.8% 12% 18.0% 1.8% 12% 6.9% -2.5% 12% 7.1% -2.5% 12%

A1 6.2 9.4 9.1 9.5

A2 6.6 9.2 9.1 9.1

2007 853 29 1,195 2,308

A3 Yield 8.5 9.6 11.0 9.1 10.6 9.0 8.8 9.3

2008 793 56 1,539 3,745

% Change

2010 Service O&D 3.3% 8% 61% 2.9% 4% 79% 8.9% -9% 23% 86.3% 99% 0%

2009 1,717 2,347 2,539 3,679

2010 2,566 2,561 2,528 2,499

CCt 101% 101% 110% 117%

O&D 6,786 5,968 5,674 5,196

Focus on city pairs we want to develop/improve

Yield 3.0 3.0 2.8 7.7

Identify changes in region and market level in both •

100 o/d thru the hub, relative changes of share of different airlines – given the hub advantage of the home airline

30%

% Passenger Change by Carrier

20%

•

Relative market share growth of the hub carrier compared with overall O/D market growth Growing share of growing O/D Reducing share of growing O/D Growing share of reducing O/D Reducing share of reducing O/D

• • • •

10% 0% -10% -20%

•

City Pair

Above analysis vis a vis hub carrier’s share and average O/D fares

Total O&D Pax

A1 O&D Pax

A1 market share Total O&D market

2009

2010

2009

2010

2009

2010

AUH - KUL

316,744

375,481

1,078

527

0.3%

0.1%

BKK - DOH

236,195

236,616

11,824

7,020

5.0%

AUH - SIN

162,075

199,025

165

186

0.1%

AUH - BKK

150,334

161,140

283

206

0.2%

-30%

Market growth A1 A1 share Total market growth (in pct. points) 2009

Average fares in US$ A1 Total market

2009

2010

393

389

18.5%

-51.1%

-0.2%

444

345

3.0%

0.2%

-40.6%

-2.0%

181

162

184

161

0.1%

22.8%

12.7%

0.0%

957

608

1065

416

0.1%

7.2%

-27.2%

-0.1%

978

253

1071

412

Review competing hub structures in detail and identify opportunities leveraging strengths of own hub

Hub improvement by definition is in future, and environment analysis focused on present and past is insufficient Market forecast should include both long term and (GDP driven) and short term (Paxis, Calibrated MIDT driven) elements •Base year O&D market sizes •Point of Sale by origin and destination country shares for each O&D market •GNI Growths for each origin and destination country* •GNI Multiplier: GNI Growth/Passenger Growth for each country

Markets are forecast on an airport O&D pair basis, and then summarized for the city pair, and then for the country pair basis

Review competing hub structures in detail and identify opportunities leveraging strengths of own hub Objective is to focus on large, fast growth, high yield third/fourth freedom, and good circuitry, and fifth and sixth freedom O/D Examples Further to market forecast slice and dice to identify markets for scenario development, following are examples • • • • • • • • • • •

Largest region to region markets Largest and Fastest growing region to region markets Largest country to country markets Largest and Fastest growing country to country markets Fastest growth X largest markets (prioritize by product of fastest growth and largest markets) Prioritize by largest markets Prioritize by fastest growth markets Prioritize by fastest growth X largest markets that airline is not flying Prioritize by largest markets that airline is not flying Prioritize by fastest growth X largest markets that airline is not flying Given the growth and strategic fit, identify largest airport that airline is not flying

Country Flows Kuwait -India India-Saudi Arabia India-United Kingdom India-Indonesia Australia-UK

Airport Markets COK-DXB CAN-DXB BKK-DXB BKK-BOM

2010 2,000 1,900 1,300 1,200 900

YTD

2014 3,500 3,300 2,400 2,300 1,500

2014 520 580 400 270

1,000 1,000 800 500

Yield CAGR 180 10% 250 11% 170 10% 170 11% 180 9%

Yield 250 150 120 400

CAGR 12% 10% 11% 12%

Overview of the hub design principles

Design process schedule is a generator of alternatives, and selection of the best fit. Ideally, this is a combination of different optimization tools Selecting the Best Hub Structure Requires Definition Alternative competing hub structures and selection of the best structure that leads to the optimal outputs

Peer Hub Bank Time Comparison AF @ CDG

LH @ FRA

EK @ DXB

BDI

1.50

3.75

3.17

BDO

1.57

3.88

3.50

MCT

1.00

0.75

BDT

4.07

8.38

7.42

# Banks

Source: OAG, July 12-18, 2010

Deliverable #4 – Hub Design Analysis 3. Overview of the Criteria – BDT Bi-directional versus Omni Directional Hubs

Hub Wave Pattern at DXB (EK)

Hub Wave Pattern at DTW (DL) 20

Arrivals

15 Average Daily Departures / Arrivals

Average Daily Departures / Arrivals

-20

-40

5 0 -5 -10

Departures

-60

-15 -20

-80

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Time of Day (Local)

Time of Day (Local) EK



DL’s DTW hub is bi-directional (east-west) and has a 9-wave pattern



EK’s DXB hub is omni-directional and has a 3-wave pattern



Bi-directional hubs typically have 6+ waves in their daily hub structure



This type of structure is most commonly found in U.S. hubs

Omni-directional hubs are more commonly found in European, Gulf and Asian hub patterns and typically have 37 waves per day Source: OAG, July 12-18, 2010

Impact of capacity constraints

Hub Wave Pattern at CDG (AF) 40 30

Arrivals

Hub Wave Pattern at FRA (LH) 30

Arrivals 20 Average Daily Departures / Arrivals

Average Daily Departures / Arrivals

20 10 0 -10

-10

-20

Departures

-30

Departures

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Time of Day (Local) LH

-40 -50 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Source: OAG, July 12-18, 2010

Time of Day (Local) AF OA

Capacity constraints limit spiked bank patterns, resulting in a more flattened design pattern serves many connections involving long-haul flights using wide body aircraft A trade-off exists between bank overlap and number of connections Revenue benefit of longer connections gained offsets revenue lost by bank overlap

LH’s FRA hub has four waves; AF’s CDG hub has 7 waves

. Cont’d) Depeaking to reduce operational costs

Hub Wave Pattern at DFW (AA) 50 40

Arrivals

Average Daily Departures / Arrivals

30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30

Departures

-40 -50 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 Time of Day (Local) AA



AA employs a continuous, or rolling wave pattern at it’s primary (largest) hub at DFW



The operational efficiency benefits of this structure outweigh the financial benefits of increased directional connectivity

Source: OAG, July 12-18, 2010

Delhi is geographically positioned to provide direct routings to the greatest number of 6th Freedom markets, when compared to major hubs like Dubai and Singapore

Europe DEL DOH DXB

CCU

AUH

HYD

BOM

East Asia & Oceania

MAA

BLR

SIN Number of 6th Freedom Markets between East Asia & Oceania and Europe with <130% Circuity1,2 50

47 44

DEL is also better located than other major Indian airports to connect Asia & Oceania with Europe

42 38

35 32

DEL

DXB

AUH

DOH

CCU

BOM

HYD

MAA

BLR

SIN

Source: Industry Data Notes: 1/ Analyzed Top 100 6th Freedom O&Ds between East Asia/Oceania and Europe; 2/ 130% circuitry means that the total flown distance between two cities via the hub is 30% greater than the nonstop distance

Delhi Hub Growth Hub Wave Pattern at DEL (NACIL) - July 2001 10

Arrivals

Average Daily Departures / Arrivals

8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4

Departures -6 -8

Time of Day (Local)

ď ąGrowth without a well defined hub structure

Hub Wave Pattern at DEL (NACIL) - July 2006 15

ď ąOpportunities lost for connecting markets and growth opportunities for 6th freedom traffic

Average Daily Departures / Arrivals

Arrivals 10

-5

-10

Departures

-15

Time of Day (Local)

Source: OAG, July 9-15, 2010

Delhi Hub Growth

Hub Wave Pattern at DEL (NACIL) - July 2011 25

 Accelerated growth Growth of bank structure yet to emerge Some carriers will implement hub structure

Average Daily Departures / Arrivals

Arrivals

15 10 5 0

-5 -10 -15

Departures -20 -25

Time of Day (Local) AI

Source: OAG, July 11-17, 2011

Hub design and optimisation

Overbuild – maximise margins Lang haul flights optimisation Medium to short haul flights optimisation Within bank flight optimisation Stagelength (Hrs) 14

Maximising connection of high yield markets

Optimise hub connectivity

DEL

2 Time at Base (IST)

LHR

BUD

LHR

BUD

0600 0630 0700 0730 0800 0830 0900 0930 1000 1030 1100 1130 1200 1230 1300 1330 1400 1430 1500 1530 1600 1630 1700 1730 1800 1830 1900 1930 2000 2030 2100

BOM, BLR and HYD are the strongest hubs in terms of location for Regional International markets

Europe DEL DOH DXB AUH

CCU HYD

BOM

East Asia & Oceania

MAA

BLR

SIN Number of India Regional Markets with <130% Circuity1,2 35 30 30 25 25

5 0

BOM

BLR

HYD

COK

CCJ

MAA

TRV

DEL

CCU

Source: Industry Data Notes: 1/ 130% circuity means that the total flown distance between two cities via the hub is 30% greater than the nonstop distance 2/ Top 50 Regional O&Ds were analyzed, accounting for 78% of all Regional O&D traffic

On the Regional International Routes, DEL and BOM show a similar pattern, attracting a similar number of destinations Comparative assessment of Indian Airports Number of Destinations

35 Middle East

Asia

25 13

20 15

16 10

10 1

5 6

MAA

BLR

6 3

Weekly Frequencies

DEL

BOM

312

353

Source: OAG July 2009 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; June 2011

178

HYD 89

CCU 61

Criteria for evaluating hubs

Primary Hubs

Secondary Hubs

Evaluation Criteria

Minimum Requirement

Evaluation Criteria

Minimum Requirement

Intl O&D demand

>1.5 million annual pax in 2008

Regional O&D demand

>1 million annual pax in 2008

Dom O&D demand

>1.5 million annual pax in 2008

Dom O&D demand

>1 million annual pax in 2008

Good circuity for 6th Freedom markets

>30 of top markets <130% circuity

Good circuity for regional markets

>20 of top regional markets <130% circuity

Potential for strong presence

achieves ranking in top 2 by seat share

Good circuity for domestic markets

>20 of top domestic markets <130% circuity

Apt capacity for hubbing

>40 gates available simultaneously

Apt capacity for hubbing

>20 gates available simultaneously

Apply criteria to hubs in India: Example

= Meets criteria

Only BOM and DEL satisfy all of the criteria to be a Primary Hub

Constraints – Current Current Levels @ 60

48 50 43 45 43 55 51 45 48 42 42 45 48 40 38 ATM 36 39 41 37

40 20

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Source: InterVISTAS Analysis

Airport AMS AUH BKK CAI DOH DTW DXB FRA HKG IAH ICN IST KUL MSP MUC NRT PHL SAW SEA SIN

Standard Hub Carrier #1 Hub Carrier #2 HC1 HC2 D-D D-I I-D I-I D-D D-I I-D I-I D-D D-I I-D I-I KL 25 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 EY 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 60 TG 30 120 120 75 30 90 90 45 MS 30 90 90 90 60 60 60 60 QR 20 60 60 60 20 60 60 30 DL 45 60 90 60 30 40 75 75 EK 20 60 60 75 20 60 60 45 LH 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 CX n/a n/a n/a 60 n/a n/a n/a 50 CO 45 60 60 75 30 30 50 50 KE OZ 40 100 100 70 40 70 100 45 40 70 90 45 TK 30 90 75 60 45 75 75 60 60 60 60 60 DL 40 40 60 60 30 40 75 75 LH 45 45 45 45 30 30 30 30 JL NH 30 100 100 60 20 100 90 60 20 100 100 60 US 40 90 90 90 30 50 90 90 TK 20 60 60 60 30 45 45 45 AS 70 70 90 90 40 40 80 80 SQ n/a n/a n/a 60 n/a n/a n/a 50

Evaluation of future delays 120.0

Normal Probability Plot

Growth of constrained hubs will expend delays Establish baseline in terms of correlating delays to ATM Values of constraints

100.0

80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0

Avg. Delay * 2010)

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

Sample Percentile

30 25 20 15 10 5

100

ATM as a % of current ATM

120

140

160

100.0

120.0

How to develop a Hub Airport

Bejing Capital International Airport

NACO: From Land Use Plan to Master plan: Beijing Capital International Airport, China

Followed by NACO i.a.w. Foster & Arup winning the design competition for the Midfield T3.

How to develop a Hub Airport

Development of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

1950s

1960s

2000s

2020s

1980s

DEVELOPMENT OF A MASTER PLAN

Up to one generation Medium term Present Situation

• Analyses • Forecasts

Implementation Steps

• Conceptual design • Design • Construction • Operation • Management

Master Plan

• Development scenarios • Land dedications • Medium term strategy

“Ultimate” Stage

• Reservations • Regional zoning • Land acquisitions • Long term development options

TERMINAL CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES

ď &#x2018; Terminal Concept according to land use plan and

facility sizing ď &#x2018; Analyze alternatives (strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities) Develop Abu Dhabi 1. International Airport 2. Evaluate 3. Select the best

Princess Juliana International Airport

India

Office Project

Worldwide Airport Consultants Our mission is to provide multidisciplinary, multilevel services and leading-edge solutions for the sustainable development of the aviation sector. We aim to bridge the gap between strategy and operations and economical and technical aspects. We offer • One stop shop approach • Integrated expertise to provide multi-level services • Independent advice

Services NACO and InterVISTAS are your partners for providing integrated strategic, operational and technical solutions. For over 60 years the companies have been at the forefront of airport development.

CONSULTANCY & STUDIES

PLANNING & CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

DESIGN & ENGINEERING

REALISATION

OPERATIONS

5.2% (5.0%)

North America

Europe 11.2% (11.5%)

33.1% (37.2%) 5.3% (5.5%)

53.3% (53.3%)

Asia

2.5% (2.5%)

11.8% (9.3%) 2.3% (2.0%)

Middle East

5.8% (5.3%)

1.2% (1.0%)

Central America

1.9% (1.9%) 3.7% (3.9%)

2.8% (2.8%)

0.6% (0.7%)

1.1% (1.1%)

Africa

South Pacific 0.6% (0.4%)

0.8% (0.8%)

South Ame rica 1.3% (1.2%)

Business Planning

Privatizations Strategy Developments

Air Service Development

Integrated Process Planning

Airport System Optimisation

Terminal Design & Engineering

Retail Development Master Planning

Economics, Regulatory & Logistics Traffic Forecast & Market Analysis

Supervision

Transportation Planning & Economics

Airside / Landside Design & Engineering

We assist you with defining and realizing your ambitions. Translating your vision into sustainable and concrete implementation plans

NACO-InterVISTAS in India (2)

Public-Private Partnerships & Finance  MOPA Greenfield Goa Airport – Air Traffic Forecast  Mumbai International Airport – Bid Services Master Planning  Mumbai International Airport – Master Plan  Bangalore International Airport – Master Plan Update  Jaipur DMIC Aerotropolis – Master Plan

Airport Engineering  BIAL MRO Plot – Leveling & Utility Study Airport Design  Gulbarga Terminal Design  CSC Greenfield Cargo Terminal, IGIA – Architectural Design & Landside Planning  MRO Bid Design, IGIA

NACO-InterVISTAS in India (2)

NACO-InterVISTAS in the world (1)

NACO-InterVISTAS in the world (2)

How to develop a Hub Airport

King Abdulaziz International Airport