Skip to main content

FOREWORD

Analysing and reporting air connectivity trends across the European airport network is something ACI EUROPE has been doing for more than 10 years. We do so by using a range of indicators measuring the performance of airports individually and at different levels of aggregation, along with the performance of European States and the contribution of the different airline business models to European air connectivity. For the first time, this report also introduces an additional air connectivity index – the Power City Access index, which brings in more qualitative input along with the usual quantitative measures.

Each year comes with valuable insights, and 2024 is no exception. If anything, this year’s report shows that air connectivity should not be taken for granted. Four years have passed since the onset of the pandemic, yet air connectivity levels have still not fully recovered. Also plain to see is the fact that structural changes in the aviation market and geopolitics are re-shaping air connectivity patterns, with significant performance gaps amongst both geographies and individual airport markets. In other words, there are winners and losers.

Looking ahead, there is no escaping the fact that the massive transition costs and disruptions involved in decarbonising aviation will increase the cost of flying, lower future demand growth and thus impact air connectivity. Along with climate action, airline consolidation and technological progress will also keep reshaping air connectivity.

These are all factors – or ‘air connectivity determinants’ – that policy makers at all levels should be paying attention to, for +10% increase in air connectivity automatically yields a +0.5% increase in GDP per capita.

Indeed, air connectivity is an essential part of competitiveness, be it at local, national or European level. And surely, the cohesion it enables within Europe and the access to external markets it affords are worth safeguarding and nurturing.

This means that we have no choice but to progress towards decarbonizing aviation while at the same time safeguarding the socio-economic benefits of air connectivity. Ultimately, this is also about securing wide societal and political support for climate action.

This is a major challenge, which Europe’s airports have embraced together with the whole aviation industry, as evidenced by the DESTINATION 2050 alliance. But there is no escaping the fact that the massive transition costs and disruptions involved in decarbonizing aviation require further political, regulatory, and financial support if we want to succeed.

Together with the whole ACI EUROPE team, I hope this report will not just be of use for our airport members, but also contribute to a better understanding of air connectivity dynamics for policy makers and regulators.

Olivier Jankovec

ACI EUROPE Director General 

AIRPORT INDUSTRY CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024

PASSENGER PERSPECTIVE OF AIR CONNECTIVITY

The “Airport Connectivity Index” is created by SEO Amsterdam Economics using their proprietary NetScan model.

Air connectivity is best considered from the perspective of the air traveller. The one who wants to get from A to B. Or sometimes, from A via B to C. The following definitions describe them and together they provide a comprehensive picture of connectivity provided by an airport – and how it links its communities to the rest of the world.

THE AIRPORT GROUPS

The airport grouping system is based on the total annual passengers in 2023.

  • Majors include airports with over 40 million passengers.
  • Mega airports consist of airports with 25 to 40 million passengers.
  • Large airports are comprised of airports with 10 to 25 million passengers.
  • Medium airports include airports with 1 to 10 million passengers.
  • Small airports cover airports with less than 1 million passengers.

A. Direct Connectivity

These are the direct air services available from the airport – measured not just in terms of destinations, but also factoring in the frequency of flights to the same destination (so for example, an airport with 5 daily flights to another airport, will register a higher score than one with only 4).

B. Indirect Connectivity

This measures the number of destinations available through an onward connecting flight at hub airports from a particular airport. For example, if you fly from Malaga, Spain to a hub airport such as Amsterdam Schiphol, that’s a direct flight from to A to B. But the large number of available onward connections from these second airports expands the range of destinations available from the airport of origin. Indirect connections are weighted according to their quality, based on connecting time and detour involved with the indirect routing. For example, a flight from Hamburg to Johannesburg via Frankfurt will register a higher score than an alternative routing via Doha, which is geographically a longer diversion from the direct flight path.

C. Airport Connectivity

As the name suggests, this is the most comprehensive metric for airport connectivity – taking into account both direct and indirect connectivity from the airport in question. Airport connectivity is defined as the sum of direct and indirect connectivity – thus measuring the overall level to which an airport is connected to the rest of the world, either by direct flights or indirect connections via other airports.

D. Hub Connectivity

Hub connectivity is the key metric for any hub airport, big or small, alongside their direct destinations offered. It measures the number of connecting flights that can be facilitated by the hub airport in question – taking into account a minimum and maximum connecting time, and weighing the quality of the connections by the detour involved and connecting times.

1. EUROPEAN AIR CONNECTIVITY – OVERVIEW

1. EUROPEAN AIR CONNECTIVITY – OVERVIEW

1. EUROPEAN AIR CONNECTIVITY – OVERVIEW

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

1. EUROPEAN AIR CONNECTIVITY – OVERVIEW

AIR CONNECTIVITY RECOVERY INCOMPLETE

NON-EU+ MARKET & INDIRECT AIR CONNECTIVITY UNDERPERFORMING

More than 4 years since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic total air connectivity (direct + indirect connectivity) remains -14% below pre-pandemic (2019) levels. While this is an improvement over last year’s performance (2023 at -16%), air connectivity keeps underperforming passenger volumes — which in Q1 2024 stood at just -1.3% below pre-pandemic.

The non-EU+ market is underperforming (-20%) compared to the EU+ market (-13%), mainly due to the impact of geopolitics, in particular:

  • The war in Ukraine: Ukrainian airports have lost all air connectivity, whilst those in Russia (-43%) and Belarus (-87%) keep reporting dramatic drops in their total air connectivity.
  • The conflict in Gaza: Israel (-42%) suffered major losses in total air connectivity.

The continued performance gap between direct connectivity (-8%) and indirect connectivity (-17%) reflects the evolving structure of the European aviation market — in particular the expansion of Ultra-Low Cost Carriers (LCCs) during the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and the relative retrenchment of Full Service Carriers (FSCs).

SIGNIFICANT PERFORMANCE GAPS AMONGST NATIONAL MARKETS

The structural changes in the aviation market – in particular the prominence of leisure & Visiting Friends & Relatives (VFR) demand and the expansion of Ultra-LCCs – as well as geopolitics are shaping the performance of individual national markets.

THE TEN-YEAR PERSPECTIVE

 

The evolution of air connectivity over the past decade shows the dramatic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as how structural aviation market changes and geopolitics are redefining air connectivity.

2. DIRECT CONNECTIVITY

2. DIRECT CONNECTIVITY

2. DIRECT CONNECTIVITY

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

2. DIRECT CONNECTIVITY

TOP 20 DIRECT CONNECTIVITY RANKING

TOP 20 DIRECT CONNECTIVITY RANKING

1
Istanbul (+9% since 2019) remains on top of the European ranking for direct connectivity, having moved up from the 5th position pre-pandemic (2019). The Turkish hub enjoys the best direct connectivity to the Middle East and second best to Asia-Pacific, with the latter having increased by +23% compared to last year.
2
Amsterdam-Schiphol (-6%) comes second, largely thanks to its excellent connectivity to Europe — although compared to last year, it has not seen its direct connectivity to Asia-Pacific (-1%) making gains and has also experienced a significant decrease in its direct connectivity to Latin America (-28%).
3
London-Heathrow (-2%) is now almost at the same level as Amsterdam-Schiphol and has nearly fully recovered its direct connectivity levels compared to pre-pandemic (2019). It remains unrivalled for its direct connectivity to North America, which is nearly twice that of its next competitor (Paris-CDG).
4
Paris-CDG (-8%) has moved up from the 5th to the 4th position this year. Compared to last year, the French hub has made significant gains in its direct connectivity to Asia-Pacific (+19%) and North America (+11%) — and is now the second best connected airport to both North America and Latin America, in addition to being the best connected airport to Africa.
5
Frankfurt (-16%) still remains some way off from recovering its direct connectivity. The German hub used to be in the top position before the pandemic (2019) and has further moved down from the 4th to the 5th position compared to last year.

Istanbul (+9% since 2019) remains on top of the European ranking for direct connectivity, having moved up from the 5th position pre-pandemic (2019). The Turkish hub enjoys the best direct connectivity to the Middle East and second best to Asia-Pacific, with the latter having increased by +23% compared to last year.

Amsterdam-Schiphol (-6%) comes second, largely thanks to its excellent
connectivity to Europe — although compared to last year, it has not seen its direct connectivity to Asia-Pacific (-1%) making gains and has also experienced a significant decrease in its direct connectivity to Latin America (-28%).

London-Heathrow (-2%) is now almost at the same level as Amsterdam-Schiphol and has nearly fully recovered its direct connectivity levels compared to pre-pandemic (2019). It remains unrivalled for its direct connectivity to North America, which is nearly twice that of its next competitor (Paris-CDG).

Paris-CDG (-8%) has moved up from the 5th to the 4th position this year. Compared to last year, the French hub has made significant gains in its direct connectivity to Asia-Pacific (+19%) and North America (+11%) — and is now the second best connected airport to both North America and Latin America, in addition to being the best connected airport to Africa.

Frankfurt (-16%) still remains some way off from recovering its direct connectivity. The German hub used to be in the top position before the pandemic (2019) and has further moved down from the 4th to the 5th position compared to last year.

Along with Istanbul, only the following airports have recovered and/or exceeded their pre-pandemic (2019) direct connectivity: Athens (+17%), Palma de Mallorca (+8%), Dublin (+3%), Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen (+3%), Lisbon (+3%) and Rome-Fiumicino (0%). This clearly reflects the evolving structure of the European aviation market — with both traffic and connectivity largely driven by leisure & VFR demand as well as the expansion of Low Cost Carriers (LCCs) and Turkish air carriers.

Compared to 2019, the impact of geopolitics is particularly evident for Moscow-Sheremetyevo (-37%), as the Russian hub has lost a significant share of its direct connectivity and thus went from the 8th to the 18th position.

When compared to last year, Moscow-Sheremetyevo (+27%) has experienced the highest increase in direct connectivity — reflecting traffic shifting and, to some extent, bouncing back away from the EU and North America. Rome-Fiumicino (+20%) also saw an impressive jump in its direct connectivity — thanks notably to a bumper increase in its direct connectivity to North America (+41%), resulting in the Italian hub joining the top 5 ranking of European airports with the best connectivity to that region. Along with Rome-Fiumicino, Munich (+14%), Athens (+12%) and Copenhagen (+10%) also posted significant gains in their direct connectivity.

TOP 5 Airports by Direct Connectivity

 

TO AFRICA

1
Paris – CDG
2
Paris – Orly
3
Istanbul
4
Brussels
5
Marseille

TO ASIA-PACIFIC

1
Almaty
2
Istanbul
3
London – Heathrow
4
Astana
5
Frankfurt

TO EUROPE

1
Amsterdam
2
Frankfurt
3
Istanbul
4
Madrid
5
Paris – CDG

TO LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN

1
Madrid
2
Paris-CDG
3
Lissabon
4
Amsterdam
5
London-Heathrow

TO MIDDLE EAST

1
Istanbul
2
Istanbul – SAW
3
London – Heathrow
4
Paris – CDG
5
Frankfurt

NORTH AMERICA

1
London – Heathrow
2
Paris – CDG
3
Frankfurt
4
Amsterdam
5
Rome
2. DIRECT CONNECTIVITY

BEST PERFORMANCES AMONGST LARGE, MEDIUM & SMALLER AIRPORTS

Despite impressive gains from some smaller airports, this segment of the airport industry has underperformed when it comes to recovering its direct, indirect and total connectivity. This reflects the fact airlines have generally favoured larger markets – with LCCs in particular developing medium sized ones where significant route development opportunities have arisen.

2. DIRECT CONNECTIVITY

REGIONAL VARIATIONS IN DIRECT CONNECTIVITY RECOVERY REMAIN

While intra-European direct connectivity has made further gains compared to last year, it still remains -9% below pre-pandemic (2019) levels, in part due to the impact of geopolitics with the war between Ukraine and Russia and the conflict in Gaza.

Direct connectivity to Asia-Pacific (-8%) remains below pre-pandemic (2019) levels, along with direct connectivity to Latin America (-9%).

Conversely, direct connectivity to Africa (+13%), the Middle East (+11%) and North America (+8%) all exceed pre-pandemic (2019) levels.

DIRECT CONNECTIVITY FROM EUROPEAN AIRPORTS BY WORLD REGIONS

3. HUB CONNECTIVITY

3. HUB CONNECTIVITY

3. HUB CONNECTIVITY

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

3. HUB CONNECTIVITY

Systemic hub shrinkage and weaker recovery in hub connectivity reflecting structural changes in aviation market and connectivity patterns

FRA | DFW | IST top the global hub connectivity ranking

Best hub connectivity performance amongst TOP 20 vs. 2019:
DOH | HND | IST

IST | LIS | ATH | SAW | DUB | KEF the only European hubs having recovered/exceeded their pre-pandemic hub connectivity levels

Hub connectivity is where we see the full value of air transport networks. In simple terms, for an airport that has a wave of 10 flights leaving at 10.00 am, one additional flight arriving at 09.00 am increases its hub connectivity by 10, reflective of the onward connecting options for passengers arriving on that additional flight.

Hub connectivity remains -18% below its pre-pandemic (2019) level this year, and thus keeps significantly underperforming against direct connectivity (-8%). Although the gap has narrowed somewhat over the past 3 years, this has been a consistent pattern in the recovery since 2020 — reflecting structural changes in the aviation market and thus pointing to changed connectivity patterns in Europe.

As was the case last year, 8 European airports are amongst the top 20 global airports for hub connectivity — along with 8 from North America, 2 from the Middle East and 2 from Asia-Pacific.

Frankfurt continues to be the top airport globally for hub connectivity — despite its hub connectivity remaining -23% below its pre-pandemic (2019) level. The airport has held this position every year since 2019 with the exception of 2021, when Dallas Fort Worth came on top.

Dallas Fort Worth (-4%) has replaced Istanbul in the second position this year, but the performance of the Turkish hub remains impressive with its hub connectivity having increased by +37% when compared to its pre-pandemic (2019) level.

Amongst the other airports in the top 20 global hub connectivity ranking, worth noting are:

  • The remarkable performances of Doha (+45%) and Tokyo-Haneda (+45%).
  • The significant decreases at Toronto (-50%), Amsterdam (-28%) and Chicago (-24%).

Looking at European airports specifically and leaving aside Istanbul (the only airport in the top 20 list having recovered and exceeded its pre-pandemic levels), Madrid (-2%) comes closest to a full recovery in hub connectivity, followed by Zurich (-5%) and London-Heathrow (-6%).

4. CONNECTIVITY & AIRLINE BUSINESS MODELS

4. CONNECTIVITY & AIRLINE BUSINESS MODELS

4. CONNECTIVITY & AIRLINE BUSINESS MODELS

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

AIRPORT INDUSTRY CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024

CONNECTIVITY & AIRLINE BUSINESS MODELS

An even closer look at European airports shows continued “hub shrinkage” and significant performance variations in terms of hub connectivity.

Conversely, the Secondary Hubs group has seen hub connectivity increasing by +21% when compared to last year, but remains -18% below its pre-pandemic level. When compared to last year, Rome-Fiumicino (+59%), Munich (+23%) and Zurich (+18%) have seen dynamic increases in their hub connectivity.

Looking at the Niche & Smaller Hubs2 group, Athens stands out — with a +38% increase in hub connectivity compared to last year and +73% compared to pre-pandemic (2019).

 

2 LIS, ATH, HEL, CPH, SAW, DUB, BCN, WAW, BRU, KEF, OSL, ARN, STN, LGW, GVA

  • LCCsdirect connectivity way above pre-pandemic levels — with the resulting increase focused on the wider middle of the airport market

  • FSCsdirect connectivity still below pre-pandemic levels across all segments of the airport market — with the decrease being particularly sharp at small airports

  • FSCs account for 76% of direct connectivity at the top 5 European airports (up two percentage points compared to 2019)

Testimony of the changing structure of the European aviation market is the fact that the direct connectivity offered by Low Cost Carriers (LCCs) has expanded by +18% since 2019, while the direct connectivity offered by Full Service Carriers (FSCs) has shrunk by -16%.

The same structural dynamic is also evident when looking at the performance of LCCs (+6%) and FSCs (+2%) over the past year.

LCCs now account for 47% of intra-European direct connectivity — up from 38% pre-pandemic (2019) and 31% back in 2014. LCCs have grown their intra-European direct connectivity by +11% since 2019, while FSCs have seen theirs decreasing by -21%.

Conversely, FSCs’ share of direct connectivity to North America remains predominant at 92% and these carriers now exceed their pre-pandemic level of direct connectivity to North America by +9%. LCCs are back to where they were pre-pandemic (2019) in terms of market share — and have increased their direct connectivity to the region by +6% since then.

5. ADJUSTED CONNECTIVITY: POWER CITY ACCESS INDEX

5. ADJUSTED CONNECTIVITY: POWER CITY ACCESS INDEX

5. ADJUSTED CONNECTIVITY: POWER CITY ACCESS INDEX

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

AIRPORT INDUSTRY CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024

ADJUSTED CONNECTIVITY:

POWER CITY ACCESS INDEX

SEO Amsterdam Economics has prepared for ACI EUROPE a measure that combines airport connectivity volumes with service sector linkages and the importance of cities: the Power City Access (PCA) Index.

The SEO NetScan model, used in this report to create the Airport Connectivity Indexes (direct, indirect, total and hub connectivity), focuses on how many destinations and frequencies a traveller has access to from their airport of choice. It thus provides a directly relevant and understandable way of measuring connectivity.

However, the SEO NetScan model does not take any metrics regarding the destinations into account. Put simply, two different airports may have a connectivity score of 1000 as a result of the number of flights offered. But if the first airport services only a few destinations, which are small cities with less economic output, industry, culture or tourism value, while the second airport serves a variety of destinations with high economic output, deep value chains, and tourism attractions, then arguably the second city has a higher quality of connectivity.

Evaluating that real-term value of connectivity requires a complex analysis of the scope, time frame and factors beyond the airport network. However, using the features of the destination as a weighted mark of value can offer another dimension of connectivity that factors in the human benefit of such connections.

Connectivity with “Power Cities”

There are multiple methods to weight or adjust connectivity based on this idea of quality. Two measures that are well established in the scientific literature are GDP and population of the destination region. However, these measures have drawbacks in terms of interpretation and calculation. For example, large airports tend to be located in wealthier regions with higher domestic product output, so using GDP as a quality adjustment inflates the scores of larger airports simply due to their size. This may not necessarily reflect a tangible benefit to the traveller in terms of destination alone.

The Power City Access index combines airport connectivity with its linkages to the service sector and the economic importance of the destinations. Based on the Globalisation and World Cities measure, a global city — also known as a power city, world city, alpha city, or world centre — is a city that serves as a primary node in global economic networks. While it is related to GDP and population, it also emphasises that the importance of a city as a relevant economic powerhouse is not captured by these measures alone. For example, a city in a developing country could be considered a power city if it is important to the origin of connectivity.

 

Power City Access by airport can provide many insights. Figure 1 gives an example for a few of the main airports in Europe:

  • London-Heathrow has the pole position in Power City Access as a combination of its own dominance in leading corporates’ presence with both quality and direct flights to cities with matching leading corporates of high importance. Only considering direct connectivity, London-Heathrow ranks 3rd.
  • Also boosted by the presence of top level firms, Paris-CDG ranks 2nd by Power City Access while on direct connectivity, the French hub ranks 4th.
  • Amsterdam-Schiphol airport outperforms in direct connectivity, but drops to 3rd place when weighted by access to global Power Cities.
  • Istanbul, while the leader in direct connectivity, takes the 6th position when ranked by Power City Access.

Smaller airports that manage to maximise their network from a quality point of view rank much higher in terms of Power City Access, despite relatively low direct connectivity. Examples of airports for which the Power City Access significantly outperforms their direct connectivity are reported below.

ACCESS THE FULL REPORT

ACCESS THE FULL REPORT

ACCESS THE FULL REPORT

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

CONNECTIVITY REPORT 2024 

Our full report contains more detailed analysis and insights.

You can access the full report below.

ACCESS THE FULL REPORT

For the 11th year, ACI EUROPE published its annual European Airport Industry Connectivity Report — a comprehensive overview and analysis on airport connectivity measured in many dimensions. The report is based on data from SEO’s NetScan connectivity model.

ACI EUROPE is the European region of Airports Council International (ACI), the only worldwide professional association of airport operators.

ACI EUROPE represents over 500 airports in 55 countries. Our members facilitate over 90% of commercial air traffic in Europe. Air transport supports 13.5 million jobs, generating €886 billion in European economic activity (4.4% of GDP). In response to the Climate Emergency, in June 2019 our members committed to achieving Net Zero carbon emissions for operations under their control by 2050, without offsetting.

Released on 2 July 2024, ahead of the 34th ACI EUROPE Annual Congress & General Assembly in Istanbul, Türkiye.

Please note that with the 2024 release the methodology was updated to include all airports in the ACI EUROPE region as the aggregation basis for overall values. In the past, these values included solely ACI EUROPE member airports; therefore values have been occasionally restated resulting in an increased accuracy and overall depiction of the state of European airports’ connectivity.