ANNEX 5: REPORT 5 - MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL
       AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL PPP’S
     MASTER PLAN STUDY FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS
DEVELOPMENT AND IDENTIFICATION OF A PIPELINE OF POTENTIAL PUBLIC-
                    PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS




                             PRESENTED TO:
                           THE WORLD BANK
   EGYPTIAN HOLDING COMPANY FOR AIRPORTS AND AIR NAVIGATION (EHCAAN)




                             PRESENTED BY:




                           In association with




                            DECEMBER 2018
MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT             DECEMBER 2018
AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

VERSION HISTORY

 Version #      Developed by            Date                  Description
    1.0        IOS Partners, Inc.   <15/09/2018>          Draft Version – Part 1
    1.1        IOS Partners, Inc.   <30/11/2018>              Final Version
    1.2        IOS Partners, Inc.   <30/12/2018>    Final Version revised in line with
                                                           Client’s comments




IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                            REPORT 5 - PAGE | 2
  MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                                                                                                     DECEMBER 2018
  AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                                                                                TABLE OF CONTENTS



APPROVAL ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................ 8

DISCLAIMER ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 9

1.      INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................. 10
     1.1.        OVERALL PROGRAM AND ASSIGNMENT BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 10
     1.2.        PURPOSE OF REPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 10
     1.3.        APPROACH ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

2.      AIRPORT MASTERPLAN ................................................................................................................................................... 13
     2.1.        IDENTIFICATION OF AIRPORT CAPACITY .......................................................................................................................... 13
     2.1.1.      Level of Service ............................................................................................................................................................................... 15
     2.1.2.      Selected Approach and Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 16
     2.2.        ASSESSMENT OF EGYPTIAN AIRPORT SECTOR ................................................................................................................ 18
     2.2.1.      Classification of Airports ............................................................................................................................................................ 18
     2.2.2.      Airport Types ................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
     2.3.        SPATIAL AND FUNCTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................................... 21
     2.3.1.      Assessment of Future Facility Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 21
     2.3.2.      Separation of Flows ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24
     2.3.3.      Terminal Buildings Security Zones ......................................................................................................................................... 24
     2.4.        DEMAND/CAPACITY AND REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 25
     2.4.1.      Airport Site Visits and Data Collection.................................................................................................................................. 25
     2.4.2.      Cairo International Airport ....................................................................................................................................................... 26
     2.4.3.      Borg El-Arab International Airport ....................................................................................................................................... 35
     2.4.4.      Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport ................................................................................................................................ 41
     2.4.5.      Hurghada International Airport ............................................................................................................................................. 47
     2.4.6.      Marsa Alam International Airport ......................................................................................................................................... 52
     2.4.7.      Assiut Airport .................................................................................................................................................................................. 58
     2.4.8.      Sohag International Airport ..................................................................................................................................................... 62
     2.4.9.      Luxor International Airport ...................................................................................................................................................... 67
     2.4.10.          Aswan International Airport ............................................................................................................................................... 72
     2.4.11.          Abu Simbel Airport .................................................................................................................................................................. 76
     2.4.12.          Small Airports ............................................................................................................................................................................ 80
     2.5.        PRELIMINARY INVESTMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 85
     2.5.1.      Borg El Arab (HBE)....................................................................................................................................................................... 86
     2.5.2.      Sharm El Sheik (SSH) ................................................................................................................................................................... 87
     2.5.3.      Hurghada (HRG) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 89
  IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                                                                                           REPORT 5 - PAGE | 3
  MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                                                                                                             DECEMBER 2018
  AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

    2.5.4.        Marsa Alam (RMF) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 90
    2.5.5.        Aysut ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91
    2.5.6.        Sohag (HMB) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 92
    2.5.7.        Luxor (LXR) ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 93
    2.5.8.        Aswan (ASW)................................................................................................................................................................................... 93
    2.5.9.        Cairo (CAI)........................................................................................................................................................................................ 94
    2.5.10.            Overall Investment Plan ........................................................................................................................................................ 94
    3.        PPP PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 96
    3.1.          PPP SCREENING METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 96
    3.2.          STEP ONE FINANCIAL SCREENING ........................................................................................................................................ 98
    3.2.1.        Approach........................................................................................................................................................................................... 98
    3.2.2.        Borg El-Arab Airport (HBE) .................................................................................................................................................... 101
    3.2.3.        Sharm El-Sheik Airport (SSH)................................................................................................................................................. 102
    3.2.4.        Hurghada Airport (HRG) .......................................................................................................................................................... 102
    3.2.5.        Aysut Airport (AZT) .................................................................................................................................................................... 103
    3.2.6.        Upper Egypt Airports ................................................................................................................................................................. 103
    3.2.7.        Cairo International Airport (CAI) ......................................................................................................................................... 104
    3.3.          STEP-ONE PRIORIZATION OF PROJECTS ........................................................................................................................... 105




                                                                                          LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Level of Service Definitions ................................................................................................................................15
Table 2 – National Airport System.......................................................................................................................................19
Table 3 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Cairo International Airport......................27
Table 4 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Cairo International Airport ................................................27
Table 5 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Cairo International Airport ................29
Table 6 – Gate Occupancy Times (in minutes) ...............................................................................................................31
Table 7 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for the Cairo International Airport ..............................31
Table 8 – Gross Area per Aircraft Code .............................................................................................................................32
Table 9 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Cairo International Airport ......................................32
Table 10 – Types of Cargo Terminals .................................................................................................................................34
Table 11 – Air Cargo Area Requirements by Planning Periods ...............................................................................35
Table 12 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Borg El-Arab International Airport ...36
Table 13 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Borg El-Arab International Airport ..............................36
Table 14 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Borg El-Arab International Airport
............................................................................................................................................................................................................37
Table 15 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Borg El-Arab International Airport ...................39
Table 16 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Borg El-Arab International Airport ....................39
Table 17 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Borg El-Arab International Airport
............................................................................................................................................................................................................40
Table 18 – Terminal Area Requirements for Borg El-Arab International Airport ..........................................40
Table 19 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport
............................................................................................................................................................................................................41
Table 20 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport ......................42
Table 21 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Sharm El-Sheikh International
Airport .............................................................................................................................................................................................43
Table 22 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport ............44
Table 23 – – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport .........45
  IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                                                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 4
  MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                                                                                                DECEMBER 2018
  AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Table 24 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Sharm El-Sheikh Sheikh
International Airport.................................................................................................................................................................46
Table 25 – Terminal Area Requirements for Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport ...................................46
Table 26 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Hurghada International Airport .........47
Table 27 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Hurghada International Airport ....................................47
Table 28 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Hurghada International Airport ....49
Table 29 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Hurghada International Airport ..........................50
Table 30 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Hurghada International Airport ..........................51
Table 31 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Hurghada International Airport ...51
Table 32 – Terminal Area Requirements for Hurghada International Airport.................................................52
Table 33 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Marsa Alam International Airport .....53
Table 34 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Marsa Alam International Airport ................................53
Table 35 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Marsa Alam International Airport 54
Table 36 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Marsa Alam International Airport ......................55
Table 37 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Marsa Alam International Airport ......................56
Table 38 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Marsa Alam International Airport
............................................................................................................................................................................................................57
Table 39 – Terminal Area Requirements for Marsa Alam International Airport.............................................57
Table 40 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Assiut Airport .............................................58
Table 41 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Assiut Airport ........................................................................58
Table 42 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Assiut Airport ........................................60
Table 43 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Assiut Airport..............................................................61
Table 44 – – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Assiut Airport ..........................................................61
Table 45 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Assiut Airport .......................................62
Table 46 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Sohag International Airport..................63
Table 47 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Sohag International Airport ............................................63
Table 48 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Sohag International Airport ............64
Table 49 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Assiut Airport..............................................................65
Table 50 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Sohag International Airport ..................................66
Table 51 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Sohag Airport .......................................66
Table 52 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Luxor International Airport ..................67
Table 53 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Luxor International Airport ............................................68
Table 54 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Luxor International Airport ............69
Table 55 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Luxor International Airport ..................................70
Table 56 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Luxor International Airport ..................................71
Table 57 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Luxor International Airport ...........71
Table 58 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Aswan International Airport ................72
Table 59 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Aswan International Airport ...........................................72
Table 60 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Aswan International Airport...........73
Table 61 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Aswan International Airport ................................74
Table 62 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Aswan International Airport.................................75
Table 63 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Aswan International Airport ..........76
Table 64 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Abu Simbel Airport ...................................76
Table 65 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Abu Simbel Airport .............................................................77
Table 66 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Abu Simbel Airport .............................78
Table 67 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Abu Simbel Airport ...................................................79
Table 68 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Abu Simbel Airport ...................................................79
Table 69 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Abu Simbel Airport ............................80
Table 70 – Summary of Existing Terminal and Airside Facilities at Small Airports .......................................81
Table 71 – Borg El-Arab - List of Required Major Capacity Investments ............................................................86
Table 72 – Borg El-Arab - Investment Plan - Major Capacity Investments (USD) ...........................................87
Table 73 – Borg El-Arab - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD)................87
Table 74 – Sharm El-Sheik - List of Required Major Capacity Investments .......................................................88
Table 75 – Sharm El-Sheik - Investment Plan - Major Capacity Investments (USD) ......................................88
Table 76 – Sharm El Sheik - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD) ...........88
Table 77 – Hurghada - List of Required Major Capacity Investments .................................................................89

  IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                                                                                      REPORT 5 - PAGE | 5
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                                                                   DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Table 78 – Hurghada - Investment Plan - Major Capacity Investments (USD) ................................................89
Table 79 – Hurghada - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD) ......................90
Table 80 – Marsa Alam - List of Required Major Capacity Investments ..............................................................91
Table 81 – Marsa Alam - Investment Plan - Major Capacity Investments(USD) ..............................................91
Table 82 – Asyut - List of Required Major Capacity Investments ...........................................................................91
Table 83 – Asyut - Investment Plan - Major Capacity Investments (USD) ..........................................................91
Table 84 – Asyut - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD) ..............................92
Table 85 – Sohag - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD) ..............................92
Table 86 – Luxor - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD) ..............................93
Table 87 – Aswan - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD) ............................93
Table 88 – Cairo - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD) ...............................94
Table 89 – Summary of Overall Airport System Investment Plan (2018 USD millions) ...............................95
Table 90: Assignment of the Weights of the Prioritization Criteria ......................................................................98
Table 91 – Summary of Screening Criteria for Borg El Arab International Airport ..................................... 106
Table 92 – Summary of Screening Criteria for Coastal Tourism Airports ....................................................... 108
Table 93 – Summary of Screening Criteria for Nile Region Airports ................................................................. 110
Table 94 – Summary of Screening Criteria for the Upper Egypt Airports ....................................................... 112
Table 95 – Summary of Screening Criteria for Cairo International Airport .................................................... 114
Table 96 – Summary of Step One Screening Results ................................................................................................. 116


                                                                      LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Level of Service Space – Time Diagram..........................................................................................................16
Figure 2: National Airport System .......................................................................................................................................18
Figure 3: Airport Layout Plan for Cairo International Airport ................................................................................28
Figure 4: Airport Layout Plan for Borg El-Arab International Airport .................................................................36
Figure 5: Airport Layout Plan for Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport .........................................................42
Figure 6: Airport Layout Plan for Hurghada International Airport .......................................................................48
Figure 7: Airport Layout Plan for Marsa Alam International Airport ...................................................................53
Figure 8: Airport Layout Plan for Assiut Airport ...........................................................................................................59
Figure 9: Airport Layout Plan for Sohag International Airport ...............................................................................63
Figure 10: Airport Layout Plan for Luxor International Airport.............................................................................68
Figure 11: Airport Layout Plan for Aswan International Airport ...........................................................................73
Figure 12: Airport Layout Plan for Abu Simbel Airport .............................................................................................77
Figure 13: Overall Approach to PPP Project Assessment ..........................................................................................96




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                                                             REPORT 5 - PAGE | 6
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                       DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

APPROVAL

We, the undersigned, acknowledge that we have reviewed the Report 5: Master Plan for Egypt Future
National Airports Development and Potential Public-Private Partnerships for the Consulting
Services for Master Plan Study for Egypt Future National Airports Development and Identification
of a Pipeline of Potential Public-Private Partnerships and hereby provide our approval.



    Signature:                                                    Date:


    Print Name:

    Title:

    Role:



REMARKS AND OBSERVATIONS (if any):




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                       REPORT 5 - PAGE | 7
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                             DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document was prepared by the team led by IOS Partners, Inc., an international economic
development consultancy firm, together with Talaat & Imam Consulting Engineers, for the World
Bank (WB) and the Egyptian Holding Company for Airports and Air Navigation (EHCAAN). This
document presents a draft of Part 1 of the fifth deliverable for the project, with a long-term development
masterplan for the airport system. The report intends to serve as an important milestone for the
ongoing effort to provide the Consulting Services for Master Plan Study for Egypt Future National
Airports Development and identification of a Pipeline of Potential Public-Private Partnerships. The
Project has been funded by the World Bank.

We would like to express our appreciation for the collaboration and facilitation of project documents
and meetings, and support provided during field mission in Egypt, which we received from the World
Bank and the Egyptian Holding Company for Airports and Air Navigation (EHCAAN). In particular,
we would like to extend special thanks to Mr. Charles Schlumberger, WB TTL; Mr. Sami Ali, WB Senior
Operations Officer; Mr. Sherif Fathy, The Minister of Civil Aviation; Eng. Mohamed Said Mahrous,
Chairman of EHCAAN; Mr. Magdy Ishak Azzer, Chairman of CAC; Mr. Mohamed Sallam Musilhy,
Chairman of EAC; Mr. Mohamed Abbas Soliman, Chairman of NANSC; Eng. Abdelhamid Allam, Chairman
of AVIT; Mr. Mohsen E. Zaki, EHCAAN PMU Director; Mr. Tarek Abd El Hady, EHCAAN PMU; Mr. Hossam
Soliman, EHCAAN, Procurement Officer; Mr. Atter Hannoura, Director of the PPPCU, Ministry of
Finance; Ms. Affaf Ghabbour, Director of Passenger Services, Egyptian Airports Company; the Ministry
of Civil Aviation and other relevant stakeholders.


DISCLAIMER

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this document are entirely those of the
authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank or to the Egyptian Holding
Company for Airports and Air Navigation (EHCAAN). The World Bank and the EHCAAN do not
guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this document nor do they accept responsibility for any
consequence of its use.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                            REPORT 5 - PAGE | 8
MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                        DECEMBER 2018
AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS


ABS           Abu Simbel Airport
AC            Advisory Circular
ADPM          Average Day Peak Month
ALY           El Nozha Airport or Alexandria International Airport
ASW           Aswan Airport
ASV           Annual Service Volume
ATM           Aircraft Movements
ATZ           Asyut Airport
AVIT          Aviation Information Technology
CAC           Cairo Airport Company
CAI           Cairo International Airport
CAPMAS        Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics
COMESA        Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
DBB           Al Alamein Airport
EAC           Egyptian Airports Company
EHCAAN        Egyptian Holding Company for Airports and Air Navigation
FAA           Federal Aviation Administration
GDP           Gross Domestic Product
HBE           Borg El-Arab Airport
HC            Hourly Capacity
HMB           Sohag International Airport
HRG           Hurghada International Airport
IMF           International Monetary Fund
LOS           Level of Service
LXR           Luxor International Airport
MARS          Multiple Aircraft Ramp System
MPPA          Millions of Passengers Per Year
MUH           Marsa Matrouh Airport
NANSC         National Air Navigation Services Company
NAMP          National Airports Master Plan
O/D           Origin/Destination
PPP           Public-Private Partnerships
PPPCU         Public Private Partnerships Central Unit, Ministry of Finance
RMF           Marsa Alam International Airport
RON           Remain Over Night
SPX           Sphinx International Airport
SSH           Sharm El-Sheik Airport
TCP           Taba Airport
TDA           Tourism Development Authority
TOR           Terms of Reference
WB            World Bank
WTO           World Tourism Organization
WTTC          World Travel and Tourism Council




IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                        REPORT 5 - PAGE | 9
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                               DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

 1. INTRODUCTION

     1.1. OVERALL PROGRAM AND ASSIGNMENT BACKGROUND

The main objective of this project is to support the Government of Egypt’s efforts to rationalize its future
interventions in the Egyptian aviation sector, through the development of a National Airports Master
Plan for Egypt and identify a pipeline of potential Public-Private Partnerships.

Air Transport plays an important role in the Egyptian Economy, particularly, for the development of
tourism and tourist related activities given that 80 percent of tourists arrive in Egypt by air.

The fast growth in Tourism traffic during the 2000’s, reaching an all-time record in year 2010, led to
the planning of several airport extensions intended to eliminate capacity constraints. However, the
drop-in air traffic in 2011 following collapse of tourism in the aftermath of the Egyptian Revolution, and
the sluggish recovery ever since, exacerbated by other more recent events, has pushed the Government
to rethink its programs in light of emerging priorities. In particular, the Government would like to
rationalize its future interventions in the sector through the development of a financially sustainable
Airport Master Plan to guide long-term planning and the prioritization investments.

The proposed Plan will assess and prioritize options for accommodating future capacity and level of
service requirements, including increasing capacities of existing sites vs. developing new locations, as
well as optimizing the operational patterns to harness potential complementarities between airports
with the aim of enhancing the economic and financial viability of the investments and the sustainability
of the Egyptian aviation sector.

Parallel to this, the Government also intends to boost airport productivity and efficiency, through the
involvement of private sector in the management of some of the country’s largest international airports,
as well as the cargo facilities. The latter’s knowhow and innovative capacity will benefit the sector
through the introduction of state-of-the art management techniques and the development of airports
revenue streams, especially for areas dedicated to commercial activities.

Finally, large capital amounts that may be required for some planned developments that could be raised
off Government balance sheet, through the private investment, allowing Egypt to diversify sources and
keep scarce public resources for social needs like education or health. A particular challenge will be to
explore the possibility of grouping airports that do not have enough passengers with that of main
airports to become financially self-sustainable and feasible as a PPP.

For the Government’s policies to succeed, conditions related to the legal and regulatory framework will
need to be conducive to private sector participation. Optimal procurement options that achieve value
for money will be identified. Schemes that are more conducive to PPP shall be identified, along with an
assessment of financial feasibility.

     1.2. PURPOSE OF REPORT

This report corresponds to the fifth deliverable of the study and covers Task 5: Development of
Master Plan and Identification of PPP Pipeline.

The primary objectives of this task/report are to develop a network/nation-wide Airport Master Plan
to guide long-term planning and investment prioritization leading to the development of a preliminary
pipeline of potential airport sector PPP projects.

As defined in the Terms of Reference, Task 5 includes two primary components:

    1. Development of Airport Master Plan, including capital cost estimates (CAPEX)
    2. Evaluation of PPP projects/Formulation of PPP pipeline


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                            REPORT 5 - PAGE | 10
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                               DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Due to limitations placed on the Consultant’s ability to carry out site visits and the secondary data
provided by the EHCAAN, this Egyptian airport system master plan should not be viewed and
evaluated as an infrastructure development study, but rather a strategic vision of the airport
network, with planning guidelines for identifying and evaluating the development alternatives by
clearly defining the future needs of airport stakeholders and maintaining focus throughout the planning
effort. This planning effort results in the identification of key investment requirements at the Egyptian
airports over the planning horizon.

     1.3. APPROACH

As presented in previous reports of the current assignment, air traffic in Egypt has encountered several
trends in the last decades. The decade following the new millennium saw a tourism boom in Egypt,
supported by investments by the Government of Egypt (GoE) at Cairo International Airport and at Red
Sea destinations, primarily Sharm El-Sheikh and Hurghada.

In 2010, the Sohag International Airport (HMB) was inaugurated, as the new international airport in
the country, located approximately 24 kilometers (15 mi) south of the capital of the Sohag
Governorate of Egypt. The airport comprises of a passenger terminal, control tower, aprons, a runway,
and several buildings allocated for various airport services, with parking for vehicle and buses and all
service utilities. The airport primarily caters to domestic travel and traffic between Sohag/Upper Egypt
and the Persian Gulf states, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Also in 2010, Borg El-Arab Airport, another international airport, finished important expansions and
infrastructure upgrades, in order to cater for air traffic in the Mediterranean coast and the region
surrounding the city of Alexandria, while Alexandria International Airport is undergoing extensive
renovations. Borg El-Arab Airport currently serves as the main international entry point for Alexandria
and the Nile Delta Region.

In 2011, air traffic abated with the outbreak of political situations in the country, as such, the Consultant
has developed traffic forecast models based on an analysis of past air traffic domestic and international
trends in Egypt and by main geographic zones abroad. These trends were considered in the forecasting
exercise through the development of alternate scenarios.

For this report, the IOS Partners Team has developed an infrastructure analysis of the airports in the
national network, determining airport capacity and requirements based on the demand profiles of a
typical busy day. Typical peaks period or peak hour demand should be used whenever possible for
planning purposes, rather than annual figures. The typical peak is the maximum level of traffic, lower
than the absolute peak, reached in busy periods of a typical busy day.

Nevertheless, demand capacity and alternatives for airport development cannot always be based on
formulations related to air traffic projections during peak periods, due to the lack of information
relevant to the specific facility (size, conditions, processing times, etc.). In these cases, capacity and
requirements area needs can be estimated in order-of-magnitude ranges for overall sizes, to broadly
define the scope, based upon information provided of other existing facilities, as benchmarking
parameters.

Addressing investment and capacity needs in the Egyptian airports will formulate the basis of the plan.
A bottom-up approach will be implemented, by first assessing airports individually before an analysis
within the broader context of the national aviation system. Using the traffic growth and forecasting
from the previous tasks, IOS Partners will compare the current airport capacities with the optimal use
of the airport infrastructure of the system, identifying capacity gaps (if any) and determining requisite
investments needed to facilitate optimal operations. This will then be used to develop investment
plans.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                             REPORT 5 - PAGE | 11
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                           DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

The next step was to undertake a preliminary screening of potential projects in the Egyptian Airport
sector in terms of the applicability of utilizing PPP modalities from the point of view of both the
Government and the private sector.

The IOS Partners Team has developed and applied a tool that permits recording critical information for
prospective PPP projects that facilitated their screening in accordance with key criteria for
ranking/selecting projects for further development. This tool consists of a model that the consulting
team has used for systematically organizing collected data and rating each potential project according
to the variables that will provide a basis for evaluating the projects according to these key criteria.

This preliminary screening process is utilized to then select a pipeline of potential PPP projects that
will be further evaluated in Task 6 of this study.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                         REPORT 5 - PAGE | 12
    MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                DECEMBER 2018
    AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

    2. AIRPORT MASTERPLAN

       2.1. IDENTIFICATION OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

One of the key activities towards preparation of the Master Plan is to identify the current capacity at
the airports, which can then be compared with the traffic forecasts for each group over a 20-year period,
from 2018 through 2037, divided into four 5-year segments, and prepared under three (3) scenarios
(Medium, High and Low).1

Demand capacity analyses - and subsequent alternatives development - are based on priorities,
established by the operational continuity of the airport; and the location flexibility. In summary,
capacity considerations should be analyzed for:

         Airfield operational areas (i.e., runways, taxiways and aprons);
         Passenger terminals;
         Support facilities;
         Surface accesses; and
         Non-aviation airport land uses.

It is to be noted that the Consulting Team traveled to Egypt to perform an on-site analysis of the airports.
The objectives were to carry out site visits to gather first-hand information regarding the existing
facilities, to assess conditions in the airfield and landside areas, record processing times and gather all
needed information to have all the elements to perform the capacity assessment and determine
alternative developments. Due to security restrictions, the team was not allowed to visit the airports.2
Given that access to sufficient relevant data was also not feasible, an evaluation of support facilities,
surface accesses, utilities and non-airport land uses was not possible and is not presented in this Report.

In the specific case of air cargo facilities at most Egyptian airports, capacity consideration would not be
evaluated given that cargo traffic is quite minimal, accounting for significantly less than 1% of the
national total, and in most cases is not even reported as part of the official traffic statistics. The
exception is the Cairo International Airport (CAI), where cargo facilities were evaluated based on the
forecasted figures.

Policies and objectives of airport capacity, as stated in the IATA’s Air port Development Reference
Manual (ADRM) – 10th Edition, are structured as follows:

         All airport capacity enhancement programs are closely tied to an airport master plan;
         The master plan is prepared by independent consultants with global experience and a proven
          history or delivering plans that enable all stakeholders to expand their operations and
          undertake profitable business;
         Airlines and their representative associations are fully involved in the development and review
          of the master plan;
         Infrastructure is designed to be as cost-efficient as possible (facilities should not be “gold
          plated");
         The master plan allows for unfettered incremental expansion of all facilities until the ultimate
          capacity of the site is attained; and
         No development proceeds until a master plan is in place.


1The 20-year traffic forecasts can be found in Report 2 of this project.
2
 Prior to the Inception Mission, IOS proposed an agenda of site visits that included Cairo and most of the
medium airports. Permission to visit the airports was not granted by Government authorities at that time or
subsequently due to heightened “security considerations”. The IOS Team did request if we could still visit only
the less sensitive areas of the airports, but this was also denied.
    IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                             REPORT 5 - PAGE | 13
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                               DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

A master plan is required so that all airside, landside and airport support facilities can develop, expand
and improve the operational flexibility and efficiency of their business in a structured, balanced and
orderly fashion.

All airports should have a master plan to guide their future infrastructure development in a logical, cost
-efficient and affordable manner. Without a master plan, there is a risk that short-term decision making
will result in projects for capacity enhancement being poorly located or inappropriately sized, resulting
in wasteful expenditures or restrictions on the airport's overall capacity or performance.

The importance of adequate facilities is paramount when assessing airport capacity. An airport needs
to be looking to the future to ensure that, as traffic increases and its composition (fteet mix) changes,
the facilities will be in place to meet the needs of that traffic. Failure to plan and to develop sufficient
facilities (e.g., airspace, airside infrastructure, passenger terminal, support facilities. surface access
systems. etc.) will have a direct impact on users and stakeholders, reflected on:

       Wasted or ineffective capital investment;
       Congestion and delays impacting on passengers; and
       Poor customer experience and level of service.

The airport master plan must meet the challenge of anticipating for sufficient capacity and level or
service for the forecast aircraft, passenger, cargo and vehicle movements:

       At the optimal capital and operating costs;
       In a phased approach, so as not to provide unnecessary infrastructure for a long period;
       That fully meets all applicable regulatory requirements;
       That provides flexibility both in terms of traffic levels and composition, because the future is
        uncertain; and the forecasts are simply a reasonable estimate of demands that may occur;
       That is aligned with existing and expected future market conditions;
       That considers reasonable and foreseeable trends in technology, systems and service patterns;
       That allows incremental expansion towards the ultimate development potential of the site. The
        planner constantly needs to be addressing the question, "and then what?";
       That considers all constraints and opportunities; and
       That is an active document open to revision as circumstances change.

It is recommended that all master plan assumptions be thoroughly reviewed and tested at least every
five years through ongoing consultation with the aviation community. Statistical traffic trends should
be reviewed against forecasts on an annual basis to ensure all planning assumptions are still valid.

Development plans and phasing should be linked to traffic volumes, not specific years. For example, a
specific development is required when the airport has a certain number of enplaned/deplaned
passengers, rather than for a determined year. This approach provides flexibility and will not trigger
expansion until it is actually needed.

To facilitate future growth, airport owners, developers and designers should seek to ensure that
airports can be expanded incrementally. Additional infrastructure should be added in an economically
efficient manner on a "just in time” basis to meet increasing demand without negatively impacting
investments in earlier facilities. Furthermore, ongoing expansions and development must be planned
so as not to negatively impact on-going airport operations. A comprehensive Master Plan that addresses
the phases of development is crucial. The aim of good design should be that all incremental
developments are consistent with the outcome shown in the Master Plan.

Declared capacity refers to site specific limiting capacities, in numeric terms, of individual facilities and
resources. The declared capacity is used as the basis for airport coordination parameters.


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                             REPORT 5 - PAGE | 14
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                      DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

        2.1.1. Level of Service

The concept of Level of Service (LOS) has been applied in various ways for the design of new facilities,
the expansion and monitoring of existing facilities, and as a benchmark that determines whether the
contractual obligations of airport owners, operators and for third party service providers are being met.

The LOS references have been reviewed and refined in a way that now incorporates waiting time
aspects and perceived service quality in addition to the spatial requirements.

The Level of Service (LOS) concept is a way to ensure that demand, processing rates and service quality
are considered when defining airport service levels. The LOS can be expressed in terms of the design
target or actual achieved. Most LOS provisions fluctuate during the day, week or month depending on
traffic peaks. The larger the peaks, the more potential Impact there is on LOS.

In developing alternatives, the focus shall be in providing options with a balanced LOS. The objective is
to provide a realistic design horizon for passenger facilities without overproviding or underproviding,
determining facility requirements for a given design throughput and always taking into consideration
that forecast busy hour will provide facilities that operate according to an optimum LOS, aligned to the
throughput, but also cognizant that during the busiest/peak traffic periods, the optimum LOS may not
be achieved.

The new LOS framework, updated in the IATA’s ADRM 10th Edition (2014), is based on only three
levels, as defined in the following Table:

                                         Table 1 – Level of Service Definitions

                     Level of Service
                     (Equivalence with
    Level of
                     previous definition        Space                             Time
    Service
                     – ADRM 9th
                     Edition)
                                                Excessive or empty space          Over-provision of
     Overdesign                A-B
                                                                                  resources
                                                Sufficient space to               Final Version
                                                accommodate the necessary
      Optimum                    C
                                                functions in a comfortable
                                                environment
                                                Crowded and uncomfortable         Unacceptable processing and
     Suboptimum                D-E
                                                                                  waiting times
       Source: IATA’s ADRM 10th Edition, 2014



When planning/designing for processing facilities and corresponding queuing areas, two important
variables will jointly dictate the LOS: queuing space and waiting time, as depicted in the next figure.

When planning/designing expansions or new airport, targeted LOS may be considered for initial sizing.
The target value must be within the specified LOS optimum range. Again, the target should reflect the
local realities and be responsive to passenger behavior and needs.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                    REPORT 5 - PAGE | 15
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

                                Figure 1: Level of Service Space – Time Diagram




                        Source: IATA’s ADRM 10th Edition, 2014


         2.1.2. Selected Approach and Methodology

The purpose of the Capacity Evaluations is to distinguish those airports which are forecast to have a
higher level of utilization from those which are not anticipated to see a significant level of demand over
the planning period.

The methodology used for performing the Capacity Evaluation is to compare the current airside and
landside (passenger terminal facilities) capacity to forecast demand.

The airside configuration is typically analyzed as independent elements, such as the runway – taxiway
system, the apron areas, cargo facilities, and the general aviation area. The analyses also include various
support components, such as Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting, Air Traffic Services, and NAVAIDs. Once
the capacities of the various airside elements is determined, they are contrasted to the projected traffic
- in activity levels – in order to determine if additional capacity is necessary to cover the forecasted
demand.

The Airport Reference Code (Code) is a critical factor in determining compliance with specific design
guidelines promulgated by ICAO. It is also a factor in determining compatibility with forecast activities.
Thus, the Code not only sets the standards that existing facilities must comply with in order to provide
a safe and efficient setting for aircraft operations, and to maintain aerodrome certification, but also
factors in the determination of airside facility requirements throughout the planning period. This is
done by identifying the physical characteristics of the aircraft which comprise the projected traffic. In
sum, from a planning point of view, the Code is used to establish the parameters for the development
of an airport’s infrastructure to meet current and forecast demand.

The guidance used to determine current airside capacity is provided in the ICAO’s Airport Planning
Manual – Part 1, Master Planning (Doc 9184-AN/902), Section 6.3. Using this methodology, it was
possible, based on the airfield configuration, to determine the Annual Service Volume (ASV), as well as
the Hourly Capacity (HC), of airside configurations at the airports in Egypt.

In the case of passenger terminal facilities, an analysis based on peak-hour figures was not possible as
the Consultant Team was not able to survey the facilities (processing times, equipment performance,
etc.), due to the fact that site visits were not permitted. Therefore, the sizing of terminal areas instead
takes into account benchmarking parameters, based on total annual passengers and overall facilities’
areas.

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                               REPORT 5 - PAGE | 16
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                               DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


According to IATA’s Airport Development Reference Manual – 9th Edition (in accordance with FAA’s
Planning and Design of Airports – 4th Edition), capacity and requirements area needs can be estimated
in order-of-magnitude ranges for the overall size of a terminal facility, to broadly define the scope, based
upon information which summarizes the space provided of other existing facilities.

However, IATA’s Airport Development Reference Manual – 10th Edition, has revised these parameters.
There are several key concepts to be observed when developing terminal options, taking into account
the area allocated per peak-hour passengers.

As noted, when designing facilities, the maximum SQM/PHP figure should not exceed 25 square meters
for purely domestic passengers, 30 sqm for charter passengers and 35 sqm for international scheduled
passengers.

The benchmarking parameters, presented by IATA’s Development Reference Manual – 10th Edition,
depict a range of PHP as % of annual passenger of 0.003 for airport terminals processing more than 20
MPPA. This percentage varies to 0.004 for terminals at airports processing 4 to 9 MPPA, which is the
appropriate spectrum for the evaluation of medium-size airport in Egypt, including HEB.

Another estimate is obtained by applying a ratio of 15 m² per design-hour passenger, although this
range can grow up to 30 m² or higher (also could be lesser than 15 m²), depending on specific
characteristics of the country, traveler profile, forecasted traffic, etc.

An approximation of the allocation of space for various purposes in a terminal building indicates:

       55% of terminal space is rentable
       45% of terminal space is non-rentable
       35% - 40% of terminal space for airline operations (passenger and baggage processing areas)
       15% - 25% of terminal space for concession and airport administration
       25% - 35% of terminal space for public spaces
       10% - 15% of terminal space for utilities, shops, tunnels and stairways

These guidelines are useful for general planning and evaluation purposes; although a final
determination of the actual space allocations is to be made following detailed analyses of the
performance of the elements of the system and consultation with airlines and airport management. This
evaluation is not within the scope of this study, thus not presented as part of this Report.

In terms of total annual passenger traffic, related to terminal areas at airports, gross terminal-area
space requirements of between 0.0074 and 0.011 m² per annual enplaned passenger are reasonable.
As an average, 0.01 m² per yearly passenger is generally adopted.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                            REPORT 5 - PAGE | 17
    MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                              DECEMBER 2018
    AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


       2.2. ASSESSMENT OF EGYPTIAN AIRPORT SECTOR

          2.2.1. Classification of Airports

The National Airport System - that forms part of this study - consists of twenty-two (22) airports, with
different locations throughout the Egyptian territory, which currently have - or have had - commercial
operations. Twenty-one (21) of those airports are currently managed by the Egyptian Airports
Company (EAC), while Cairo International Airport (CAI) is managed by the Cairo Airport Company
(CAC). Figure 1 depicts the approximate location of these airports.

                                       Figure 2: National Airport System3




For consistency purposes, in order to maintain a coherent structure throughout the entire study, the
airports in Egypt have been classified following the same principles implemented in the air traffic
assessment (see Report 2). As such, the airports were categorized into three (3) groups, based on the
airport’s size, the degree to which it processes significant traffic; and its potential to grow in the future.

Some of the airports are currently closed for commercial operations, while the airfield located at 6th of
October City is used as an aviation training facility.

The different airport groups are presented in the following table.



3
 In addition to the 22 airports that made up the national commercial airport system as of February 2018, the
map also includes an unlabeled symbol representing the new Cairo area airports expected to be operated by
EAC in the near future.
    IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                           REPORT 5 - PAGE | 18
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                                        Table 2 – National Airport System


               Major Airports                   Medium Airports                     Small Airports
                    Cairo                    El-Nozha (Alexandria)                      El Alamein
                                            Borg El-Arab (Alexandria)                Marsa Matrouh
                                                 Sharm El Sheik                          Port Said
                                                    Hurghada                        Sharq El-Oweinat
                                                   Marsa Alam                          St. Catherine
                                                      Luxor                           El-Kharga (*)
                                                     Aswan                             El Dakhla (*)
                                                   Abu Simbel                           El Arish (*)
                                                      Asyut                              El Tor (*)
                                                      Sohag                               Taba (*)
                                                                                     6th October (**)
        (*) Airports currently closed for commercial operations, generally for security reasons
        (**) Aviation training airport

CAI is the primary international gateway to Egypt and the only airport that currently process over 10
million annual passengers.

The Medium Airports currently serve more than 100,000 annual passengers. These airports, with the
exception of Abu Simbel (ABS) and El-Nozha (ALY), also include significant international traffic. The
later was formally the primary international airport serving the city of Alexandria, but it has been
limited to domestic traffic since the opening of Borg El-Arab (HBE) Airport and may be closed over the
short to medium term.

The Small category includes primarily non-commercial airports, or those that receive a relatively
limited number of often non-scheduled commercial flights. Only Marsa Matrouh (MUH) processes more
regular international traffic. Taba (TCP) had also operated very significant international traffic up until
2013 but has since received very little commercial traffic.

Not included in the above table are planned new airports, which are not yet operational. The Consultant
has not received any physical information related to these aerodromes, other than their general
location in the vicinity of the greater Cairo area. As such, it has not been possible to plan the future
development of these facilities as part of this analysis.

         2.2.2. Airport Types

This section presents an evaluation and classification of the aerodromes in the Egyptian Airport System,
based on the passenger trip characteristics.

Origin and Destination (O/D) Airports

The Origin and Destination airport can be defined as an aerodrome that caters mainly to flights and
passengers that use the airport primarily as their point of origin or destination. The O/D airport
terminal generally does not facilitate transfer traffic.

Dedicated O/D terminals are typically not large in scale and tend to serve a limited regional market.
Typical examples of primarily O/D terminals are those that:

    •   Serve a niche market;
    •   Serve regional communities; and
    •   Are located near a popular tourist destination



 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 19
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                             DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Some International airports with limited onward destinations that only cater to a small amount of local
regional transfer traffic may also be classed as "predominantly O/D" rather than "dedicated O/D”. In its
most simplistic form, an O/D terminal has no transfer facilities and only one centralized processing
area. Baggage handling is only provided for inbound and outbound traffic and there is no capability of
storing or transferring bags between aircraft.

Based on the traffic analysis, performed as part of Task 2 of the study assignment, all airports in the
Egyptian Airport System – with the only exception of CAI - are classified as O/D aerodromes, since the
majority of the airports do not cater for transfer traffic; and the facilities for this type of traffic is
extremely limited at those airports where these capabilities are provided.

Transfer (or Hub) Airports

A transfer airport (also known as a hub airport) is where passengers and/or cargo are transferred
between aircraft without a direct service from their point of origin to their point of destination.

In practice, most hub airports cater to both transfer traffic and O/D traffic in one terminal building, or
in a system of terminals, the latter being the case of CAI. This optimizes connection opportunities with
minimal transfer times.

Hub airports concentrate large numbers of passengers (and cargo) from diverse geographical areas in
one place, thus augmenting the aviation market. This also allows airlines without direct route rights to
transfer passengers. Airlines can build opportunities to transfer passengers across their own operation
and that of their partners and alliances. This is often done through code sharing by scheduling flights
into aircraft arrivals banks followed by aircraft departures banks to maximize connectivity
opportunities.

For passengers the hub model can also allow for stop overs on long-haul routes. The airside amenities
for transfer passengers must be carefully considered to cater to their needs. Extended waiting times
between arriving and departing flights means that hotel rooms, retail outlets, food & beverage
provisions as well as toilet and shower facilities should be amply provided. Hub airports are also able
to maximize commercial revenue and augment/enhance the overall travel experience with extensive
customer offerings.

As is the case for any terminal, transfer terminals must in all cases meet stringent international and
national security requirements. Security screening for all transferring passengers must be
accommodated in the airside zone.

Some transfer terminals may also have transit lounges to accommodate onward passengers who must
deplane. Transit passengers without the proper visa to "enter the transfer country should not mix with
passengers from other flights. A transfer terminal, such as the terminal complex at CAI, is likely to have
a significant number of piers and gates to accommodate both short- and long-haul domestic and
international aircraft. The movement of passengers between aircraft gates needs to be a primary design
consideration, as well as baggage facilities, which are usually quite large, as they need to accommodate
a significant amount of transfer baggage.

In summary, Cairo International Airport is considered the only Transfer - or Hub – Airport in the
Egyptian Airport System, while all the other aerodromes in the system are classified as Origin and
Destination airports.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                           REPORT 5 - PAGE | 20
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                          DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


    2.3. SPATIAL AND FUNCTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

For passenger terminal buildings, IATA – in its Airport Development Reference Manual (10th Edition) –
describes the process for assessing future facility requirements for the different types of elements
conforming the building or complex, these being processing, holding and circulation facilities. Though
it proved difficult to apply these methodologies in this case as the consulting team was not allowed to
visit the airports, a general overview is provided in the following sections.

        2.3.1. Assessment of Future Facility Requirements

Processing Facilities

The following steps are recommended for the evaluation of future facility requirements at passenger
processing facilities, such as: self-service facilities, bag drop facilities, departures requirements
(Emigration), passenger security screening, boarding gates, arrivals requirements (immigration),
baggage claim and customs processes.

       a) Determine the design Peak Hour Passenger (PHP) demand. Generally, specific PHP
          demands are determined for (1) Departing facilities; (2) Arriving facilities and (3) Transfer
          facilities;

       b) Determine the arrival rate of passengers at the facility;

       c) Determine the processing time of passengers at the facility;

       d) Determine the secondary factors influencing demand and capacity. If these are not available,
          assumptions or benchmarks can be used. Secondary factors may include the portion of
          passengers traveling in first class, the number of bags per passenger, etc.;

       e) Calculate the number of facility units required to meet the target maximum queue time;

       f) Calculate the number of passengers in the queue resulting from the calculation in step e);
          and

       g) From the results in step f), calculate the effective queuing area required to meet the target
          LoS space standard. The effective area is net of any obstruction or impediments such as
          circulation corridors, amenities, etc.

Holding Facilities

The following steps are recommended for the evaluation of future facility requirements at holding
facilities, such as Departure Lounge, Boarding Gates and Arrivals Hall:

       a) Determine the processing (or departure) rate or occupants from the facility;

       b) Calculate the maximum number of occupants at any one time during the period under
          analysis;

       c) Using the target proportion of seated versus standing occupants, calculate the number of
          persons seated and the number of persons standing; and


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                         REPORT 5 - PAGE | 21
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

        d) Using the LoS space standard, calculate the required effective holding area. The effective
           area is net of any obstruction or impediments such as walls, amenities, etc.

Circulation Facilities

For circulation elements and facilities, such as Departures, Arrivals and Transfer Corridors, the
evaluation of future facility requirements is recommended by following the indications noted as
follows.

        a) Determine the design passenger flow per hour for travel in one direction and convert into
           passenger flow per minute;

        b) Calculate the required effective width using LoS standards for circulation facilities; and

        c) Adjust the required effective width to account for edge effects. Total (net) width equals to
           effective width plus 0.5 meters on each side of corridor.

If circulation facilities allow movements in both directions, it is recommended to use the total passenger
flows for both directions for step a) and adjust total width by adding 0.5 meters for each side of corridor
plus another 0.5 meters for counter-flow effect.

Passenger Functional Flows at Terminal Buildings

It is also useful to delineate the recommended passenger flows thru the different facilities at terminal
buildings or complex, differentiating departing from arrivals flows.

The following passenger flow descriptions are general and will require further detailed definition in
each individual airport terminal case. The flows of departing and arriving passengers must be noted for
international and domestic passengers separately, where required, or in any other detailed manner that
suits the individual airport situation. Passenger flow descriptions should be considered in conjunction
with all other terminal flows required, they shall:

       Be sufficiently flexible to permit the establishment of temporary channels that can be bypassed
        by other passengers (for individual heath control processing, or a particular arriving aircraft
        passenger load, etc.), or to permit regulation evolution;
       Permit processing of passengers individually or in groups; and
       Introduce as few level changes as possible.


Departing Flows

The forecourt represents the landside interface with the terminal building. Passengers approaching by
private car or any other form of transportation should intuitively be directed to the terminal building's
entrances. Wayfinding (signage), both vehicular and pedestrian, should be used to help orient
passengers and facilitate access to the portion of the terminal from which their flight/airline operates.
This signage may be variable to address different occupancies at different times of the day.

The departures hall is usually the publicly accessible zone that marks the entrance into the terminal. It
provides orientation opportunities and should therefore be designed as a generous and unobstructed
space that allows an overview of next steps in the passenger journey. The departures hall must also
provide intuitive and logical access to these next steps. Currently, this zone is also typically the interface
where passengers may obtain a boarding pass, if this has not been done already prior to arriving at the
airport, and divest themselves of any checked luggage. This may be facilitated in different ways and the
process continues to evolve rapidly. This zone of the airport needs to be addressed based on both
current and future processes and functions to ensure flexibility.
 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                              REPORT 5 - PAGE | 22
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                              DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


Passengers wishing to enter the airside zones of the airport need to pass security and additional
authentication controls. These authentication controls should include boarding pass checkpoints, but
can also include emigration and customs controls where applicable. These processes should be
provided centrally in the most logical and intuitive locations for the passenger journey. They must also
process passengers swiftly and simply, with the least possible disruption and stress. Process
improvements continue to evolve and airports need to be able to adapt quickly and with little
disruption.

The departure lounge is a common space for passengers to wait comfortably for their flights prior to
moving to the boarding gates. It provides the passengers with adequate facilities such as retail and food
& beverage concessions, toilets, free seating and additional entertainment offerings. Departure lounges
should provide ample views of the airside and utilize natural light to reduce passenger stress. There
should also be logical and intuitive routes to the gates.

Gate lounges and their associated circulation space are the main components of both finger piers and
satellites. The gate lounge is an assembly area for passengers in transition between the main processor
and the aircraft. Some concessions may be located within the pier or satellite. Gate lounge areas are
designed to serve high-capacity aircraft boarded through more than one door and should be arranged
so as to expedite passenger flow. Differentiation of passengers may also be accommodated (Business
vs Economy, row numbers, etc.). Conveniently-located toilets are required in gate lounge areas.

Boarding gates are where passengers usually have access to the Passenger Boarding Bridge (PBS). They
pass through a security door after having their boarding pass checked, either self-served or by an agent.
Ample space must be provided if escalators are used to access the PBS to avoid congestion problems at
the bottom of the escalators.

Arrivals Flows

Upon arrival by aircraft, arrivals corridors can be provided to direct passengers toward immigration or
baggage claim in an intuitive and logical manner. Walking distances to the next steps of the journey
should be optimized as much as possible.

Where required, for example for international arriving passengers, immigration or other controls can
be required. These must, as much as possible, be provided in centralized locations. Entrances and exits
must be intuitive to passengers.

In baggage claim halls, passengers and their checked luggage are reunited. Baggage claim halls must, as
much as possible, be provided in centralized locations and must facilitate the flow of passengers
through the claim hall, leading intuitively toward its exit.

Customs exits from baggage claim can be required (for international arriving passengers). These must
be clearly visible to passengers and facilitate the passage from baggage claim toward the landside
arrivals hall.

The landside arrivals hall marks the exit of the passenger from the security-restricted environment into
the publicly accessible landside airport environment. Here, the passenger can be reunited with waiting
“meeters & greeters", and must find intuitive access to the landside pick-up forecourt as well as onward
travel opportunities. The arrivals hall must also provide facilities for the waiting "meeters & greeters'',
such as retail, food & beverage outlets, toilets and free seating.

From the arrivals hall, passengers proceed to the forecourt for pick-up or to the car parking location as
well as toward other onward journey ground transportation (bus and coach stations, metro, tram or
train stations or taxi ranks). The forecourt can also connect, where applicable, to landside airport city
developments with hotels and offices.


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                            REPORT 5 - PAGE | 23
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                             DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Other Flows

There are other functional flows that also need to be considered across terminal facilities, such as staff
flows, which are to be carefully assessed, including both front office and back office areas.

Other flows, including goods, servicing and vehicle flows should be also considered, taking into
consideration dedicated routes which are to be provided or identified for the various delivery and
servicing requirements to and from the terminal, as well as routes for vehicles that might operate within
a terminal (electric buggies, cleaning and maintenance equipment, display vehicles, segways or
scooters, ambulance vehicles or stretchers). It is to be noted that specific and individual requirements
must be established for each airport.

        2.3.2. Separation of Flows

There is general guidance related to the separation of flows in terminal buildings. Some considerations
are stated below.

Separation of International and Domestic Passenger Flows

In line with the requirements and regulations of emigration, immigration and customs, provisions must
be made for the separation of international and domestic passengers on the airside of terminals.
However, to address differential peaks between domestic and international flights, a flexible
arrangement ("swing gate") should be incorporated whenever possible. This enables all or specific
gates to be used as required for either category of passengers, and allows for regulation evolution.

Separation of Arriving and Departing Passengers

According to the requirements from control authorities (immigration, etc.), international arriving
passengers must be separated from departing passengers. Facial recognition or other biometric
controls may be useful.

Other Considerations Related to Passenger Flows

All level changes along the passenger flow routes should be provided with escalators and/or ramps.
Stairs may also be included as a contingency measure. The use of elevators to enable passengers (other
than passengers with reduced mobility) to change levels has the potential to limit capacity. The
termination point of an escalator must not be in a confined or restricted processing area where "back
flow" might occur.

Special care should be taken to ensure that concessions are conveniently located and do not interfere
with the passenger flow. While the need to generate additional revenue from commercial opportunities
is appreciated and supported when this revenue is used to offset overall costs, passenger flows should
not be exclusively routed through concessions areas. Alternate direct routes should also be provided so
that passengers have the choice to either avail themselves of commercial opportunities or move quickly
and efficiently to their departure gate or specific destination within the terminal complex (CIP lounge,
arrivals hall, etc.)

According to the functional requirements of business lounges, CIP lounges should be located airside and
beyond immigration controls, either along or immediately above primary passenger routes.

        2.3.3. Terminal Buildings Security Zones

Airports and airport terminals deploy security measures to minimize the risk of a security threat to the
airport itself, as well as to aircraft and passengers. Most commonly, passengers and their luggage are
security-controlled within the airport terminal before entering any aircraft. Once security-controlled,


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                           REPORT 5 - PAGE | 24
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                             DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

passengers and their baggage are considered "sterile" or "clean", depending on different terminology
used around the world.

Airports generally utilize a zoning concept to manage security within the terminal and the entire
airport. Access and egress to and from these zones is managed and controlled in order to maintain their
secured integrity at all times.

Different security concepts and terminologies exist, however, the most common security zones are
defined within the concept of public access, which defines public access to zones that are not security
controlled, and to where access is granted at the discretion of the airport. These publicly accessible
terminal areas include the arrivals and departures halls.

In Egypt, public access to terminal areas is restricted in all airports. To physically access the terminal
premises at Egyptian airports, travelers must present proof of travel (boarding pass, travel booking,
airline reservation, etc.), and then are security screened (personal and luggage), before accessing the
check-in areas. Meeters & greeters are not allowed access to any areas within the terminal buildings
(departures or arrivals halls).

Other security zones include the security-restricted access zones, where passengers or staff can only
access with valid authentication. Such authentication can be a boarding pass, entry through a specific
secured location (from an aircraft into the arrivals corridor airside, etc.), or a staff badge. No
unauthorized passenger or member of staff may enter the security-restricted zones. An example of a
security-restricted zone (depending on local legislation) can be the international baggage claim.

Also, security-controlled areas are utilized for departures areas to ensure that threats to aircraft are
minimized. To gain access to security-controlled areas, passengers, staff, goods and baggage must be
security-screened. Protocols for staff can vary depending on local requirements. As these security
controls take time and represent stress to passengers, airports tend to integrate these directly after
processing, so that passengers can thereafter enjoy a relaxed stay in an airside departure or gate lounge,
waiting for their flights.

     2.4. DEMAND/CAPACITY AND REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS

         2.4.1. Airport Site Visits and Data Collection

The Consultant Team traveled to Egypt to perform an on-site analysis of the airports in order to gather
first-hand information regarding the existing facilities and conduct site visits, to assess conditions in
the airfield and landside areas, record processing times and gather all needed information to have all
the elements to perform the capacity assessment and determine alternative developments.

But as stated previously, the Consultant Team was not able to visit any of the airport sites due to
security restrictions, as informed by the EHCAAN’s Project Management Unit (PMU) . As such, the data
available for the development of the master plan is restricted to the secondary information facilitated
by the EHCAAN’s PMU, based on the request list provided by the Consultant, as well as previous studies
– already analyzed in earlier reports of this assignment.

The purpose of the site evaluation had been to collect data on the current form, condition and
performance of all elements of the airports’ infrastructure. This data and the related time spent on site
was intended to enable the Team to have an understanding of the development potential of existing
facilities.

The baseline data to be collected on the site visits was to be used to:

       Confirm current land uses on the airport;
       Determine the remaining useful life and potential timing of major refurbishment and expansion
        projects; and
 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                           REPORT 5 - PAGE | 25
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                               DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

       Determine the capacity and capability of existing infrastructure.

Site evaluation data was to be assembled in the following categories: airfield/airspace, passenger
terminal, support facilities and surface access systems.

The Team expected to collect airfield data, including but not limited to:

       Airspace management information, including noise abatement procedures;
       Identification of obstacles;
       Air and ground navigation aids and traffic control aids;
       Geometry of runways, taxiways, holding aprons;
       Pavement centerline separation and obstacle clearance distances to assure they are in
        compliance with ICAO Annex. 14; and
       Airport perimeter, including roads and access control systems (CCTV, etc.).

The site assessment of passenger terminals was to evaluate condition, determine sizes of rooms and
list the numbers of processors. Condition assessment for all building systems, age and condition of
terminal systems (structures as well as mechanical, electrical and special systems such as baggage
handling systems and security systems) and passenger processing rates (check-in, security, customs,
etc.), in order to determine potential bottlenecks and need for improvements.

In term of utilities, the Team was expected to record an inventory of utilities (high-voltage electricity,
gas. water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, communications, heating and air conditioning) as required.
This inventory was to include capacity determination, age, remaining useful life assessment and any
possible future constraints. Waste disposal systems, incinerators and other facilities were also
inventoried.

Finally, an inventory of surface access systems - to/from/on the airport - was to be taken, including
access/circulation/service roads, parking, and forecourt space, in order to cover alignment, condition
and capacity. Public transportation services were also assessed for capacity and modal split
(percentages carried by bus, rail, taxi, limousine, private car, etc.).

The availability of data is one factor in determining the scope of and level of effort required for the
master plan. Depending on the availability of data, the master plan scope can be sized accordingly.

At many airports, a significant amount of the data needed for the master plan may be readily at hand in
airport data bases, or in recent reports. It is important to verify the source and relevancy of this existing
data to ensure it is accurate and reflects current conditions.

Recent studies can provide pertinent information on the history of the airport and how it developed. It
can be useful to identify major development milestones on a simple timeline (from airport opening
through different capacity expansion phases to the present day).

In this case, secondary data was obtained that permitted a full demand/capacity and requirements
assessment of the runway systems, aprons, passenger terminals, and in the case of Cairo, the cargo
facilities. Unfortunately, the evaluation of support facilities, surface accesses, utilities and non-airport
land uses was not possible due to lack of sufficient information and is not presented in this Report.

         2.4.2. Cairo International Airport

As previously noted, due to security restrictions, the Consultant Team was not able to survey the
facilities (airside and landside) at CAI. The information on existing facilities at the airport (airside and
landside) were provided to the Consultant Team, following a questionnaire index and data request
sheets. In order to facilitate the presentation of the information obtained by the Consultant, a summary
of the airport facilities is compiled in the following tables.

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                             REPORT 5 - PAGE | 26
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                          DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

              Table 3 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Cairo International Airport

                           CAIRO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (CAI) – Terminal Complex
                                                            Terminal
       Terminal                                          Capacity (Million
                            Terminal Use       Levels                         Other Considerations
       Building                                           Passengers Per
                                                         Annum – MPPA)
                           Mix use –        1 Level          7.5 MPPA       Passenger terminal divided
                           International   (operational)                     in Hall 1, Hall 2, Hall 3 and
      Terminal
                           and Domestic                                      Hall 4
  Building 1 (TB-1)
                                                                            Hall 4 has a capacity of
                                                                             430,000 MPPA
      Terminal             International   Two levels        7.5 MPPA       14 contact gates
  Building 2 (TB-2)        traffic         (operational)                    4 remote gates
                           Mix use –       Two levels        11 MPPA        20 contact gates
      Terminal
                           International   (operational)                    57 remote gates
  Building 3 (TB-3)
                           and Domestic
       Seasonal            Hajj pilgrimage 1 Level           1.8 MPPA       Use of remote gates located
       Terminal                            (operational)                     at TB-3
Source: EHCANN / CAC

                       Table 4 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Cairo International Airport

                           CAIRO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (CAI) – Airside System
                                        Runway
   Number of           Runway                           Taxiways /             Aircraft Aprons /
                                     Dimensions /
   Runways         Denomination                      Characteristics            Characteristics
                                       Equipment
                   05L / 23R        3,301m X 60m   47 taxiways,            17 apron areas on the
   Runway 1        Cat I             ILS           connecting runways,      aerodrome
                                     PAPI          aprons and airside      Apron areas are built on
                   05R / 23L        3,999m X 60m    facilities               reinforced concrete,
   Runway 2        Cat II            ILS          Taxiways are built       with different PCN
                                     PAPI          on flexible and rigid    values
                                    4,000m X 60m    pavements, with         Slopes on aprons below
                                     ILS           different PCN values     1%
                                     PAPI         Taxiway shoulders’      Outer stands wing
                   05C / 23C                        dimension varies         clearance:
   Runway 3                                         from 7.5m to 17.5m
                   Cat II                                                    - Code C: 4.5 m
                                                                             - Codes D, E, F: 7.5 m
                                                                            Several stands for Code
                                                                             F aircraft
Source: EHCANN / CAC



The airport layout for CAI is presented in Figure 3




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                     REPORT 5 - PAGE | 27
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                  DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

                          Figure 3: Airport Layout Plan for Cairo International Airport




                Source: EHCANN / CAC



Airside Capacity

In order to determine the airside facility requirements CAI it was necessary to use
international/industry-approved methods to assess the existing capacity of current airside
configuration.

Airport Reference Code

The current Airport Reference Code for CAI is 4E, nevertheless the airport meets the standards for Code
4F, as the Code is a reflection of both the type of aircraft the airport currently serves or is intended to
serve and the physical characteristics of the airport, which are the Airside Design Standards.

The physical characteristics of the airport’s airside elements to be evaluated are:

       Runway Width;
       Taxiway Width;
       Shoulder Width;
       Runway Strip Width (Runway Safety Area);
       Runway Centerline/Parallel Taxiway Centerline;
       Taxiway Centerline/Parallel Taxiway Centerline;
       Taxiway Centerline/Fixed or Movable Object;
       Runway Centerline/Hold Position; and
       Runway End Safety Area

These parameters (please, refer to CAI’s Aeronautical Information Publication - AIP) are contrasted to
ICAO Design Standards (ICAO Annex 14, FAA AC 150/5300-13), in order to establish compliance with
international rules and regulations. It is to be noted that a third parallel runway (and associated
taxiways) were built since the completion of the latest airport master plan - The National Airport Master
Plan (NAMP), developed by the Louis Berger Group, Inc. (2006).


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 28
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                    DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

CAI’s physical characteristics currently meets the Airside Design Standards associated with its current
Code. Any change in the Code will require modifications of the Airside Design Standards - and also - a
further review of the facility requirements needed to meet the revised Airside Design Standards. Since
CAI is currently meeting the highest level of design standards associated with the ICAO (Code 4F),
changes to the Code are not anticipated during the period of the study.

As CAI comes under the guidance of ICAO, the organization’s stipulations regarding capacity assessment
are to be followed, which are those contained in the United States Federal Aviation Administrat ion’s
(FAA) Airport Capacity and Delay, Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5060-5.

For this analysis, the Hourly Capacity (HC) and the Annual Service Volume (ASV) for the Airside
Components have been determined, including:

         Runway – Taxiway System;
         Gate and Apron Area(s); and
         Air Cargo

Also, the capacity of other elements of the airside is to be analyzed to support a given demand. These
components are needed to support airside operations and can directly impact the ability of the airport
to efficiently and safely serve current and forecasted traffic, these components include:

         Airspace and Potential Obstructions to Air Navigation;
         Navigational Aids and Air Traffic Control;
         Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting;
         Fuel Storage and Dispensing; and
         Airline Services

As airport site visits were not possible (as noted earlier), the Consultant has based the analysis on the
assessment of previous studies and the data provided by ECHAAN/CAC.

The NAMP established the characteristics of the runway – taxiway system of CAI, including the third
runway (in construction during the development of that study), currently completed. The analyses
presented established that in year 2025, the HC of the system was 116 movements, with an ASV of
326,000.

Having determined, as appropriate, the Hourly Capacity and ASVs for the airside components, their
capacities are compared to forecasted traffic, in order to determine facility requirements – if any
required. The comparative analysis, referred as a Demand/Capacity Analysis, and the resultant Facility
Requirements, are presented for the CAI airfield.

Table 5 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of aircraft movements (ATMs), for the peak hour and totals per year.

              Table 5 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Cairo International Airport

                                                         PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)

         AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS
               (ATMS)                    2017            2022          2027          2032           2037


                Peak Hour                  35             35             40            45            47

                   Annual               149,994        186,687        221,673       255,381       286,146
Source: IOS Partners, Inc.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 29
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                             DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Having established the Hourly Capacity of the runway-taxiway system in 116 movements, with an
Annual Service Volume of 326,000 for the year 2025 (as per the NAMP), it is understood that the
projected demand volumes for the year 2037 (HC = 47; ASV = 286,146) do not exceed the capacity of
the system. Again, this analysis has included the third operational runway.

Development plans and phasing should be linked to traffic volumes, not specific years. For example, a
specific development is required when the airport has a determined number of enplaned/deplaned
passengers, not for a specific year. This approach provides flexibility and will not trigger expansion
until it is actually needed.

Industry practice is to begin planning for the expansion or replacement of facilities when they are
expected to reach 60% of their capacity, with construction of the capacity enhancements underway
before 80% of capacity is reached. As a result of the application of this principle, the “demand triggers”
for the planning and construction of capacity related improvements for CAI’s Runway – Taxiway System
have been determined at 70 Peak Hour operations (60% of a HC of 116), or 195,600 annual operations
(60% of the ASV) for planning purposes. For construction, the demand triggers are 93 Peak Hour
operations (80% of the HC), or 260,800 annual operations (80% of the ASV).

It is also noted that two new airports are expected to begin operations the near future in the greater
Cairo area, further alleviating the demand at CAI. The Katameya International Airport (serving the
planned New Administrative Capital) and the Sphinx International Airport are both slated to share the
air traffic with CAI. Whilst only minimal infrastructure information related to these new airports has
been available to the Consultant, it is expected that the capacity provided by the three aerodromes
would be more than enough to absorb the traffic demand for the Greater Cairo region.

Aircraft Parking Apron and Gate Capacity

The 2006 NAMP established the requirements of the aircraft parking apron and gate needs, based on
two alternative methods. One of them, depicting distribution of positions according to aircraft
categories (mainly C, D, E and F); while the other compared overall sizes of existing aircraft parking
aprons vs. operational needs in terms of total surface areas, expressed in m².

The data, provided by CAC to the Consultant, includes the total areas of 17 different apron areas, which
will be taken into consideration for this analysis, excluding those not directly related to the passenger
terminal areas (such as the cargo village apron). However, the impossibility to perform a survey of the
airport areas (including aircraft parking aprons) has limited the current analysis, as the information
regarding aircraft stand markings, MARS (Multiple Aircraft Ramp System) and other elements are not
available.

According to CAC’s provided data, the aprons serving the terminal complex at CAI provide a total of 95
aircraft parking positions: 18 stands at apron serving TB-2 and 77 stands serving TB-3. These aprons
serve the entire range of aircraft categories, from C to F.

Assumptions

The ICAO guidance indicates Code D and E aircraft operating as an international flight typically have
gate occupancy times of 60 minutes and 120 minutes, respectively (Section 7.3, Airport Planning
Manual – Part One, Master Planning (Doc 9184-AN/902 Part 1). The same guidance indicates Code C
and D aircraft operating in domestic service would typically have a gate occupancy time of 45 minutes.
It has been assumed international Code F and domestic Code E aircraft would have Gate Occupancy
Times of 180 and 60 minutes, respectively. The Gate Occupancy Times are listed in Table 6.

To provide a continuity in the analysis, this study has based the capacity evaluation following the same
method utilized in the NAMP, which is utilizing the Average Day Peak Month (ADPM) forecasts, in order
to establish a range of aircraft parking apron utilization.


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                           REPORT 5 - PAGE | 30
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                          DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

The forecast ADPM for CAI indicates international flights will make up for almost 90% of total flights
throughout the planning period; therefore, it would be appropriate, from a gate capacity standpoint, to
utilize a gate occupancy time of 120 minutes per arrival.

                                        Table 6 – Gate Occupancy Times (in minutes)

                                                      Gate Occupancy Times per Aircraft Code
           Arrival Type                         C               D                     E                    F
           International                        60              60                    120                 180
             Domestic                           45              45                    60                   -
          Source: ICAO/IOS Partners, Inc.


Given the mix nature of the traffic utilizing the airport (origin/destination and transfer flights), it is
derived that the domestic peaks are very accentuated during specific times of the day, while
international peaks are relatively continuous, as the global location of Cairo makes it a suitable point of
traffic from every market (Europe, North America, Asia, Africa, etc.). Therefore, in a conservative
manner, the peak hour traffic has been assumed to be in the high range of 12% to 18% of the ADPM, in
order to balance the marked domestic peaks and the less prominent international peaks. For the benefit
of this analysis, a peak hour arrival of 60% has been utilized.

Analysis

The ADPM for the airport in the forecast year 2037 is 878 ATMs. Using the assumptions discussed
above, including a Peak Hour Traffic as 12% - given the fact that traffic at CAI is continually during the
operational day - the peak hour demand for gate (aircraft parking) positions in year 2037 will be 64
positions (60% of 12% of 878). The forecast for gate positions, based on various estimates of peak hour
demand, throughout the project period is presented in Table 7.

                 Table 7 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for the Cairo International Airport


                                                                     2023-            2028-        2032-
                                                      2022
                                                                     2027             2032         2037

               ATMs - Average Day, Peak
                                                       573            680              784          878
                   Month (ADPM)

             Assumption of Peak Hour
                                                        69            82               95           106
             Traffic as 12% (average)

             Gate Requirements as 60% of
                                                        42            50               57            64
              Peak Hour Arrival Traffic -
                   Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

Given the current number of positions is 95, it has been estimated the demand for gate positions within
the peak hour will be below current capacity by the end of the planning period (year 2037). To
determine more specifically when this overcapacity will occur, and what type of development should
be implemented, will require a more detailed analysis including airline schedules and fleet mix. In
addition, the demand for Remain Over Night (RON) positions must also be considered. RON positions
often occupy remote parking positions; however, given the current layout and the distribution of peaks
during the day, RON positions might be accounted for within the existing apron area.

Additionally, in order to determine if overall apron area (in terms of square meters of apron dedicated
to aircraft parking) is sufficient to support the forecast demand, it is recommendable to assign typical
“gross area per aircraft Code”. The boundaries of the gross area per aircraft Code are based on a
representative aircraft occupying a non-contact gate position and is depicted in the table below.
 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                         REPORT 5 - PAGE | 31
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                                   DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                                            Table 8 – Gross Area per Aircraft Code

                                                   Aircraft Code/Category
                                 C                    D                     E                    F
                             3,100 m²             4,700 m²             6,600 m²              9,300 m²
                              * The gross area per Aircraft Code is based on standard safety clearances and professional judgment


It should also be noted that two new airports near Cairo are expected to start operations in the near
future. It is expected that these aerodromes will share regional traffic volumes with CAI, and that the
total combined capacity provided by the three airports would be enough to absorb the traffic demand
forecasted for the Cairo region, at least throughout the study period.

Terminal Complex Capacity

Based on the traffic projections, presented in the Report 2 (of this study), the results for the Medium
Scenario (most-likely) can be summarized as follows:

         Total passengers are forecasted to increase from about 16 million in the base year 2017 to 33.8
          million by 2037; this represents an annual average growth of 3.8%

Table 9 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of millions of passengers per year (MPPA).

                    Table 9 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Cairo International Airport

                                                             PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)
                                                                             2023-            2028-           2032-
                                          2017              2022
                                                                             2027             2032            2037

 International Passengers -
                                        14,046,294        17,996,733      22,115,861       26,291,316      30,691,652
        Commercial


    Domestic Passengers -
                                        1,906,606         2,250,304        2,609,813       2,968,734        3,135,005
       Commercial

     Total          Commercial          15,952,900        20,247,037      24,725,674       29,260,049      33,826,657
  Passengers          Other                 238             1,345            1,523            1,724           1,951

          Total (MPPA)                  15,953,138        20,248,382      24,727,197       29,261,773      33,828,608

Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


According to the data provided by EHCANN/CAC, related to current airport capacity, CAI’s facilities are
capable of process a total of approximately 27.8 million passengers per year. This figure is a combined
number of commercial passengers (international and domestic) distributed among the terminal
complex (TB-1, TB-2, TB-3 and the seasonal/hajj terminal).

Given the estimated (almost) 16 million passengers per year to travel by CAI in 2017, it is safe to assume
that the current facilities at the airport have the required extra processing capacity to process the
estimated demand and more.

Due to the lack of data available to the Consultant related to specific terminal areas, processing times,
holding areas, processors, etc. – the capacity assessment for CAI has been performed by correlating the
forecasted traffic (in 5-year intervals) with the declared capacity of the facilities, as presented in Table
9, and the analysis of previous studies.

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                              REPORT 5 - PAGE | 32
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                              DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


By relating the figures in the CAI Master Plan (“Consultancy Services Contract Terminal Area No. 3”, by
Netherland Airports Consultants – NACO / Engineering Consultants Group - ECG) with the Passenger
Forecast Summary (Table 9), it can be concluded that, following the CAI Master Plan guidelines, major
investments at CAI are on track, regarding Passenger Terminal Complex capacity and facility
requirements.

According to the CAI Master Plan, the further pre-selected development stages are:

       Stage 2/Year 2020 – Terminal 2/3 (TB-2/TB-3 operating as a unified complex) will handle 30
        million passengers (the entire airport will then have a capacity of some 36.7 million annual
        passengers). At this point, a high-quality rail connection should be available to the airport to
        keep the motorized access traffic within acceptable limits.

The National Airport Master Plan (NAMP), developed by the Louis Berger Group, Inc. (2006), assessed
that – during the period from 2016 to 2025 – Terminal 3 at CAI would increase the operational capacity
to process 27 to 32 million total annual passengers. Furthermore, the NAMP states that Terminals 2
and 3 at CAI (TB-2/TB-3) would be able to cater for approximately 36 million total passengers by year
2020 (this, based on CAI MP assessments), with rail connection to/from the Airport to ease access
(Cairo Metro’s new line - Line 3 – already in execution, will link Greater Cairo from east to west, with
the airport at one end, and Mohandessin district at the other).

In addition, the traffic forecasted for CAI is estimated at almost 34 million passengers by year 2037.
This estimated traffic projection is lesser than the declared capacity of 36 million passengers by the
year 2020, which equates to enough airport terminal facilities’ capacity to process the forecasted
demand throughout and up to the end of the planning period.

Finally, the two new airports in the surrounding areas of Cairo that are expected to start operations in
the near future should further alleviate the demand stress at CAI. The Katameya Airport and the Sphinx
International Airport are both expected to share regional and charter traffic volumes with CAI. Whilst
no infrastructure information – related to these new airports – has been available to the Consultant, it
is expected that the capacity provided by the three aerodromes would be more than enough to absorb
the traffic demand for the Greater Cairo region.

As presented above, development stages met the traffic forecast estimates well, although, it should be
noted that periodic investigations through passenger/aircraft/operations traffic study and updates of
the Master Plan shall be conducted - at least - every five (5) year intervals to ensure that provided Level
of Service and capacity/requirements in the Passenger Terminal Complex at Cairo International Airport
(and the region’s aerodromes) are adequate and according to the forecasted demand.

As a conclusion, all major investments/improvements presented in the CAI Master Plan (by NACO/ECG)
are required and are enough to cover the projected traffic growth development during the study period,
providing the capacity and Level of Service adequate at each stage (every five years). It should be
further noted that the planned total building area and terminal landside improvements (access and loop
roads, curb lengths, car park areas, etc.), the proposed construction investments also account for
volume of airport employees and passenger meeters and greeters, although current operations and
security procedures at CAI limit the access of escorts to public spaces and processing areas within the
Passenger Terminal Complex.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                            REPORT 5 - PAGE | 33
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Air Cargo

As noted in the study, air cargo traffic at the airports in Egypt other than Cairo International is quite
minimal, accounting for significantly less than 1% of the national total and in most cases is not even
reported as part of the official traffic statistics. As such, analyses related to air cargo capacity will focus
on facilities at CAI.

The Air Cargo facilities at CIA were not visited, nor surveyed by the Consultant Team, and the
information for this analysis has been based on previous studies.

The NAMP stated that the cargo village areas at CAI are comprised of an apron area, large warehouse(s),
and landside auto-truck parking area. The apron area has been reported to have positions for five (5)
ICAO Code D aircraft; and the warehouse area to be approximately 32,000 m2.

The forecast indicates the majority of air cargo is transported via belly cargo (in the holds of commercial
passenger aircraft), and only a small number of scheduled and non-scheduled all cargo flights utilize
the cargo apron.

As presented in the following table, cargo terminals are generally subdivided in three main categories.

                                        Table 10 – Types of Cargo Terminals

                           TYPE                                 DESCRIPTION
                   Origin/Destination         No cargo transfer among different aircraft
                   “Hub” Terminal             Cargo transfer among different aircraft
                                              Specially equipped terminals, capable of
                                              handling and processing specific requirements
                   Specialty Terminal
                                              (i.e. sort express merchandise for shipping and
                                              delivery)

Cargo operations at CAI are better suited under the classification “origin / destination”, due to the fact
that cargo handling operations are primarily based on the transfer from cargo terminal to aircraft and
vice versa.

In 1993, the University of Rhine-Westphalia Airport Research Centre in Germany published a Report
on Capacity Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Air Cargo Terminals. This document analyzed 24
airports around the world, each with different air cargo flow levels, and concluded that air cargo
terminal operating capacities are:

                Origin/Destination:                         5 – 15 tonnes/square metre
                Specialty Terminal:                         5 – 10 tonnes/square metre
                “Hub” Terminal:                             10 – 20 tonnes/square metre

Also, as per IATA‘s recommendations, the size of the cargo terminal building facility is derived from the
total annual cargo movement estimates. The space required is a function of the facility’s proposed
processing capability. The following planning ratios can be used:

                Low Automation (mostly manual)              5 tonnes/square metre
                Automated (average)                         10 tonnes/square metre
                Highly Automated                            17 tonnes/square metre

In order to calculate the capacity of the Air Cargo Terminal (Domestic and International) at CAI, an
operational capacity of 7.5 ton/m2 annually was assumed, based on the fact that a mid-range (low to
medium) automation operational procedure is assumed to be in place. Area Requirements are
presented by planning periods in the following table.


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 34
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                         Table 11 – Air Cargo Area Requirements by Planning Periods

                                                               Domestic
                International    Operational       Area                      Operational      Area
                                                                 Cargo
     Years     Cargo Forecast     Capacity         Reqs.                      Capacity        Reqs.
                                                                Forecast
               (tons per year)     Factor          (m²)                        Factor         (m²)
                                                              (tons/year)
      2022        407,679             7.5         54,357         7,508            7.5         1,001
      2027        501,638             7.5         66,885         8,147            7.5         1,086
      2032        595,452             7.5         79,394         8,803            7.5         1,174
      2037        691,044             7.5         92,139         9,512            7.5         1,268



As noted, the warehouse area – reported to be 32,000 m² - needs to be expanded significantly, from the
first development stage (year 2022). However, there are several elements to take into consideration, as
identified in the study “Cairo Aerotropolis” (from November 2014, please refer to earlier reports
included in this study for a general overview of the same).

The Cairo Aerotropolis Master Plan included the development of parcels dedicated for Air Cargo
(among other components). It is recommended to re-visit these guidelines (by phases, up to the year
2040) for implementation of the Air Cargo Zone (as part of the Cairo Aerotropolis), in order to be
evaluated and – if needed – calibrated, to satisfy the needs of the air cargo demand, taking into
consideration air cargo projections and demand triggers for its implementation.

In addition, as noted previously, two new airports in the surrounding areas of Cairo are expected to
start operations in the near future. Whilst these airports are expected to cater primarily to government-
related traffic, it is assumed that some air cargo will be also diverted from CAI, in order to alleviate the
air cargo demand stress at the existing airport. The New Administrative Capital Airport and the Sphinx
International Airport are both expected to share a portion of the regional air cargo traffic volumes with
CAI. It is noted that no infrastructure information – related to these new airports – has been available
to the Consultant, thus this joined air cargo infrastructure capacity study is recommended to be carried
out for the future.

         2.4.3. Borg El-Arab International Airport

For purposes of this master plan effort, it is assumed that the Alexandria International Airport (ALY)
will be closed in the near future and that the Borg El-Arab Airport will service the traffic demand for
the entire Alexandria region.

As previously noted, due to security restrictions, the Consultant Team was not able to survey the
facilities (airside and landside) at the airport. Secondary information regarding existing facilities at the
airport (airside and landside) was provided to the Consultant Team based on a questionnaire index and
data request sheets. In order to facilitate the presentation of the information obtained by the
Consultant, a summary of the airport facilities is compiled in the following tables.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                             REPORT 5 - PAGE | 35
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

         Table 12 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Borg El-Arab International Airport

               BORG EL-ARAB INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (HBE) – Terminal Complex
                                                   Terminal
                                               Capacity (Million
                   Terminal Use     Levels                          Other Considerations
                                                Passengers Per
                                               Annum – MPPA)
                  Mix use –       Multi-level  1.2 MPPA / 1,200   Total of 12 aircraft parking
      Terminal    International  (operational) PHP (peak hour      positions (contact and
      Building    and Domestic                 pax)                remote positions)
                                                                  Total terminal area of
                                                                   21,789m²
                                                                  Future terminal expansion
                                                                   to a total area of 34,000m²
Source: EHCANN / EAC

                Table 13 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Borg El-Arab International Airport

                     BORG EL-ARAB INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (HBE) – Airside System
                                      Runway
   Number of          Runway                               Taxiways /            Aircraft Aprons /
                                   Dimensions /
   Runways        Denomination                          Characteristics           Characteristics
                                    Equipment
                                 3,400m X 45m         5 taxiways,            2 apron areas on the
                                  SALS / 14 -         connecting runways,     aerodrome:
                                     CAT / 32 DME      aprons and airside      - 460m × 142m
                                     - GP - ILS (CAT   facilities              - 500m × 155m
                                     I)               Taxiways are built on  Apron areas with
   Runway 1       14 / 32         PCN                 asphalt, with           different PCN values
                                     55/F/B/W/U        different PCN values    (asphalt and reinforced
                                  Asphalt            Taxiway width’s         concrete)
                                     pavement          dimensions vary from  Total of 13 - 17 aircraft
                                                       23.5m to 30m            positions (depending on
                                                                               aircraft size)
Source: EHCANN / EAC


The airport layout for HBE is presented in the following Figure.

                         Figure 4: Airport Layout Plan for Borg El-Arab International Airport




                  Source: EHCANN / EAC

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                   REPORT 5 - PAGE | 36
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                 DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


Airside Capacity

To determine the airside facility requirements for HBE it was necessary to use international/industry-
approved methods to assess the existing capacity of current airside configuration.

The current Airport Reference Code for HBE is 4E, as the Code is a reflection of the physical
characteristics of the airport, which are the Airside Design Standards.

HBE’s physical characteristics currently meets the Airside Design Standards associated with its current
Code. Any change in the Code will require modifications of the Airside Design Standards - and also - a
further review of the facility requirements needed to meet the revised Airside Design Standards.

As HBE comes under the guidance of ICAO, the organization’s stipulations regarding capacity
assessment are to be followed, which are those contained in the United States Federal Aviation
Administration’s (FAA) Airport Capacity and Delay, Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5060-5.

For this analysis, the Hourly Capacity (HC) and the Annual Service Volume (ASV) for the Airside
Components have been determined.

As airport site visits were not possible (as noted earlier), the Consultant has based the analysis on the
assessment of previous studies and the data provided by ECHAAN/EAC.

The NAMP established the characteristics of the runway – taxiway system of HBE. The analyses
presented that the HC of the system was 47 - 48 movements, with an ASV of 210,000.

Having determined, as appropriate, the Hourly Capacity and ASVs for the airside components, their
capacities are compared to forecasted traffic, in order to determine facility requirements – if any
required. The comparative analysis, referred as a Demand/Capacity Analysis, and the resultant Facility
Requirements, are presented for the HEB airfield.

Table 14 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of aircraft movements (ATMs), for the peak hour and totals per year.
       Table 14 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Borg El-Arab International Airport

                                                      PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)

      AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS
            (ATMs)                     2017           2022          2027          2032          2037


             Peak Hour                  17             20             23            25            28


        International ATMs            16,916         22,779        27,787         33,815        40,212



          Domestic ATMs               7,005           8,837        10,622         12,466        13,120



            Total ATMs                23,921         31,616        38,408         46,281        53,331

       Source: IOS Partners, Inc.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                              REPORT 5 - PAGE | 37
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                               DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Results

Having established the Hourly Capacity of the runway-taxiway system, as well as the Annual Service
Volume, it is understood that the projected demand volumes for the year 2037, projected as HC = 28
(HC capacity = 47); and ASV = 53,331 (capacity ASV = 210,000) do not exceed the current capacity of
the system, therefore, capacity-enhancement improvements are not expected throughout the entire
study period.

As general guidelines, development plans and phasing should be linked to traffic volumes, not specific
years. For example, a specific development is required when the airport has a determined amount of
enplaned/deplaned passengers, not for a specific year. This approach provides flexibility and will not
trigger expansion until it is actually needed.

As stated previously, industry practice is to begin planning for the expansion or replacement of facilities
when they are expected to reach 60% of their capacity, with construction of the capacity enhancements
underway before 80% of capacity is reached. As a result of the application of this principle, the “demand
triggers” for the planning and construction of capacity related improvements for HEB’s Runway –
Taxiway System are way beyond 2037.

It is also noted that the traffic projections assumed for the analyses are inclusive of the entire catchment
areas covered by HEB and ALY, where HEB results more than enough to absorb the traffic demand for
the entire Alexandria region.

Aircraft Parking Apron and Gate Capacity

According to EAC’s provided data, there two (2) aprons at HEB, suitable for the accommodation of 13
aircraft, all Code C aircraft, such as the A320 or B737.

Assumptions

The ICAO guidance indicates Code D aircraft operating as an international flight typically have a gate
occupancy time of 60 minutes, whereas a domestic flight utilizing the same aircraft would have a gate
occupancy time of 45 to 50 minutes (Section 7.3, Airport Planning Manual – Part One, Master Planning
(Doc 9184-AN/902 Part 1). The forecast for HEB indicates international flights will make up more than
half of total flights throughout the planning period; therefore, it would be appropriate, from a gate
capacity standpoint, to utilize a gate occupancy time of 60 minutes per arrival.

The forecast provides Average Day Peak Month (ADPM) forecast data. Given the nature of the traffic
utilizing the airport (origin – destination flights), it was safe to assume the airport has a limited number
of peaks and traffic is relatively continuous. Therefore, the peak hour traffic has been assumed to be in
the range of 12% to 18% of the ADPM. The figure of 60% arrivals within the Peak Hour was also
applied.

Analysis

The ADPM for the airport in the forecast year 2037 is 174 ATMs. Using the assumptions discussed
above, including a Peak Hour Traffic as 15%, the peak hour demand for gate (aircraft parking) positions
in year 2037 will be 16 positions (60% of 15% of 174).

The forecast for gate positions, based on various estimates of peak hour demand, throughout the project
period is presented in the following table.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                            REPORT 5 - PAGE | 38
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                                 DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

               Table 15 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Borg El-Arab International Airport


                                                                           2023-           2028-           2032-
                                                           2022
                                                                           2027            2032            2037

                Average Day, Peak Month
                                                           105             127             152             174
                        (ADPM)

             Assumption of Peak Hour
                                                            16              19              23              26
             Traffic as 15% (average)

             Gate Requirements as 60% of
                                                            10              11              14              16
              Peak Hour Arrival Traffic -
                    Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

Given the current number of positions is thirteen (13), it has been estimated the demand for gate
positions within the peak hour will exceed current capacity between years 2028 and 2032. To
determine more specifically when this will occur, and what type of development should be
implemented, will require a more detailed analysis including airline schedules and fleet mix. In addition,
the demand for Remain Over Night (RON) positions must also be considered. RON positions often
occupy remote parking positions; however, given the current layout and the distribution of peaks
during the day, RON positions might be accounted for within the existing apron area.

Terminal Capacity

Based on the traffic projections, presented in the Report 2 (of this study), the results for the Medium
Scenario (most-likely) can be summarized as follows:

         Total passengers are forecasted to increase from about 2.25 million in the base year 2017 to
          around 5.5 million by 2037; more than doubling during the forecasted period.

The following table presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium
Scenario (most-likely), in terms of millions of passengers per year (MPPA).

               Table 16 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Borg El-Arab International Airport

                                                                  PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)
                                                                                 2023-           2028-           2032-
                                                  2017            2022
                                                                                 2027            2032            2037

       International Passengers
                                             2,112,964       2,712,476        3,392,341       4,232,592       5,160,296
         – Commercial (MPPA)

        Domestic Passengers –
                                                 137,020         177,407         215,932         257,833         272,274
         Commercial (MPPA)

       Total Passengers (MPPA)               2,249,984       2,889,883        3,608,273       4,490,425       5,432,570

          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Borg El-Arab Airport, close and well connected (via highways) to the city of Alexandria, is a natural
alternate to deviate some 2nd tier-city-related flights and remaining tourism-related flights (western
Mediterranean coast) in order to absorb capacity issues caused by the closing of Alexandria (Nozha)
Airport, limited by the physical impossibility of airfield expansion.



 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                              REPORT 5 - PAGE | 39
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Borg El-Arab’s modernization and expansion plans included the construction of a new passenger
terminal – inaugurated in 2010 - with a total floor area of 21,789m², designed to handle a maximum of
4.5 million passengers per year, although the declared annual capacity (as per EAC’s data) is 1.2 MPPA.
For the purposes of this analysis, the most current data provided by EAC will be utilized.

Since the analysis, based on peak-hour figures would not be possible, as the Consultant Team was not
able to survey the facilities (processing times, equipment performance, etc.) at HBE, due to the fact that
site visits were not permitted, the sizing of terminal areas will take into account benchmarking
parameters, based on total annual passengers and overall facilities’ areas.

Applying the ratios for overall space calculations, related to the figures of passenger forecast summary
(most likely scenario) presented in the previous table, the following results are obtained:

       Table 17 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Borg El-Arab International Airport


                                                                  2023-         2028-          2032-
                                                    2022
                                                                  2027          2032           2037


                Total Passengers (MPPA)           2,889,883     3,608,273     4,490,425      5,432,570

              Ratio of Gross Terminal-Area
                Space Requirements per                            0.01 m²/ annual pax
                    Annual Passenger
                  Total Area Required
             (passenger terminal building)          28,900        36,085        44,905        54,325
                          in m²
          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

As noted, capacity enhancements, in terms of new area requirements beyond the existing available
terminal space of 21,790 m² are needed at HBE, in order to satisfy the projected passenger traffic
demand, these could be summarized as follows:
                     Table 18 – Terminal Area Requirements for Borg El-Arab International Airport


                                                      Passenger Terminal Area Requirements

                  Period 2017 – 2022             Additional 7,000 to 8,000 m², up to approx. 30,000 m²


                  Period 2023 – 2027             Additional 6,000 to 7,000 m², up to approx. 37,000 m²


                  Period 2028 – 2032                 Additional 8,000 m², up to approx. 45,000 m²


                  Period 2033 – 2037                Additional 10,000 m², up to approx. 55,000 m²
                    Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


As noted previously, the approach to assure that adequate facilities are available when needed to meet
forecasted demand is to design facilities for the traffic forecasted at least 5 years in the future, as such,
improvements needed by 2022 should be designed for implementation by around 2018 - 2019,
providing flexibility in case of faster than projected growth.

In addition, to assure that capacity limits are addressed with sufficient time to address needs before
congestion develops, a flexible approach is proposed based on regular Master Plan updates and

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 40
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                   DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

including the following measure as triggers for initiating expansion improvements for passenger
terminals:

      Whenever 80% of the annual passenger levels of either the international or domestic passenger
       terminals are reached, the implementation process for increasing the domestic and/or the
       international terminal capacity would begin.

This recognized approach takes into account the time lag between project start and availability of
additional capacity for operations, which, in the case of terminal expansion, the implementation period
can still take as long as 2-3 years, depending on the magnitude of such expansion.

As the current declared capacity of HEB – in terms of total annual passengers - is 1.2 MPPA, lower than
the estimated passenger traffic for the year 2022 (almost 2.9 MPPA) it is suggested that expansion
planning processes to be started soon, for actual implementation by the expected period, in order to
avoid capacity constraints and declining Level of Service at HEB’s terminal facilities. This planning
process is to take into consideration three stages: short, medium and long term periods, in order to
optimize the implementation of additional area requirements, according to the analyses.

In addition, it should be noted that periodic investigations through passenger/aircraft/operations
traffic study and updates of the Master Plan shall be conducted - at least - every five (5) year intervals
to ensure that provided Level of Service and capacity/requirements in the Passenger Terminal Complex
at HEB (and the Alexandria region’s aerodromes) are adequate and according to the forecasted demand.

          2.4.4. Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport

As previously noted, due to security restrictions, the Consultant Team was not able to survey the
facilities (airside and landside) at the airport. Secondary information regarding existing facilities at the
airport (airside and landside) was provided to the Consultant Team based on a questionnaire index and
data request sheets. In order to facilitate the presentation of the information obtained by the
Consultant, a summary of the airport facilities is compiled in the following tables.


       Table 19 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport

                 SHARM EL-SHEIKH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SSH) – Terminal Complex
                                                       Terminal
       Terminal                                    Capacity (Million
                       Terminal Use     Levels                          Other Considerations
        Building                                    Passengers Per
                                                   Annum – MPPA)
                      Mix use –       Multi-level  5 MPPA             T1 is the newer terminal
       Terminal
                      International  (operational)                    Total of 43 aircraft parking
       Building 1
                      and Domestic                                     positions             (entire
                      Mix use –      Multi-level   2.5 MPPA            aerodrome)
                      International  (operational)                    Total declared capacity of
                      and Domestic                                     complex is 4,200 PHP (peak
                                                                       hour pax)
       Terminal                                                       T2 expansion planned to
       Building 2                                                      increase total complex
                                                                       capacity to 10 MPPA
                                                                      New terminal (T3) planned
                                                                       to increase total complex
                                                                       capacity to 15 MPPA
Source: EHCANN / EAC




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                REPORT 5 - PAGE | 41
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

              Table 20 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport

                   SHARM EL-SHEIKH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SSH) – Airside System
                                    Runway
  Number of          Runway                            Taxiways /          Aircraft Aprons /
                                 Dimensions /
  Runways         Denomination                      Characteristics          Characteristics
                                   Equipment
                                3,081m X 45m      13 taxiways,          5 apron areas on the
                                 CAT I/04 -       connecting runways,    aerodrome
                                    CATI /22       aprons and airside      (1) : 200m ×90m
   Runway 1       04L / 22R      DVOR/DME -       facilities              (2) : 320m × 178m
                                    ILS/CAT II -  Taxiways are built      (3) : 317m × 235m
                                    GP – LLZ       on asphalt, with        (4) : 617m × 262m
                                    (04L)          different PCN values
                                                                           (5) : 550m × 253m
                                3,081m X 45m      Taxiway width’s
                                 PCN              dimensions vary       Apron   areas with
                  22L / 04R         65/F/B/W/      from 24 to 25m         different  PCN values
   Runway 2                                                              Total  of 43 aircraft
                                    U
                                 Asphalt                                 positions
                                         pavement
   Source: EHCANN / EAC


The airport layout for SSH is presented in the following Figure

                      Figure 5: Airport Layout Plan for Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport




                 Source: EHCANN / EAC



Airside Capacity

it was necessary to use international/industry-approved methods to assess the existing capacity of
current airside configuration.



 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 42
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                   DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

The current Airport Reference Code for SSH is 4E, as the Code is a reflection of the physical
characteristics of the airport, which are the Airside Design Standards.

As stated in the NAMP, the current runway spacing of 450 m does not allow for independent parallel
operations (approaches and departures). This limited separation impacts the dual parallel runway
configuration’s overall capacity.

Given the runway configuration, an assumed fleet mix of 100 – 140 and percent arrivals of 60%, the
airfield should have an estimated Hourly Capacity of 46 to 48 aircraft (Figure 3-44, Chapter 3 of the
referenced AC 150/5060-5), and an ASV of approximately 320,000 (Figure 2, Chapter 2 of the
referenced AC). However, the lack of a parallel taxiway for the outer runway, and the rest of the airfield
configuration are causes of a reduction in the estimated peak hour and annual capacities.

Operational procedures to be implemented may help to mitigate the capacities issued, but this option
may only be slightly more efficient than a single-runway operation.

As such, assuming the operations at SSH – due to the above-mentioned constraints - as a single runway
airport, the modified estimated hourly capacity - under the same assumptions - is calculated to be HC =
48 and an ASV = 220,000 (please, refer to the previously-mentioned FAA AC). Furthermore, runway
crossings – due to the current airfield configuration – also imply reduction in capacity. NAMP’s analysis
has estimated revised HC = 41 and ASV = 187,000, which are figures used for this airside system
evaluation.

Having determined, as appropriate, the Hourly Capacity and ASVs for the airside components, their
capacities are compared to forecasted traffic, in order to determine facility requirements – if any
required. The comparative analysis, referred as a Demand/Capacity Analysis, and the resultant Facility
Requirements, are presented for the SSH airfield.

Table 21 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of aircraft movements (ATMs), for the peak hour and totals per year.

       Table 21 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport

                                                          PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)

        AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS
              (ATMs)                      2017           2022           2027          2032          2037


                Peak Hour                   12             16            19            21            22

          International ATMs              20,430         32,733        39,641        46,074        49,369

             Domestic ATMs                8,008          8,928         10,200        11,431        11,891

                Total ATMs                28438         41,660         49,842        57,504        61,261
Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

Having established the Hourly Capacity of the runway-taxiway system, as well as the Annual Service
Volume, it is understood that the projected demand volumes for the year 2037, projected as HC = 22
(HC capacity = 41); and ASV = 61,261 (capacity ASV = 187,000) do not exceed the current capacity of
the system, therefore, capacity-enhancement improvements are not expected throughout the entire
study period.


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                REPORT 5 - PAGE | 43
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                    DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

As noted previously, previously, industry practice is to begin planning for the expansion or replacement
of facilities when they are expected to reach 60% of their capacity, with construction of the capacity
enhancements underway before 80% of capacity is reached. As a result of the application of this
principle, the “demand triggers” for the planning and construction of capacity related improvements
for SSH’s Runway – Taxiway System are way beyond 2037.

Aircraft Parking Apron and Gate Capacity

According to EAC’s provided data, there are five (5) aprons at SSH, suitable for the accommodation of
46 aircraft, although the category or Code of those is not specified.

Assumptions

The ICAO guidance indicates Code D aircraft operating as an international flight typically have a gate
occupancy time of 60 minutes, whereas a domestic flight utilizing the same aircraft would have a gate
occupancy time of 45 to 50 minutes (Section 7.3, Airport Planning Manual – Part One, Master Planning
(Doc 9184-AN/902 Part 1). The forecast for SSH indicates international flights will make up more than
80% of total flights throughout the planning period; therefore, it would be appropriate, from a gate
capacity standpoint, therefore, a 58 minute gate occupancy time has been employed (60 min x 84% +
45 min x 16%).

The forecast provides Average Day Peak Month (ADPM) forecast data. Given the nature of the traffic
utilizing the airport (origin – destination flights), it was safe to assume the airport has a limited number
of peaks and traffic is relatively continuous, although the specific nature of the destination is conducive
to tourism-dedicated charters, which usually works within the check-in/check-out time from hotels.
Therefore, the peak hour traffic has been assumed to be in the high side of the range of 12% to 18% of
the ADPM. The figure of 60% arrivals within the Peak Hour was also applied.

Analysis

The ADPM for the airport in the forecast year 2037is 230 ATMs. Using the assumptions discussed
above, including a Peak Hour Traffic as 18%, the peak hour demand for gate (aircraft parking) positions
in year 2037 will be 25 positions (60% of 18% of 230). The forecast for gate positions, based on various
estimates of peak hour demand, throughout the project period is presented in Table 22.

           Table 22 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport


                                                                2023-          2028-         2032-
                                                  2022
                                                                2027           2032          2037

             Average Day, Peak Month
                                                   156           187            216            230
                     (ADPM)

           Assumption of Peak Hour
                                                   28             34             39            41
           Traffic as 18% (average)


           Gate Requirements as 60% of
                                                   17             21             24            25
            Peak Hour Arrival Traffic -

                 Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

Given the current number of positions is 46, it has been estimated the demand for gate positions within
the peak hour will not exceed current capacity during the entire planning period. It is to be noted that
the data available to the Consultant does not specify if all aprons are dedicated to commercial activity,
and it is assumed that some of the positions will be considered remote positions (away from the
 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                   REPORT 5 - PAGE | 44
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                    DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

passenger terminal complex). In any case, since the requirements – according to the forecast – is
roughly 50% of the overall current apron (five apron areas), it is assumed that the forecasted demand
will not exceed the current capacity. However, in order to specifically determine exact requirements,
when this will occur, and what type of development should be implemented, a more detailed analysis -
including airline schedules and fleet mix – is to be performed. In addition, the demand for Remain Over
Night (RON) positions must also be considered.

Terminal Capacity

Based on the traffic projections, presented in the Report 2 (of this study), the results for the Medium
Scenario (most-likely) can be summarized as follows:

        Total passengers are forecasted to increase from about 4.9 million in the base year 2017 to
         about 10.1 million by 2037; more than doubling the growth during the forecasted period.

Table 23 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of millions of passengers per year (MPPA).

           Table 23 – – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport

                                                         PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)
                                                                       2023-         2028-         2032-
                                         2017           2022
                                                                       2027          2032          2037

       International Passengers
                                      4,291,324       5,639,314      7,002074      8,343,733      9,166,329
         – Commercial (MPPA)

        Domestic Passengers –
                                       586,276         673,151        780,694       888,061       937,799
         Commercial (MPPA)

           Total Passengers
                                      4,877,600       6,312,465      7,782,768     9,231,794     10,104,128
               (MPPA)
         Source: IOS Partners, Inc.



Sharm El-Sheik International Airport is one of the two – jointly with Hurghada International Airport -
primary airports serving the tourist destinations along the Southern Sinai coast.

SSH’s terminal complex is comprised by two (2) passenger terminal buildings, Terminal 1, which is the
newer facility, commissioned and inaugurated in 2007, providing an area of 44,000 m². Terminal 2 is
the original passenger terminal, renovated thru the years, with and area of 15,600 m². The overall
complex provides approximately 60,000 m², with a declared annual capacity of 7.5 MPPA (as per EAC’s
data). For the purposes of this analysis, the most current data provided by EAC will be utilized.

Since the analysis, based on peak-hour figures would not be possible, as the Consultant Team was not
able to survey the facilities (processing times, equipment performance, etc.) at SSH, due to the fact that
site visits were not permitted, the sizing of terminal areas will take into account benchmarking
parameters, based on total annual passengers and overall facilities’ areas.

Applying the ratios for overall space calculations, related to the figures of passenger forecast summary
(most likely scenario) presented in the previous table, the following results are obtained:




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 45
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                    DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

 Table 24 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Sharm El-Sheikh Sheikh International Airport


                                                                 2023-          2028-         2032-
                                                   2022
                                                                 2027           2032          2037


                Total Passengers (MPPA)          6,312,465      7,782,768     9,231,794    10,104,128

              Ratio of Gross Terminal-Area
                Space Requirements per                           0.01 m²/ annual pax
                    Annual Passenger
                  Total Area Required
             (passenger terminal building)         63,125        77,827        92,318        101,050
                          in m²
          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

As noted, capacity enhancements, in terms of new area requirements – according to the existing
available terminal space of 60,000 m² - are needed at SSH, in order to satisfy the projected passenger
traffic demand, these could be summarized as follows:

                   Table 25 – Terminal Area Requirements for Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport


                                                     Passenger Terminal Area Requirements

                  Period 2017 – 2022                Additional 4,000 m², up to approx. 64,000 m²

                  Period 2023 – 2027                 Additional 14,000, up to approx. 78,000 m²

                  Period 2028 – 2032               Additional 15,000 m², up to approx. 93,000 m²

                  Period 2033 – 2037               Additional 8,000 m², up to approx. 102,000 m²
          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.



As noted previously, the approach to assure that adequate facilities are available when needed to meet
forecasted demand is to design facilities for the traffic forecasted at least 5 years in the future, as such,
improvements needed by 2022 should be designed for implementation by around 2018 - 2019,
providing flexibility in case of faster than projected growth.

In addition, to assure that capacity limits are addressed with sufficient time to address needs before
congestion develops, regular Master Plan updates are proposed, including the measure as triggers for
initiating expansion improvements for passenger terminals whenever 80% of the annual passenger
levels of either the international or domestic passenger terminals are reached, taking into account the
time lag between project start and availability of additional capacity for operations, which could take
as long as 2-3 years, depending on the magnitude of such expansion.

As the current declared capacity of SSH – in terms of total annual passengers - is 7.5 MPPA, very close
the estimated passenger traffic for the year 2022 (approximately 7.7 MPPA) it is suggested that
expansion planning processes to be started soon, for actual implementation by the expected period, in
order to avoid capacity constraints and declining Level of Service at SSH’s terminal facilities. This
planning process is to take into consideration three stages: short, medium and long term periods, in
order to optimize the implementation of additional area requirements, according to the analyses.

It has been reported that in 2008, EHCAAN announced plans to build a new (third) terminal at SSH. The
new terminal is (reported) planned to double the airport's capacity from 7 to 15 million passengers per
 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 46
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                    DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

year. The design phase was due to be completed by early 2010 and international contractors then were
invited for an open tender to construct the terminal which was scheduled to be completely constructed
by 2015. However, this construction has not been done given the decline in traffic following the 2011
revolution and subsequent events. It is recommended to revisit this new passenger terminal
implementation plans, including planning and design phases, in order to ensure that the new facility
caters for the projected traffic demand.

In addition, it should be noted that periodic investigations through passenger/aircraft/operations
traffic study and updates of the Master Plan shall be conducted - at least - every five (5) year intervals
to ensure that provided Level of Service and capacity/requirements in the Passenger Terminal Complex
at SSH are adequate and according to the forecasted demand.

          2.4.5. Hurghada International Airport

Hurghada International Airport is the other airport in South Sinai – besides Sharm El Sheikh
International Airport – serving the tourist destinations in the region.

As previously noted, due to security restrictions, the Consultant Team was not able to survey the
facilities (airside and landside) at the airport. Secondary information regarding existing facilities at the
airport (airside and landside) was provided to the Consultant Team based on a questionnaire index and
data request sheets. In order to facilitate the presentation of the information obtained by the
Consultant, a summary of the airport facilities is compiled in the following tables.

           Table 26 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Hurghada International Airport

                       HURGHADA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (HRG) – Terminal Complex
                                                         Terminal
       Terminal                                      Capacity (Million
                          Terminal Use    Levels                          Other Considerations
       Building                                       Passengers Per
                                                      Annum – MPPA)
                         Mix use –      Multi-level   Terminal         Total of 18 aircraft parking
      Terminal
                         International (operational)    Complex          positions          (terminal
      Building 1
                         and Domestic                   capacity is 13   complex)
                         Mix use –     Multi-level      MPPA            Total declared capacity of
      Terminal           International (operational)                     complex is 7,700 PPH (pax
      Building 2         and Domestic                                    per hour)
                                                                        Total area of 92,000 m²
Source: EHCANN / EAC

                  Table 27 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Hurghada International Airport

                        HURGHADA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (HRG) – Airside System
                                      Runway
   Number of           Runway                          Taxiways /            Aircraft Aprons /
                                   Dimensions /
   Runways         Denomination                     Characteristics           Characteristics
                                     Equipment
                                  4,000m X 45m    26          taxiways,  3 apron areas on the
                                   PCN            connecting runways,     aerodrome
                                      70/F/C/W/U   aprons and airside  Total apron area higher
   Runway 1        16 / 34
                                   Asphalt        facilities              than 200,000 m²
                                      pavement    Taxiways are built  Apron         areas   with
                                   SALS /16       on asphalt, with        different PCN values
                                  4,000m X 60m     different PCN values  More than 45 aircraft
                                   PCN                                    positions
                                      64//F/A/X/                          Reinforced concrete
   Runway 2        34 / 16            T
                                   Asphalt
                                      pavement
                                   CAT I /34
Source: EHCANN / EAC

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 47
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                               DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS




The airport layout for HRG is presented in the following figure

                      Figure 6: Airport Layout Plan for Hurghada International Airport




                                            Source: EHCANN / EAC


Airside Capacity

In order to determine the airside facility requirements HRG, it was necessary to use
international/industry-approved methods to assess the existing capacity of current airside
configuration.

The current Airport Reference Code for HRG is 4F, as the Code is a reflection of the physical
characteristics of the airport (and also of the aircraft permitted to land at the aerodrome), which are
the Airside Design Standards.

Given the runway configuration, an assumed fleet mix of 100 – 140 and percent arrivals of 60%, the
airfield should have an estimated Hourly Capacity of 56 aircraft (Figure 3-44, Chapter 3 of the
referenced AC 150/5060-5), and an ASV of approximately 320,000 (Figure 2, Chapter 2 of the
referenced AC). However, there are some airfield elements that are causes of a reduction in the
estimated peak hour and annual capacities.

As stated in the NAMP, the separation between the runway 16/34 and the parallel taxiway (A) is 165
m, which is less than the ICAO standard of 182.5 m for an instrumented runway.

The impact of this sub-standard separation is that aircraft cannot simultaneously operate on the
runway and taxiway, the inability to utilize the runway and taxiway simultaneously is equivalent to not
having a parallel taxiway at all. However, the climate and meteorological conditions associated with
this runway are such that visual flight rules (VFR) conditions are prevalent. Under VFR conditions the
necessity of an instrument approach to ensure landing is all but eliminated. According to ICAO
standards, separation for VFR conditions, are less than the current 165 m.
 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                              REPORT 5 - PAGE | 48
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                 DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


Given the analysis above, it results unreasonable to severely penalize the runway – taxiway capacity,
thus it was recommended the penalty (a 50% reduction in capacity) be applied only during IFR
conditions and during night operations.

As such, assuming the operations at HRG – due to the above-mentioned constraints - as a dual runway
airport with independent operations, the modified estimated hourly capacity - under the same
assumptions - is calculated to be HC = 45 and an ASV = 220,000 (please, refer to the previously-
mentioned FAA AC). Furthermore, this penalization in the system capacity also takes into account the
runway crossings – due to the current airfield configuration.

Having determined, as appropriate, the Hourly Capacity and ASVs for the airside components, their
capacities are compared to forecasted traffic, in order to determine facility requirements – if any
required. The comparative analysis, referred as a Demand/Capacity Analysis, and the resultant Facility
Requirements, are presented for the HRG airfield.

Table 28 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of aircraft movements (ATMs), for the peak hour and totals per year.

          Table 28 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Hurghada International Airport

                                                       PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)

      AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS
            (ATMs)                      2017           2022          2027          2032          2037


              Peak Hour                  19             22            25            28            29

          International ATMs           30,853         36,612        43,427        49,802        52,419

           Domestic ATMs                7,637          9,818        10,684        11,683        12,154

              Total ATMs               38,490        46,430         54,110        61,486        64,574
   Source: IOS Partners, Inc.



Results

Having established the Hourly Capacity of the runway-taxiway system, as well as the Annual Service
Volume, it is understood that the projected demand volumes for the year 2037, projected as HC = 29
(HC capacity = 45); and ASV = 64,574 (capacity ASV = 220,000) do not exceed the current capacity of
the system, therefore, capacity-enhancement improvements are not expected throughout the entire
study period.

As noted previously, previously, industry practice is to begin planning for the expansion or replacement
of facilities when they are expected to reach 60% of their capacity, with construction of the capacity
enhancements underway before 80% of capacity is reached. As a result of the application of this
principle, the “demand triggers” for the planning and construction of capacity related improvements
for HRG’s Runway – Taxiway System are way beyond 2037.

Aircraft Parking Apron and Gate Capacity

According to EAC’s provided data, there are three (3) apron areas at HRG, suitable for the
accommodation of 54 aircraft, although the category or Code of those is not specified.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                               REPORT 5 - PAGE | 49
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                  DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Assumptions

The ICAO guidance indicates Code D aircraft operating as an international flight typically have a gate
occupancy time of 60 minutes, whereas a domestic flight utilizing the same aircraft would have a gate
occupancy time of 45 to 50 minutes (Section 7.3, Airport Planning Manual – Part One, Master Planning
(Doc 9184-AN/902 Part 1). The forecast for HRG indicates international flights will make up for almost
95% of total flights throughout the planning period; therefore, it would be appropriate, from a gate
capacity standpoint, to implement a 58 minute gate occupancy time (60 min x 95% + 45 min x 5%).

The forecast provides Average Day Peak Month (ADPM) forecast data. Given the nature of the traffic
utilizing the airport (origin – destination flights), it was safe to assume the airport has a limited number
of peaks and traffic is relatively continuous, although the specific nature of the destination is conducive
to tourism-dedicated charters, which usually works within the check-in/check-out time from hotels.
Therefore, the peak hour traffic has been assumed to be in the high side of the range of 12% to 18% of
the ADPM. The figure of 60% arrivals within the Peak Hour was also applied.

Analysis

The ADPM for the airport in the forecast year 2037 is 197 ATMs. Using the assumptions discussed
above, including a Peak Hour Traffic as 18%, the peak hour demand for gate (aircraft parking) positions
in year 2037 will be 22 positions (60% of 18% of 197). The forecast for gate positions, based on various
estimates of peak hour demand, throughout the project period is presented in Table 29.

             Table 29 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Hurghada International Airport


                                                               2023-         2028-          2032-
                                                2022
                                                               2027          2032           2037

             Average Day, Peak Month
                                                 142            165           188            197
                     (ADPM)

           Assumption of Peak Hour
                                                  26             30            34            36
           Traffic as 18% (average)

           Gate Requirements as 60% of
                                                  16             18            21            22
            Peak Hour Arrival Traffic -
                Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

Given that the current number of positions is 54, it has been estimated the demand for gate positions
within the peak hour will not exceed current capacity during the entire planning period. It is to be noted
that the data available to the Consultant does not specify if all aprons are dedicated to commercial
operations, and it is assumed that some of the positions will be considered remote positions (away from
the passenger terminal complex). In any case, since the requirements is less than 50% of the overall
current apron capacity (three apron areas), it is assumed that the forecasted demand will not exceed
the current capacity. However, in order to specifically determine exact requirements, when this will
occur, and what type of development should be implemented, a more detailed analysis - including
airline schedules and fleet mix – is to be performed. In addition, the demand for Remain Over Night
(RON) positions should also be considered.

Terminal Capacity

Based on the traffic projections, presented in the Report 2 (of this study), the results for the Medium
Scenario (most-likely) can be summarized as follows:


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 50
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

         Total passengers are forecasted to increase from about 4.3 million in the base year 2017 to
          about 9.3 million by 2037; more than doubling the growth during the forecasted period.

Table 30 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of millions of passengers per year (MPPA).

                 Table 30 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Hurghada International Airport

                                                      PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)
                                                                    2023-         2028-         2032-
                                         2017         2022
                                                                    2027          2032          2037

  International Passengers
                                       4,280,273    5,020,135     7,321,047     8,607,909      9,289,026
    – Commercial (MPPA)


    Domestic Passengers –
                                       515,532       577,668       638,062       708,301        747,971
     Commercial (MPPA)


  Total Passengers (MPPA)              4,795,805    6,597,803     7,959,109     9,316,210     10,036,997

Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


The airport currently has two (2) separate passenger terminals: Terminal 1 and Terminal 2.
Construction of the new terminal complex was commissioned and open to operations by the end of
2014. The passenger terminal complex provides a reported overall area of 92,000 square meters on 3
levels, with a declared capacity of 13 MPPA (as per EAC data).

Since the analysis, based on peak-hour figures would not be possible, as the Consultant Team was not
able to survey the facilities (processing times, equipment performance, etc.) at HRG, due to the fact that
site visits were not permitted, the sizing of terminal areas will take into account benchmarking
parameters, based on total annual passengers and overall facilities’ areas.

Applying the ratios for overall space calculations, related to the figures of passenger forecast summary
(most likely scenario) presented in the previous table, the following results are obtained:

          Table 31 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Hurghada International Airport


                                                                  2023-         2028-          2032-
                                                     2022
                                                                  2027          2032           2037


                Total Passengers (MPPA)            6,597,803    7,959,109     9,316,210     10,036,997

              Ratio of Gross Terminal-Area
                Space Requirements per                            0.01 m²/ annual pax
                    Annual Passenger
                  Total Area Required
             (passenger terminal building)          66,000        80,000        93,165        100,400
                          in m²
          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

As noted, capacity enhancements, in terms of new area requirements – according to the existing
available (reported) terminal space of 92,000 m² - are needed at HGR, in order to satisfy the projected


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 51
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

passenger traffic demand by the last period of the study (years 2032) - 2037, these could be
summarized as follows:


                     Table 32 – Terminal Area Requirements for Hurghada International Airport


                                                    Passenger Terminal Area Requirements

                Period 2033 – 2037               Additional 10,000 m², up to approx. 102,000 m²
        Source: IOS Partners, Inc.



It is necessary to verify the total area provided by both terminals at HRG, as the NAMP reported that
terminal 1 (older facility) provided a total area of 30,020 m² (20,720 m² existing area plus 9,300 m² of
ongoing expansion – at the time of the NAMP study). It is unclear if the reported 92,000 m² of passenger
area at the airport is the results of the combined surface by both facilities, or just the new area provided
by the newer passenger terminal. In summary, it is needed to validate the total area of the terminal
complex as a whole, whether is 92,000 m² or 122,000 m².

In any case, and regardless of the total area provided by the passenger terminal complex at HRG, the
approach to assure that adequate facilities are available when needed to meet forecasted demand is to
design facilities for the traffic forecasted at least 5 years in the future, as such, improvements needed
by 2032 should be designed for implementation by around 2023 - 2024, providing flexibility in case of
faster than projected growth.

In addition, to assure that capacity limits are addressed with sufficient time to address needs before
congestion develops, regular Master Plan updates are proposed, including the measure as triggers for
initiating expansion improvements for passenger terminals whenever 80% of the annual passenger
levels of either the international or domestic passenger terminals are reached, taking into account the
time lag between project start and availability of additional capacity for operations, which could take
as long as 2-3 years, depending on the magnitude of such expansion.

As the current declared capacity of HRG – in terms of total annual passengers - is 13 MPPA, higher than
the estimated passenger traffic for the year 2037 (approximately 10 MPPA) it is suggested that
expansion planning processes be observed with caution. This planning process is to take into
consideration three stages: short, medium and long term periods, in order to optimize the
implementation of additional area requirements, according to the analyses.

In addition, it should be noted that periodic investigations through passenger/aircraft/operations
traffic study and updates of the Master Plan shall be conducted - at least - every five (5) year intervals
to ensure that provided Level of Service and capacity/requirements in the Passenger Terminal Complex
at HRG are adequate and according to the forecasted demand.

         2.4.6. Marsa Alam International Airport

Marsa Alam International Airport is located on the south Red Sea coast. The airport was built by private
capital under a BOT contract, negotiated by M.A Al-Kharafi Group of Kuwait with the Egyptian Civil
Aviation Authority (under a complete BOT system), for a period of 40 years, operated by EMAK Marsa
Alam for Management and Operation of Airports, a subsidiary of M.A Al-Kharafi Group. The RMF has
been operational since 2003.

As previously noted, due to security restrictions, the Consultant Team was not able to survey the
facilities (airside and landside) at the airport. Secondary information regarding existing facilities at the
airport (airside and landside) was provided to the Consultant Team based on a questionnaire index and
data request sheets. In order to facilitate the presentation of the information obtained by the
Consultant, a summary of the airport facilities is compiled in the following tables.

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                REPORT 5 - PAGE | 52
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                    DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

          Table 33 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Marsa Alam International Airport

                       MARSA ALAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (RMF) – Terminal Complex
                                                          Terminal
                                                      Capacity (Million
                           Terminal Use    Levels                          Other Considerations
                                                       Passengers Per
       Terminal
                                                      Annum – MPPA)
       Building
                          Mix use –      Multi-level  3.7 MPPA / 2,500   13 - 26 aircraft parking
                          International (operational) PHP (peak hour      positions
                          and Domestic                pax)
Source: EHCANN / EAC

                Table 34 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Marsa Alam International Airport

                      MARSA ALAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (RMF) – Airside System
                                     Runway
   Number of          Runway                         Taxiways /             Aircraft Aprons /
                                  Dimensions /
   Runways        Denomination                     Characteristics           Characteristics
                                    Equipment
                                 3,243m X 45m    Taxiway network,       1 apron area on the
                                  SALS / 15 –    connecting runways,     aerodrome
                                     CAT I / 33   aprons and airside     Apron areas with
                                  PCN            facilities              different PCN values
   Runway 1       15 / 33            54/F/A/W/T  Taxiways are built on   (asphalt and aircraft pads
                                     Asphalt      asphalt, PCN            in reinforced concrete)
                                     pavement     54/F/A/W/T
                                                 Taxiway width’s
                                                  dimensions is 23m
Source: EHCANN / EAC


The airport layout for RMF was not provided to the Consultant Team. A Google image of the airport is
presented in the following figure.

                          Figure 7: Airport Layout Plan for Marsa Alam International Airport




                                        Source: Google Earth©

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                   REPORT 5 - PAGE | 53
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                  DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


Airside Capacity

In order to determine the airside facility requirements HRG, it was necessary to use
international/industry-approved methods to assess the existing capacity of current airside
configuration.

The current Airport Reference Code for RMF is 4D, as the Code is a reflection of the physical
characteristics of the airport, which are the Airside Design Standards, thus the airport is capable of
serving all but the largest commercial aircraft.

With the given runway configuration, an assumed fleet mix of 120, and percent arrivals of 60%, the
airfield would have an estimated Hourly Capacity of 39 aircraft (Figure 3-43, Chapter 3 of the
referenced AC). Such a configuration should also yield an ASV of approximately 210,000 (Figure 1,
Chapter 2 of the referenced AC). However, there are some airfield elements that are causes of a
reduction in the estimated peak hour and annual capacities.

As stated in the NAMP, due to the absence of a full parallel taxiway it was necessary to reevaluate the
issue of runway occupancy time, which was the factor most impacted by a taxiway system. The analysis
performed resulted in a modified HC = 20 and an ASV = 105,000.

Having determined, as appropriate, the Hourly Capacity and ASVs for the airside components, their
capacities are compared to forecasted traffic, in order to determine facility requirements – if any
required. The comparative analysis, referred as a Demand/Capacity Analysis, and the resultant Facility
Requirements, are presented for the RMF airfield.

Table 35 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of aircraft movements (ATMs), for the peak hour and totals per year.

          Table 35 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Marsa Alam International Airport

                                                        PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)

      AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS
            (ATMs)                       2017           2022          2027          2032          2037


                Peak Hour                  7              9            11            12            13

          International ATMs             6,992         10,586        12,944        15,295        16,578

             Domestic ATMs                721            743           808           906           942

               Total ATMs                7,713         11,329        13,753        16,201        17,521
          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

Having established the Hourly Capacity of the runway-taxiway system, as well as the Annual Service
Volume, it is understood that the projected demand volumes for the year 2037, projected as HC = 13
(HC capacity = 20); and ASV = 17,521 (capacity ASV = 120,000) do not exceed the current capacity of
the system, therefore, capacity-enhancement improvements are not expected throughout the entire
study period.

As noted previously, industry practice is to begin planning for the expansion or replacement of facilities
when they are expected to reach 60% of their capacity, with construction of the capacity enhancements
underway before 80% of capacity is reached. As a result of the application of this principle, the “demand


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                REPORT 5 - PAGE | 54
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                  DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

triggers” for the planning and construction of capacity related improvements for RMF’s Runway –
Taxiway System are way beyond 2037.

However, regardless of the capacity issues, the need for taxiing on the runway will remain a safety
concern. To address this issue will require the development of a full, or at least partial, parallel taxiway.
If a partial parallel taxiway is to be adopted, effort should be made to ensure it serves the primary (most
frequently used) runway end.

Aircraft Parking Apron and Gate Capacity

According to EAC’s provided data, there is one (1) apron at RMF, although the capacity of the apron has
not been made available. From an observation of the Google image of the airport, 10 positions are
counted, however the category or Code of those cannot be determined. The NAMP stipulates that the
airport – at the time of the study – had the apron area is marked for a total of eight (8) power in – power
out aircraft parking positions. For the purposes of this analysis, 8 aircraft positions are assumed as the
current capacity of the apron.

Assumptions

The ICAO guidance indicates Code D aircraft operating as an international flight typically have a gate
occupancy time of 60 minutes, whereas a domestic flight utilizing the same aircraft would have a gate
occupancy time of 45 to 50 minutes (Section 7.3, Airport Planning Manual – Part One, Master Planning
(Doc 9184-AN/902 Part 1). The forecast for RMF indicates international flights will make up for almost
the entirety of total flights throughout the planning period; therefore, it would be conservative, from a
gate capacity standpoint, to utilize a gate occupancy time of 60 minutes per arrival.

The forecast provides Average Day Peak Month (ADPM) forecast data. Given the nature of the traffic
utilizing the airport (origin – destination flights), it was safe to assume the airport has a limited number
of peaks and traffic is relatively continuous, although the specific nature of the destination is conducive
to tourism-dedicated charters, which usually works within the check-in/check-out time from hotels.
Therefore, the peak hour traffic has been assumed to be in the high side of the range of 12% to 18% of
the ADPM. The figure of 60% arrivals within the Peak Hour was also applied.

Analysis

The ADPM for the airport in the forecast year 2037 is 60 ATMs. Using the assumptions discussed above,
including a Peak Hour Traffic as 18%, the peak hour demand for gate (aircraft parking) positions in
year 2037 will be 7 positions (60% of 18% of 60). The forecast for gate positions, based on various
estimates of peak hour demand, throughout the project period is presented in Table 36.

            Table 36 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Marsa Alam International Airport


                                                               2023-         2028-          2032-
                                                2022
                                                               2027          2032           2037

             Average Day, Peak Month
                                                  39             47            55            60
                     (ADPM)

           Assumption of Peak Hour
                                                  8              9             10            11
           Traffic as 18% (average)

           Gate Requirements as 60% of
                                                  5              6              6             7
            Peak Hour Arrival Traffic -
                Source: IOS Partners, Inc.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 55
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Results

Given the eight (8) current number of aircraft positions, it has been estimated the demand for gate
positions within the peak hour will not exceed current capacity during the entire planning period. It is
to be noted that the data available to the Consultant is not complete. However, in order to specifically
determine exact requirements, when this will occur, and what type of development should be
implemented, a more detailed analysis - including airline schedules and fleet mix – is to be performed.
In addition, the demand for Remain Over Night (RON) positions should also be considered.

Terminal Capacity

Based on the traffic projections, presented in the Report 2 (of this study), the results for the Medium
Scenario (most-likely) can be summarized as follows:

         Total passengers are forecasted to increase from about 1 million in the base year 2017 to about
          2.6 million by 2037; more than doubling the growth during the forecasted period.

The following table presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium
Scenario (most-likely), in terms of millions of passengers per year (MPPA).

                Table 37 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Marsa Alam International Airport

                                                      PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)
                                                                    2023-         2028-          2032-
                                      2017            2022
                                                                    2027          2032           2037

  International Passengers
                                    1,070, 894      1,553,538     1,947,549     2,359,305      2,621,867
    – Commercial (MPPA)

    Domestic Passengers –
                                      22,473         25,803         28,501        32,420        34,236
     Commercial (MPPA)

  Total Passengers (MPPA)           1,093,367       1,579,341     1,976,050     2,391,725      2,656,103

Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


As noted previously, the Consultant Team was not able to survey the facilities at RMF, in addition, EAC
data was not available for the passenger terminal complex at the airport. The NAMP describes the RMF
terminal as a modular design, with a total floor area of 7,000 m², with a nominal capacity declared to
reach 600 passenger/hour in Phase I (already built and operating) which can be easily expanded to
25,000 m², in order to accommodate up to 2,500 passenger/hour in the ultimate development.

Since the analysis, based on peak-hour figures would not be possible, as the Consultant Team was not
able to visit the facilities, the sizing of terminal areas will take into account benchmarking parameters,
based on total annual passengers and overall facilities’ areas.

Applying the ratios for overall space calculations, related to the figures of passenger forecast summary
(most likely scenario) presented in the previous table, the following results are obtained:




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 56
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                       DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


       Table 38 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Marsa Alam International Airport


                                                                  2023-         2028-         2032-
                                                    2022
                                                                  2027          2032          2037


                Total Passengers (MPPA)           1,093,367     1,579,341     1,976,050     2,391,725

              Ratio of Gross Terminal-Area
                Space Requirements per                            0.01 m²/ annual pax
                    Annual Passenger
                  Total Area Required
             (passenger terminal building)         10,940         15,800        19,769        24,000
                          in m²
          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

As noted, capacity enhancements, in terms of new area requirements – according to the existing
available (reported) terminal space of 92,000 m² - are needed at RMF, taking into consideration data
from the NAMP (total floor area of 7,000 m²), in order to satisfy the projected passenger traffic demand
throughout the study, these could be summarized as follows:

                      Table 39 – Terminal Area Requirements for Marsa Alam International Airport


                                                      Passenger Terminal Area Requirements

                  Period 2017 – 2022                 Additional 4,000 m², up to approx. 11,000 m²
                  Period 2023 – 2027                  Additional 5,000, up to approx. 16,000 m²
                  Period 2028 – 2032                 Additional 4,000 m², up to approx. 20,000 m²
                  Period 2033 – 2037                 Additional 4,000 m², up to approx. 24,000 m²
          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


It is necessary to verify the total area provided by the passenger terminal complex at RMF, as the NAMP
reported areas could not be verified by EAC nor by site visits. It is unclear if the original (Phase I)
terminal is still currently operating or if expansions and/or modifications have been implemented
lately. In summary, it is needed to validate the total area of the terminal complex at Marsa Alam
International Airport.

In any case, and regardless of the total area provided by the passenger terminal complex at RMF, since
this is a BOT Airport, under private operation, with a defined area growth planned by development
stages, the recommendation is to monitor closely the growth trends in passenger and operations, to
assure that capacity limits are addressed with sufficient time to cover needs before congestion
develops, observing the 80% rule trigger (explained before) for initiating expansion improvements for
the passenger terminal, taking into consideration that there is a time lag between project start and
availability of additional capacity for operations. In the case of terminal expansion can take as long as
2-3 years. This planning process is to take into consideration three stages: short, medium and long term
periods, in order to optimize the implementation of additional area requirements, according to the
analyses.

In addition, it should be noted that periodic investigations through passenger/aircraft/operations
traffic study and updates of the Master Plan shall be conducted - at least - every five (5) year intervals
to ensure that provided Level of Service and capacity/requirements in the Passenger Terminal Complex
at RMF are adequate and according to the forecasted demand.

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 57
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                           DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


          2.4.7. Assiut Airport

Assiut Airport is located on the Governorate of the same name, on the central part of Egypt, along the
Nile River.

As previously noted, due to security restrictions, the Consultant Team was not able to survey the
facilities (airside and landside) at the airport. Secondary information regarding existing facilities at the
airport (airside and landside) was provided to the Consultant Team based on a questionnaire index and
data request sheets. In order to facilitate the presentation of the information obtained by the
Consultant, a summary of the airport facilities is compiled in the following tables.

                       Table 40 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Assiut Airport

                                     ASSIUT AIRPORT (ATZ) – Terminal Complex
                                                               Terminal
                                                           Capacity (Million
                             Terminal Use       Levels                         Other Considerations
                                                            Passengers Per
       Terminal
                                                            Annum – MPPA)
       Building
                            Mix use –         Multi-level  1 MPPA / 800 PHP  4   commercial    aircraft
                            International    (operational) (peak hour pax)    parking positions
                            and Domestic
Source: EHCANN / EAC



                             Table 41 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Assiut Airport

                               ASSIUT AIRPORT (ATZ) – Airside System
                                     Runway
   Number of          Runway                           Taxiways /                              Aircraft Aprons /
                                  Dimensions /
   Runways        Denomination                      Characteristics                             Characteristics
                                    Equipment
                                 3,500m X 45m    9 taxiways,                            2 apron areas on the
                                 CAT I / 31 -     connecting runways,                    aerodrome
                                     SALS / 13     aprons and airside                      (1) : 300m × 120m
                                 PCN              facilities                              (2) : 215m × 107m
                                     45/F/C/W/U  Taxiways are built                     Apron areas
                                     Asphalt       on asphalt, PCN                        constructed in asphalt,
   Runway 1       13 / 31            pavement      60/F/A/X/T                             with some pads in
                                                 Taxiway width’s                         reinforced concrete,
                                                   dimensions vary                        with different PCN
                                                   from 23m to 30m                        values
                                                                                         Total of 7 aircraft
                                                                                          positions
Source: EHCANN / EAC



The airport layout for ATZ is presented in the following Figure




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                     REPORT 5 - PAGE | 58
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                               DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS



                              Figure 8: Airport Layout Plan for Assiut Airport




                               Source: EHCANN / EAC


Airside Capacity

In order to determine the airside facility requirements ATZ, it was necessary to use
international/industry-approved methods to assess the existing capacity of current airside
configuration.

The current Airport Reference Code for ATZ is 4D, as the Code is a reflection of the physical
characteristics of the airport, which are the Airside Design Standards, thus the airport is capable of
serving all but the largest commercial aircraft.

With the given runway configuration, the airfield would have an estimated Hourly Capacity of 50
aircraft (Figure 3-43, Chapter 3 of the referenced AC). Such a configuration should also yield an ASV of
approximately 195,000 (Figure 1, Chapter 2 of the referenced AC).

Having determined, as appropriate, the Hourly Capacity and ASVs for the airside components, their
capacities are compared to forecasted traffic, in order to determine facility requirements – if any
required. The comparative analysis, referred as a Demand/Capacity Analysis, and the resultant Facility
Requirements, are presented for the ATZ airfield.

The following table presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium
Scenario (most-likely), in terms of aircraft movements (ATMs), for the peak hour and totals per year.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                              REPORT 5 - PAGE | 59
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                     Table 42 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Assiut Airport

                                                      PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)

   AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS
         (ATMs)                        2017           2022          2027          2032          2037


            Peak Hour                   12             12             14            15              16

      International ATMs               3,169          3,292         3,910         4,436         4,911

        Domestic ATMs                  1,079           939          1,071         1,209         1,273

           Total ATMs                  4,248          4,231         4,980         5,645         6,184
Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

Having established the Hourly Capacity of the runway-taxiway system, as well as the Annual Service
Volume, it is understood that the projected demand volumes for the year 2037, projected as HC = 16
(HC capacity = 50); and ASV = 6,184 (capacity ASV = 195,000) do not exceed the current capacity of the
system, therefore, capacity-enhancement improvements are not expected throughout the entire study
period.

As noted previously, industry practice is to begin planning for the expansion or replacement of facilities
when they are expected to reach 60% of their capacity, with construction of the capacity enhancements
underway before 80% of capacity is reached. As a result of the application of this principle, the “demand
triggers” for the planning and construction of capacity related improvements for ATZ’s Runway –
Taxiway System are way beyond 2037.

Aircraft Parking Apron and Gate Capacity

According to EAC’s provided data, there two (2) aprons at ATZ, suitable for the accommodation of 7
aircraft.

Assumptions

The forecast for ATZ indicates international flights will make up more than 95% of total flights
throughout the planning period; therefore, applying the methodology used previously in this study, it
would be appropriate and conservative, from a gate capacity standpoint, to utilize a gate occupancy
time of 60 minutes per arrival.

The forecast provides Average Day Peak Month (ADPM) forecast data. Given the nature of the traffic
utilizing the airport (origin – destination flights), it was safe to assume the airport has a limited number
of peaks and traffic is relatively continuous. Therefore, the peak hour traffic has been assumed to be in
the range of 12% to 18% of the ADPM. The figure of 60% arrivals within the Peak Hour was also
applied.

Analysis

The ADPM for the airport in the forecast year 2037 is 91 ATMs. Using the assumptions discussed above,
including a Peak Hour Traffic as 15%, the peak hour demand for gate (aircraft parking) positions in
year 2037 will be 9 positions (60% of 15% of 91). The forecast for gate positions, based on various
estimates of peak hour demand, throughout the project period is presented in Table 43.



 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 60
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                                 DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

                             Table 43 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Assiut Airport


                                                                           2023-           2028-           2032-
                                                           2022
                                                                           2027            2032            2037

                Average Day, Peak Month
                                                            40              61              80              91
                        (ADPM)

             Assumption of Peak Hour
                                                            6               10              12              14
             Traffic as 15% (average)

              Gate Requirements as 60% of
                                                            4                6               8               9
               Peak Hour Arrival Traffic -
                    Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

Given that the current number of positions is seven (7), it has been estimated the demand for gate
positions within the peak hour will exceed current capacity between years 2028 and 2032 and beyond.
To determine more specifically when this will occur, and what type of development should be
implemented, will require a more detailed analysis including airline schedules and fleet mix. In addition,
the demand for Remain Over Night (RON) positions shall also be considered.

Terminal Capacity

Based on the traffic projections, presented in the Report 2 (of this study), the results for the Medium
Scenario (most-likely) can be summarized as follows:

          Total passengers are forecasted to increase from about 500,000 in the base year 2017 to about
           750,000 by 2037; more than doubling the growth during the forecasted period.

Table 44 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of millions of passengers per year (MPPA).

                             Table 44 – – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Assiut Airport

                                                                  PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)
                                                                                 2023-           2028-           2032-
                                                  2017            2022
                                                                                 2027            2032            2037

         International Passengers
                                                 515,532         577,668         638,062         708,301         747,971
           – Commercial (MPPA)

          Domestic Passengers –
                                                 28,090          32,252          37,405          42,549          44,932
           Commercial (MPPA)


         Total Passengers (MPPA)                 543,621         609,920         675,467         750,850         792,903

Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


As noted previously, the Consultant Team was not able to survey the facilities at ATZ, in addition, EAC
data was not available for the passenger terminal complex at the airport and the NAMP does not provide
data on the airport either.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                              REPORT 5 - PAGE | 61
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Since the analysis, based on peak-hour figures would not be possible, as the Consultant Team was not
able to visit the facilities, the sizing of terminal areas will take into account benchmarking parameters,
based on total annual passengers and overall facilities’ areas.

Applying the ratios for overall space calculations, related to the figures of passenger forecast summary
(most likely scenario) presented in the previous table, the following results are obtained:

                    Table 45 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Assiut Airport


                                                                  2023-         2028-          2032-
                                                    2022
                                                                  2027          2032           2037


                Total Passengers (MPPA)            609,920       675,467       750,850        792,903

              Ratio of Gross Terminal-Area
                Space Requirements per                            0.01 m²/ annual pax
                    Annual Passenger
                  Total Area Required
             (passenger terminal building)          6,100         6,800          7,500         8,000
                          in m²
          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

As noted, in terms of area requirements, 8,000 m² of available passenger terminal area will suffice for
the entire study period. It is necessary to verify the total area provided by the passenger terminal
complex at ATZ, to assure that capacity limits are addressed with sufficient time to cover needs before
congestion develops, observing the 80% rule trigger (explained before) for initiating expansion
improvements for the passenger terminal, taking into consideration that there is a time lag between
project start and availability of additional capacity for operations. In the case of terminal expansion can
take as long as 2-3 years. This planning process is to take into consideration three stages: short, medium
and long term periods, in order to optimize the implementation of additional area requirements,
according to the analyses.

Furthermore, the declared annual capacity at ATZ has been reported as 1.2 million passengers per year
(as per EAC data). This implies that the passenger facilities provided at ATZ will suffice to process the
projected traffic demand throughout the entire study period.

In addition, it should be noted that periodic investigations through passenger/aircraft/operations
traffic study and updates of the Master Plan shall be conducted - at least - every five (5) year intervals
to ensure that provided Level of Service and capacity/requirements in the Passenger Terminal Complex
at ATZ are adequate and according to the forecasted demand.

           2.4.8. Sohag International Airport

Sohag International Airport (HMB) is an airport serving the capital of the Sohag Governorate of Egypt.
The airport is 24 km south of the city and was officially inaugurated on May 2010.

As previously noted, due to security restrictions, the Consultant Team was not able to survey the
facilities (airside and landside) at the airport. Secondary information regarding existing facilities at the
airport (airside and landside) was provided to the Consultant Team based on a questionnaire index and
data request sheets. To facilitate the presentation of the information obtained by the Consultant, a
summary of the airport facilities is compiled in the following tables.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 62
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                           DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

             Table 46 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Sohag International Airport

                           SOHAG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (HMB) – Terminal Complex
                                                            Terminal
                                                        Capacity (Million
                             Terminal Use    Levels                          Other Considerations
                                                         Passengers Per
       Terminal
                                                        Annum – MPPA)
       Building
                            Mix use –      Multi-level  800,000 MPPA /     5 commercial aircraft
                            International (operational) 600 PHP (peak       parking positions
                            and Domestic                hour pax)
Source: EHCANN / EAC

                       Table 47 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Sohag International Airport

                         SOHAG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (HMB) – Airside System
                                      Runway
   Number of          Runway                             Taxiways /          Aircraft Aprons /
                                   Dimensions /
   Runways        Denomination                         Characteristics        Characteristics
                                     Equipment
                                  3,000m X 45m       3 taxiways,          1 apron area, with
                                   DVOR / DME        connecting runways,    dimensions 253m X
                                      – SALS / 15 –   aprons and airside     150m
                                      CAT I / 33      facilities           Apron area
                                   PCN              Taxiways are built     constructed in
   Runway 1       15 / 33
                                      49/F/A/W/        on asphalt, PCN       reinforced concrete,
                                      U                49/F/A/W/U            with PCN
                                   Asphalt          Taxiway width’s        56/R/A/W/U
                                      pavement        dimension 23m        Total of 4 aircraft
                                                                            positions
Source: EHCANN / EAC


The airport layout for HMB is presented in the following figure.

                               Figure 9: Airport Layout Plan for Sohag International Airport




                                      Source: EHCANN / EAC

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                      REPORT 5 - PAGE | 63
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                   DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


Airside Capacity

In order to determine the airside facility requirements HMB, it was necessary to use
international/industry-approved methods to assess the existing capacity of current airside
configuration.

The current Airport Reference Code for HMB is 4D, as the Code is a reflection of the physical
characteristics of the airport, which are the Airside Design Standards, thus the airport is capable of
serving all but the largest commercial aircraft.

With the given runway configuration, the airfield would have an estimated Hourly Capacity of 39
aircraft (Figure 3-43, Chapter 3 of the referenced AC). Such a configuration should also yield an ASV of
approximately 210,000 (Figure 1, Chapter 2 of the referenced AC). However, there are some airfield
elements that are causes of a reduction in the estimated peak hour and annual capacities.

Due to the absence of a full parallel taxiway it was necessary to reevaluate the issue of runway
occupancy time, which was the factor most impacted by a taxiway system. The analysis performed
resulted in a modified HC = 20 and an ASV = 105,000.

Having determined, as appropriate, the Hourly Capacity and ASVs for the airside components, their
capacities are compared to forecasted traffic, in order to determine facility requirements – if any
required. The comparative analysis, referred as a Demand/Capacity Analysis, and the resultant Facility
Requirements, are presented for the HMB airfield.

Table 48 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of aircraft movements (ATMs), for the peak hour and totals per year.

             Table 48 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Sohag International Airport

                                                     PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)

   AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS
         (ATMs)                      2017           2022           2027          2032          2037


            Peak Hour                  5              5              6             7             8

      International ATMs             3,927          5,096          6,423         7,686         8,840

        Domestic ATMs                 479            600            685           768           799

           Total ATMs                4,406          5,696          7,109         8,453         9,639
Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

Having established the Hourly Capacity of the runway-taxiway system, as well as the Annual Service
Volume, it is understood that the projected demand volumes for the year 2037, projected as HC = 8 (HC
capacity = 20); and ASV = 9,639 (capacity ASV = 120,000) do not exceed the current capacity of the
system, therefore, capacity-enhancement improvements are not expected throughout the entire study
period.

As noted previously, industry practice is to begin planning for the expansion or replacement of facilities
when they are expected to reach 60% of their capacity, with construction of the capacity enhancements
underway before 80% of capacity is reached. As a result of the application of this principle, the “demand
triggers” for the planning and construction of capacity related improvements for HMB’s Runway –
Taxiway System are way beyond 2037.

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 64
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


However, regardless of the capacity issues, the need for taxiing on the runway will remain a safety
concern. To address this issue will require the development of a full, or at least partial, parallel taxiway.
If a partial parallel taxiway is to be adopted, effort should be made to ensure it serves the primary (most
frequently used) runway end.

Aircraft Parking Apron and Gate Capacity

According to EAC’s provided data, there is one (1) apron at HMB, suitable for the accommodation of 4
Category C aircraft.

Assumptions

The forecast for HMB indicates international flights will make up more than 95% of total flights
throughout the planning period; therefore, applying the methodology used previously in this study, it
would be appropriate and conservative, from a gate capacity standpoint, to utilize a gate occupancy
time of 60 minutes per arrival.

The forecast provides Average Day Peak Month (ADPM) forecast data. Given the nature of the traffic
utilizing the airport (origin – destination flights), it was safe to assume the airport has a limited number
of peaks and traffic is relatively continuous. Therefore, the peak hour traffic has been assumed to be in
the range of 12% to 18% of the ADPM. The figure of 60% arrivals within the Peak Hour was also
applied.

Analysis

The ADPM for the airport in the forecast year 2037 is 30 ATMs. Using the assumptions discussed above,
including a Peak Hour Traffic as 15%, the peak hour demand for gate (aircraft parking) positions in
year 2037 will be 3 positions (60% of 15% of 91). The forecast for gate positions, based on various
estimates of peak hour demand, throughout the project period is presented in Table 49.

                       Table 49 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Assiut Airport


                                                                 2023-         2028-           2032-
                                                  2022
                                                                 2027          2032            2037

             Average Day, Peak Month
                                                    18             22            26             30
                     (ADPM)


           Assumption of Peak Hour
                                                    3              4              4              5
           Traffic as 15% (average)


           Gate Requirements as 60% of
                                                    2              3              3              3
            Peak Hour Arrival Traffic -

                Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

Given that the current number of positions is four (4), it has been estimated the demand for gate
positions within the peak hour (3 positions) will not will exceed current capacity throughout the study
period. It is to be noted that the data available to the Consultant does not specify if all aprons are
dedicated to commercial activity. In any case, since the requirements – according to the forecast – are
very close to the overall current apron capacity, it is recommended a more detailed study, in order to
specifically determine exact requirements, when this will occur, and what type of development should


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                   REPORT 5 - PAGE | 65
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                      DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

be implemented. This evaluation - including airline schedules and fleet mix – is to be performed,
including the demand for Remain Over Night (RON) positions.

Terminal Capacity

Based on the traffic projections, presented in the Report 2 (of this study), the results for the Medium
Scenario (most-likely) can be summarized as follows:

         Total passengers are forecasted to increase from about 500,000 in the base year 2017 to about
          1.2 million by 2037; more than doubling the growth during the forecasted period.

Table 50 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of millions of passengers per year (MPPA).

                   Table 50 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Sohag International Airport

                                                       PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)
                                                                     2023-         2028-         2032-
                                        2017          2022
                                                                     2027          2032          2037
  International Passengers
                                       477,999       625,511        808,369       991,631       1,169,373
    – Commercial (MPPA)

    Domestic Passengers –
                                       23,554         28,368        32,921         37,448        39,546
     Commercial (MPPA)

  Total Passengers (MPPA)              501,554       653,897        841,290      1,029,079      1,208,919

Source: IOS Partners, Inc.



As noted previously, the Consultant Team was not able to survey the facilities at HMB, in addition, EAC
data was not available for the passenger terminal complex at the airport and the NAMP does not provide
data on the airport either, as it was inaugurated after the study was completed.

Since the analysis, based on peak-hour figures would not be possible, as the Consultant Team was not
able to visit the facilities, the sizing of terminal areas will take into account benchmarking parameters,
based on total annual passengers and overall facilities’ areas.

Applying the ratios for overall space calculations, related to the figures of passenger forecast summary
(most likely scenario) presented in the previous table, the following results are obtained:

                     Table 51 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Sohag Airport


                                                                   2023-         2028-          2032-
                                                    2022
                                                                   2027          2032           2037


                Total Passengers (MPPA)            653,897        841,290      1,029,079      1,208,919

              Ratio of Gross Terminal-Area
                Space Requirements per                            0.01 m²/ annual pax
                    Annual Passenger
                  Total Area Required
             (passenger terminal building)          6,600          8,500         10,300        12,100
                         in m²
          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.



 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                   REPORT 5 - PAGE | 66
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                    DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


Results

As noted, in terms of area requirements, approximately 12,000 m² of available passenger terminal area
will suffice for the entire study period. It is necessary to verify the total area provided by the passenger
terminal complex at HMB, to assure that capacity limits are addressed with sufficient time to cover
needs before congestion develops, observing the 80% rule trigger (explained before) for initiating
expansion improvements for the passenger terminal, taking into consideration that there is a time lag
between project start and availability of additional capacity for operations. In the case of terminal
expansion can take as long as 2-3 years. This planning process is to take into consideration three stages:
short, medium- and long-term periods, in order to optimize the implementation of additional area
requirements, according to the analyses.

Furthermore, the declared annual capacity at HMB has been reported as 800,000 passengers per year
(as per EAC data). This implies that the passenger facilities provided at HMB will not be adequate to
cater for the projected traffic demand beyond 2022.

As noted previously, the approach to assure that adequate facilities are available when needed – by
2026 to 2027 - to meet forecasted demand is to design facilities for the traffic forecasted at least 5 years
in the future, as such, improvements needed by 2027 should be designed for implementation by around
2022 - 2023, providing flexibility in case of faster than projected growth.

In addition, it should be noted that periodic investigations through passenger/aircraft/operations
traffic study and updates of the Master Plan shall be conducted - at least - every five (5) year intervals
to ensure that provided Level of Service and capacity/requirements in the Passenger Terminal Complex
at HMB are adequate and according to the forecasted demand.

          2.4.9. Luxor International Airport

Luxor is the largest airport in Upper Egypt, with both international and domestic traffic. It is the most
important international airport in that region, jointly with airports in Aswan and Abu Simbel.

As previously noted, due to security restrictions, the Consultant Team was not able to survey the
facilities (airside and landside) at the airport. Secondary information regarding existing facilities at the
airport (airside and landside) was provided to the Consultant Team based on a questionnaire index and
data request sheets. In order to facilitate the presentation of the information obtained by the
Consultant, a summary of the airport facilities is compiled in the following tables.

             Table 52 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Luxor International Airport

                        LUXOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (LXR) – Terminal Complex
                                                         Terminal
                                                     Capacity (Million
                          Terminal Use    Levels                          Other Considerations
                                                      Passengers Per
       Terminal
                                                     Annum – MPPA)
       Building
                         Mix use –      Multi-level  3.5 MPPA / 2,400   5 commercial aircraft
                         International (operational) PHP (peak hour      parking positions
                         and Domestic                pax)
Source: EHCANN / EAC




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 67
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                           DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                       Table 53 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Luxor International Airport

                          LUXOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (LXR) – Airside System
                                       Runway
   Number of          Runway                           Taxiways /            Aircraft Aprons /
                                    Dimensions /
   Runways        Denomination                       Characteristics          Characteristics
                                      Equipment
                                   3,000m X 45m    21 taxiways,          2 apron areas in the
                                    SALS / 02 –    connecting runways,     aerodrome
                                       CAT I / 20   aprons and airside      (1) 336m X 328m
                                       VOR/DME -    facilities              (2) 405m X 336m
                                       ILS CAT II  Taxiways are built    Apron area
   Runway 1       02 / 20           PCN            on asphalt, PCN          constructed in
                                       70/F/C/W/U   58/F/C/W/U               reinforced concrete,
                                    Asphalt       Taxiway width’s          with PCN
                                       pavement     dimensions varies        70/R/C/W/U
                                                    from 24m to 45m       Total of 22 aircraft
                                                                            positions
Source: EHCANN / EAC



The airport layout for LXR is presented in the following Figure.

                              Figure 10: Airport Layout Plan for Luxor International Airport




                         Source: EHCANN / EAC




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                     REPORT 5 - PAGE | 68
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                   DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


Airside Capacity

To determine the airside facility requirements LXR, it was necessary to use international/industry-
approved methods to assess the existing capacity of current airside configuration.

The current Airport Reference Code for LXR is 4E, as the Code is a reflection of the physical
characteristics of the airport, which are the Airside Design Standards, thus the airport is capable of
serving almost all types of aircraft.

With the given runway configuration, the airfield would have an estimated Hourly Capacity of 50
aircraft (Figure 3-43, Chapter 3 of the referenced AC). Such a configuration should also yield an ASV of
approximately 195,000 (Figure 1, Chapter 2 of the referenced AC).

Having determined, as appropriate, the Hourly Capacity and ASVs for the airside components, their
capacities are compared to forecasted traffic, in order to determine facility requirements – if any
required. The comparative analysis, referred as a Demand/Capacity Analysis, and the resultant Facility
Requirements, are presented for the LXR airfield.

Table 54 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of aircraft movements (ATMs), for the peak hour and totals per year.

             Table 54 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Luxor International Airport

                                                         PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)

      AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS
            (ATMs)                       2017           2022           2027          2032          2037


                Peak Hour                  18             24            29            33            34

          International ATMs             2,561          3,700          6,308         8,889         9,886

             Domestic ATMs               4,149          6,631          7,762         8,699         9,049

               Total ATMs                6,710         10,332         14,070        17,588        18,935
          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

Having established the Hourly Capacity of the runway-taxiway system, as well as the Annual Service
Volume, it is understood that the projected demand volumes for the year 2037, projected as HC = 34
(HC capacity = 50); and ASV = 18,935 (capacity ASV = 195,000) do not exceed the current capacity of
the system, therefore, capacity-enhancement improvements are not expected throughout the entire
study period.

As noted previously, industry practice is to begin planning for the expansion or replacement of facilities
when they are expected to reach 60% of their capacity, with construction of the capacity enhancements
underway before 80% of capacity is reached. As a result of the application of this principle, the “demand
triggers” for the planning and construction of capacity related improvements for LXR’s Runway –
Taxiway System are way beyond 2037.

Aircraft Parking Apron and Gate Capacity

According to EAC’s provided data, there two (2) aprons at LXR, suitable for the accommodation of 22
aircraft, with no definition of Code or category of those.


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 69
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                    DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


Assumptions

The forecast for LXR indicates international flights will make up for less than 50% of total flights
throughout the planning period; applying the methodology used previously in this study, it would be
appropriate and conservative, from a gate capacity standpoint, to utilize a gate occupancy time of 60
minutes per arrival.

The forecast provides Average Day Peak Month (ADPM) forecast data. Given the nature of the traffic
utilizing the airport (origin – destination flights), it was safe to assume the airport has a limited number
of peaks and traffic is relatively continuous. Therefore, the peak hour traffic has been assumed to be in
the range of 12% to 18% of the ADPM. The figure of 60% arrivals within the Peak Hour was also
applied.

Analysis

The ADPM for the airport in the forecast year 2037 is 82 ATMs. Using the assumptions discussed above,
including a Peak Hour Traffic as 15%, the peak hour demand for gate (aircraft parking) positions in
year 2037 will be 8 positions (60% of 15% of 91). The forecast for gate positions, based on various
estimates of peak hour demand, throughout the project period is presented in Table 55.

                Table 55 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Luxor International Airport


                                                                2023-          2028-         2032-
                                                  2022
                                                                2027           2032          2037
              Average Day, Peak Month
                                                   45             61             72            82
                  (ADPM) of ATMs
            Assumption of Peak Hour
                                                    7             10             11            13
            Traffic as 15% (average)
            Gate Requirements as 60% of
                                                    5              6             7              8
             Peak Hour Arrival Traffic -
                 Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

Given that the current number of positions is 22, it has been estimated the demand for gate positions
within the peak hour (8) will not exceed current capacity throughout the study period. It is to be noted
that the data available to the Consultant does not specify if all aprons are dedicated to commercial
activity, and it is assumed that some of the positions will be considered remote positions (away from
the passenger terminal complex). In any case, since the requirements – according to the forecast – is
less than 50% of the overall current apron (two apron areas), it is assumed that the forecasted demand
will not exceed the current capacity. However, in order to specifically determine exact requirements,
when this will occur, and what type of development should be implemented, a more detailed analysis -
including airline schedules and fleet mix – is to be performed. In addition, the demand for Remain Over
Night (RON) positions should also be considered.

Terminal Capacity

Based on the traffic projections, presented in the Report 2 (of this study), the results for the Medium
Scenario (most-likely) can be summarized as follows:

         Total passengers are forecasted to increase from about 600,000 in the base year 2017 to about
          1.6 million by 2037; almost tripling the growth during the forecasted period.



 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                   REPORT 5 - PAGE | 70
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                      DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

The following table presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium
Scenario (most-likely), in terms of millions of passengers per year (MPPA).

                   Table 56 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Luxor International Airport

                                                      PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)
                                                                     2023-         2028-         2032-
                                        2017          2022
                                                                     2027          2032          2037

  International Passengers
                                       190,377       310,386        542,501       783,813       893,683
    – Commercial (MPPA)


    Domestic Passengers –
                                       376,900       487,992        579,823       659,565       696,505
     Commercial (MPPA)

  Total Passengers (MPPA)              567,277       798,378       1,122,325     1,443,377      1,590,188
Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


As stated in the NAMP, the total footprint of the current terminal facility covers approximately 25,000
m², with a total floor area of 56,200 m². EAC data with a nominal capacity declared to reach 2,400
passenger/hour and 3.5 MPPA.

Since the analysis, based on peak-hour figures would not be possible, as the Consultant Team was not
able to survey the facilities (processing times, equipment performance, etc.) at LXR, due to the fact that
site visits were not permitted, the sizing of terminal areas will take into account benchmarking
parameters, based on total annual passengers and overall facilities’ areas.

Applying the ratios for overall space calculations, related to the figures of passenger forecast summary
(most likely scenario) presented in the previous table, the following results are obtained:

             Table 57 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Luxor International Airport


                                                                   2023-         2028-          2032-
                                                    2022
                                                                   2027          2032           2037


                Total Passengers (MPPA)            798,378       1,122,325     1,443,377      1,590,188

              Ratio of Gross Terminal-Area
                Space Requirements per                            0.01 m²/ annual pax
                    Annual Passenger
                  Total Area Required
             (passenger terminal building)          8,000         11,250         14,500        16,000
                          in m²
          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

As noted, capacity enhancements, in terms of new area requirements – according to the reported
existing available terminal space of 56,200 m² - are not needed at LXR, in order to satisfy the projected
passenger traffic demand, throughout the entire study period. Furthermore, the current declared
capacity of LXR – in terms of total annual passengers - is 3.5 MPPA, higher than the estimated passenger
traffic for the year 2037 (approximately 1.6 MPPA), which confirms the provision of sufficient capacity
at the passenger terminal complex.

In order to ensure that capacity limits are addressed with sufficient time to address needs before
congestion develops, regular Master Plan updates are proposed, including the measure as triggers for

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                   REPORT 5 - PAGE | 71
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                    DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

initiating expansion improvements for passenger terminals whenever 80% of the annual passenger
levels of either the international or domestic passenger terminals are reached, taking into account the
time lag between project start and availability of additional capacity for operations, which could take
as long as 2-3 years, depending on the magnitude of such expansion.

In addition, it should be noted that periodic investigations through passenger/aircraft/operations
traffic study and updates of the Master Plan shall be conducted - at least - every five (5) year intervals
to ensure that provided Level of Service and capacity/requirements in the Passenger Terminal Complex
at LXR are adequate and according to the forecasted demand.

          2.4.10.          Aswan International Airport

Aswan International Airport is located in Upper Egypt along the Nile River, jointly with Luxor and Abu
Simbel conforms the southern triangle of airports in the country.

As previously noted, due to security restrictions, the Consultant Team was not able to survey the
facilities (airside and landside) at the airport. Secondary information regarding existing facilities at the
airport (airside and landside) was provided to the Consultant Team based on a questionnaire index and
data request sheets. In order to facilitate the presentation of the information obtained by the
Consultant, a summary of the airport facilities is compiled in the following tables.

            Table 58 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Aswan International Airport

                        ASWAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (ASW) – Terminal Complex
                                                         Terminal
                                                     Capacity (Million
                          Terminal Use    Levels                          Other Considerations
                                                      Passengers Per
       Terminal
                                                     Annum – MPPA)
       Building
                         Mix use –      Multi-level  2.5 MPPA / 1,800   12 commercial aircraft
                         International (operational) PHP (peak hour      parking positions
                         and Domestic                pax)
Source: EHCANN / EAC

                    Table 59 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Aswan International Airport

                         ASWAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (ASW) – Airside System
                                       Runway
   Number of          Runway                             Taxiways /           Aircraft Aprons /
                                   Dimensions /
   Runways        Denomination                         Characteristics         Characteristics
                                     Equipment
                                  3,402m X 45m       11 taxiways,         4 apron areas in the
                                   SALS/17 –         connecting runways,   aerodrome
                                      CAT I /35       aprons and airside    (1) : 423m x 82m
                                      VOR/ DME -      facilities            (2) : 283m x 152m
                                      llz(35) -ILS   Taxiways are built    (3) : 300m x 155m
                                      CAT II (35) -    on asphalt, PCN      (4) : 600m x 180m
   Runway 1       17 / 35
                                      GP               60/F/B/W/U          Apron area constructed
                                   PCN              Taxiway width’s       in reinforced concrete,
                                      60/F/B/W/       dimensions varies     with PCN 60/R/B/W/U
                                      U               from 23m to 45m      Total of 28 aircraft
                                   Asphalt                                 positions
                                      pavement
Source: EHCANN / EAC


The airport layout for ASW is presented in the following Figure.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 72
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                   DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


       Figure 11: Airport Layout Plan for Aswan
                International Airport                        Airside Capacity

                                                             In order to determine the airside facility
                                                             requirements ASW, it was necessary to use
                                                             international/industry-approved methods to
                                                             assess the existing capacity of current airside
                                                             configuration.

                                                             Airport Reference Code

                                                             The current Airport Reference Code for ASW is
                                                             4E, as the Code is a reflection of the physical
                                                             characteristics of the airport, which are the
                                                             Airside Design Standards, thus the airport is
                                                             capable of serving almost all types of aircraft.

                                                             With the given runway configuration, the
                                                             airfield would have an estimated Hourly
                                                             Capacity of 50 aircraft (Figure 3-43, Chapter 3
                                                             of the referenced AC). Such a configuration
                                                             should also yield an ASV of approximately
                                                             195,000 (Figure 1, Chapter 2 of the referenced
                                                             AC).

                                                             Having determined, as appropriate, the Hourly
                                                             Capacity and ASVs for the airside components,
                                                             their capacities are compared to forecasted
                                                             traffic, in order to determine facility
                                                             requirements – if any required. The
                                                             comparative     analysis,  referred    as   a
                                                             Demand/Capacity Analysis, and the resultant
                                                             Facility Requirements, are presented for the
                                                             ASW airfield.


Source: EHCANN / EAC


Table 60 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of aircraft movements (ATMs), for the peak hour and totals per year.

             Table 60 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Aswan International Airport

                                                     PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)

   AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS
         (ATMs)                      2017           2022           2027          2032          2037


            Peak Hour                  8              10            11            12            12

      International ATMs              464            761           983           1,067         1,160

        Domestic ATMs                5,540          7,912          9,097        10,223        10,635

           Total ATMs                6,003          8,672         10,080        11,290        11,796
Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                REPORT 5 - PAGE | 73
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                   DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


Results

Having established the Hourly Capacity of the runway-taxiway system, as well as the Annual Service
Volume, it is understood that the projected demand volumes for the year 2037, projected as HC = 12
(HC capacity = 50); and ASV = 11,796 (capacity ASV = 195,000) do not exceed the current capacity of
the system, therefore, capacity-enhancement improvements are not expected throughout the entire
study period.

As noted previously, industry practice is to begin planning for the expansion or replacement of facilities
when they are expected to reach 60% of their capacity, with construction of the capacity enhancements
underway before 80% of capacity is reached. As a result of the application of this principle, the “demand
triggers” for the planning and construction of capacity related improvements for ASW’s Runway –
Taxiway System are way beyond 2037.

Aircraft Parking Apron and Gate Capacity

According to EAC’s provided data, there four (4) aprons at ASW, suitable for the accommodation of 28
aircraft, with no definition of Code or category of those.

Assumptions

The forecast for ASW indicates international flights will make up for much less than 50% of total flights
throughout the planning period, compared with domestic operations. Applying the methodology used
previously in this study, it would be appropriate and conservative, from a gate capacity standpoint, to
utilize a gate occupancy time of 60 minutes per arrival.

The forecast provides Average Day Peak Month (ADPM) forecast data. Given the nature of the traffic
utilizing the airport (origin – destination flights), it was safe to assume the airport has a limited number
of peaks and traffic is relatively continuous. Therefore, the peak hour traffic has been assumed to be in
the range of 12% to 18% of the ADPM. The figure of 60% arrivals within the Peak Hour was also
applied, as a conservative parameter.

Analysis

The ADPM for the airport in the forecast year 2037 is 56 ATMs. Using the assumptions discussed above,
including a Peak Hour Traffic as 15%, the peak hour demand for gate (aircraft parking) positions in
year 2037 will be 6 positions (60% of 15% of 56). The forecast for gate positions, based on various
estimates of peak hour demand, throughout the project period is presented in the following table.

               Table 61 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Aswan International Airport


                                                               2023-          2028-         2032-
                                                 2022
                                                               2027           2032          2037
             Average Day, Peak Month
                                                  41             48             53            56
                 (ADPM) of ATMs

           Assumption of Peak Hour
                                                   7              8             8              9
           Traffic as 15% (average)

           Gate Requirements as 60% of
                                                   5              5             5              6
            Peak Hour Arrival Traffic -
                Source: IOS Partners, Inc.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 74
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                      DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Results

Given that the current number of positions is 28, it has been estimated the demand for gate positions
within the peak hour (6) will not exceed current capacity throughout the study period. It is to be noted
that the data available to the Consultant does not specify if all aprons are dedicated to commercial
activity, and it is assumed that some of the positions – if not all - will be considered remote positions
(away from the passenger terminal complex). In any case, since the requirements – according to the
forecast – is much less than 50% of the overall current apron (four apron areas), it is assumed that the
forecasted demand will not exceed the current capacity. However, in order to specifically determine
exact requirements, when this will occur, and what type of development should be implemented, a more
detailed analysis - including airline schedules and fleet mix – is to be performed. In addition, the demand
for Remain Over Night (RON) positions should also be considered.

Terminal Capacity

Based on the traffic projections, presented in the Report 2 (of this study), the results for the Medium
Scenario (most-likely) can be summarized as follows:

         Total passengers are forecasted to increase from about 460,000 in the base year 2017 to about
          865,000 by 2037; almost doubling the growth during the forecasted period.

Table 62 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of millions of passengers per year (MPPA).

                   Table 62 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Aswan International Airport

                                                       PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)
                                                                    2023-          2028-         2032-
                                       2017           2022
                                                                    2027           2032          2037
  International Passengers
                                      75,853         105,969       140,338        156,231       174,207
    – Commercial (MPPA)
    Domestic Passengers –
                                      383,017        491,028       573,125        653,790       690,407
     Commercial (MPPA)

  Total Passengers (MPPA)             458,871        596,997       713,462        810,021       864,614
Source: IOS Partners, Inc.



As stated in the NAMP, the total footprint of the current terminal facility covers approximately a total
floor area of 41,400 m², of which 30,500 m² are dedicated for passenger processing areas. EAC data
with a nominal capacity declared to reach 1,800 passenger/hour and 2.5 MPPA.

Since the analysis, based on peak-hour figures would not be possible, as the Consultant Team was not
able to survey the facilities (processing times, equipment performance, etc.) at ASW, due to the fact that
site visits were not permitted, the sizing of terminal areas will take into account benchmarking
parameters, based on total annual passengers and overall facilities’ areas.

Applying the ratios for overall space calculations, related to the figures of passenger forecast summary
(most likely scenario) presented in previous table, the following results are obtained:




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                   REPORT 5 - PAGE | 75
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

            Table 63 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Aswan International Airport


                                                                  2023-         2028-          2032-
                                                    2022
                                                                  2027          2032           2037

                Total Passengers (MPPA)           596,997        713,462       810,021        864,614
              Ratio of Gross Terminal-Area
                Space Requirements per                            0.01 m²/ annual pax
                    Annual Passenger
                  Total Area Required
             (passenger terminal building)          6,000         7,150          8,100         9,000
                          in m²
          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

As noted, capacity enhancements, in terms of new area requirements – according to the reported
existing available terminal space of 30,500 m² (dedicated to passenger services) - are not needed at
ASW, in order to satisfy the projected passenger traffic demand, throughout the entire study period.
Furthermore, the current declared capacity of ASW – in terms of total annual passengers - is 2.5 MPPA,
higher than the estimated passenger traffic for the year 2037 (approximately 865,000), which confirms
the provision of sufficient capacity at the passenger terminal complex.

In order to ensure that capacity limits are addressed with sufficient time to address needs before
congestion develops, regular Master Plan updates are proposed, including the measure as triggers for
initiating expansion improvements for passenger terminals whenever 80% of the annual passenger
levels of either the international or domestic passenger terminals are reached, taking into account the
time lag between project start and availability of additional capacity for operations, which could take
as long as 2-3 years, depending on the magnitude of such expansion.

In addition, it should be noted that periodic investigations through passenger/aircraft/operations
traffic study and updates of the Master Plan shall be conducted - at least - every five (5) year intervals
to ensure that provided Level of Service and capacity/requirements in the Passenger Terminal Complex
at ASW are adequate and according to the forecasted demand.

           2.4.11.            Abu Simbel Airport

Abu Simbel Airport (ABS) is a classical tourism destination, located in Upper Egypt, jointly with Luxor
and Aswan conforms the southern triangle of airports in the country.

As previously noted, due to security restrictions, the Consultant Team was not able to survey the
facilities (airside and landside) at the airport. Secondary information regarding existing facilities at the
airport (airside and landside) was provided to the Consultant Team based on a questionnaire index and
data request sheets. In order to facilitate the presentation of the information obtained by the
Consultant, a summary of the airport facilities is compiled in the following tables.

                   Table 64 – Summary of Existing Terminal Complex Facilities at Abu Simbel Airport

                                   ABU SIMBEL AIRPORT (ABS) – Terminal Complex
                                                               Terminal
                                                           Capacity (Million
                              Terminal Use      Levels                          Other Considerations
                                                            Passengers Per
       Terminal
                                                           Annum – MPPA)
       Building
                             Mix use –       Single-level  150,000 MPPA /     8 commercial aircraft
                             International   (operational) 400 PHP (peak       parking positions
                             and Domestic                  hour pax)
Source: EHCANN / EAC



 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 76
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                  DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

                       Table 65 – Summary of Existing Airside System at Abu Simbel Airport

                             ABU SIMBEL AIRPORT (ABS) – Airside System
                                     Runway
   Number of          Runway                           Taxiways /                      Aircraft Aprons /
                                  Dimensions /
   Runways        Denomination                       Characteristics                    Characteristics
                                    Equipment
                                 3,000m X 45m      7 taxiways,                     1 apron area on the
                                 PCN               connecting runways,              aerodrome
                                     70/F/B/W/      aprons and airside              Total apron area higher
                                     U              facilities                       than 82,000 m²
   Runway 1       33 / 15
                                 Asphalt          Taxiways are built              Apron areas with PCN
                                     pavement       on asphalt, with PCN             70/R/B/W/U
                                 SALS / 15 –       70/F/B/W/U                      10 aircraft positions
                                     CAT I / 33    Taxiway width’s                 Flexible pavement -
                                 3,000m X 60m       dimensions varies                asphalt
                                 PCN               from 23m to 45m
                                     70/F/B/W/U
   Runway 2       15 / 33        Asphalt
                                     pavement
                                 DVOR / DME
                                     - ILS CAT II
Source: EHCANN / EAC


The airport layout for ABS is presented in the following Figure.

                                                            Airside Capacity
Figure 12: Airport Layout Plan for Abu Simbel Airport
                                                            In order to determine the airside facility
                                                            requirements ABS, it was necessary to use
                                                            international/industry-approved methods to
                                                            assess the existing capacity of current airside
                                                            configuration.

                                                            The current Airport Reference Code for ABS is
                                                            4D, as the Code is a reflection of the physical
                                                            characteristics of the airport, which are the
                                                            Airside Design Standards, thus the airport is
                                                            capable of serving the majority of aircraft,
                                                            except the larger ones.

                                                            With the given runway configuration, the
                                                            airfield would have an estimated Hourly
                                                            Capacity of 50 aircraft (Figure 3-43, Chapter 3
                                                            of the referenced AC). Such a configuration
                                                            should also yield an ASV of approximately
                                                            195,000 (Figure 1, Chapter 2 of the referenced
                                                            AC).

                                                            Having determined, as appropriate, the Hourly
                                                            Capacity and ASVs for the airside components,
                                                            their capacities are compared to forecasted
                                                            traffic, in order to determine facility
                                                            requirements – if any required. The
Source: EHCANN / EAC                                        comparative     analysis,  referred    as   a
                                                            Demand/Capacity Analysis, and the resultant
                                                            Facility Requirements, are presented for the
                                                            ASW airfield.


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                REPORT 5 - PAGE | 77
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                   DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


Table 66 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of aircraft movements (ATMs), for the peak hour and totals per year.

                  Table 66 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Movements (ATMs) for Abu Simbel Airport

                                                         PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)

      AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS
            (ATMs)                        2017           2022          2027          2032            2037


                Peak Hour                   3              5             7             9              10

          International ATMs                4              5             6             7              9

             Domestic ATMs                 614           1,524         2,576         3,789           4,228

               Total ATMs                  618           1,529         2,582         3,796           4,237
          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

Having established the Hourly Capacity of the runway-taxiway system, as well as the Annual Service
Volume, it is understood that the projected demand volumes for the year 2037, projected as HC = 10
(HC capacity = 50); and ASV = 4,237 (capacity ASV = 195,000) do not exceed the current capacity of the
system, therefore, capacity-enhancement improvements are not expected throughout the entire study
period.

As noted previously, industry practice is to begin planning for the expansion or replacement of facilities
when they are expected to reach 60% of their capacity, with construction of the capacity enhancements
underway before 80% of capacity is reached. As a result of the application of this principle, the “demand
triggers” for the planning and construction of capacity related improvements for ABS’s Runway –
Taxiway System are way beyond 2037.

Aircraft Parking Apron and Gate Capacity

According to EAC’s provided data, there is one apron at ABS, suitable for the accommodation of 8
aircraft, in a mix of 5 aircraft Category C and 5 aircraft Category B and below, which could convert into
3 more positions for Category C aircraft.

Assumptions

The forecast for ABS indicates only domestic flights throughout the planning period; applying the
methodology used previously in this study, it would be appropriate and conservative, from a gate
capacity standpoint, to utilize a gate occupancy time of 60 minutes per arrival.

The forecast provides Average Day Peak Month (ADPM) forecast data. Given the nature of the traffic
utilizing the airport (origin – destination flights), it was safe to assume the airport has a limited number
of peaks and traffic is relatively continuous. Therefore, the peak hour traffic has been assumed to be in
the range of 12% to 18% of the ADPM. The figure of 60% arrivals within the Peak Hour was also
applied, as a conservative parameter.

Analysis

The ADPM for the airport in the forecast year 2037 is 19 ATMs. Using the assumptions discussed above,
including a Peak Hour Traffic as 15%, the peak hour demand for gate (aircraft parking) positions in


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 78
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                          DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

year 2037 will be 2 positions (60% of 15% of 19). The forecast for gate positions, based on various
estimates of peak hour demand, throughout the project period is presented in Table 67.

                        Table 67 – Summary of Projected Aircraft Positions for Abu Simbel Airport


                                                                    2023-         2028-             2032-
                                                     2022
                                                                    2027          2032              2037

                Average Day, Peak Month
                                                       7              12            17               19
                    (ADPM) of ATMs

             Assumption of Peak Hour
                                                       2              2              3                3
             Traffic as 15% (average)
             Gate Requirements as 60% of
                                                       2              2              2                2
               Peak Hour Arrival Traffic -
                    Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

Given that the current number of positions is 8 (Cat. C aircraft), it has been estimated the demand for
gate positions within the peak hour (2) will not exceed current capacity throughout the study period. It
is to be noted that the data available to the Consultant does not specify if all aprons are dedicated to
commercial activity, and it is assumed that some of the positions – if not all - will be considered remote
positions (away from the passenger terminal complex). In any case, since the requirements – according
to the forecast – are less than 50% of the overall current apron capacity, it is assumed that the
forecasted demand will not exceed the current capacity. However, in order to specifically determine
exact requirements, when this will occur, and what type of development should be implemented, a more
detailed analysis - including airline schedules and fleet mix – is to be performed. In addition, the demand
for Remain Over Night (RON) positions should also be considered.

Terminal Capacity

Based on the traffic projections, presented in the Report 2 (of this study), the results for the Medium
Scenario (most-likely) can be summarized as follows:

         Total passengers are forecasted to increase from about 36,500 in the base year 2017 to about
          201,000 by 2037; growing significantly during the forecasted period.

Table 68 presents the forecasted scenario, for the different periods, under the Medium Scenario (most-
likely), in terms of millions of passengers per year (MPPA).

                        Table 68 – Summary of Projected Passenger Traffic for Abu Simbel Airport

                                                        PROJECTED TRAFFIC (YEARS)
                                                                      2023-         2028-            2032-
                                           2017        2022
                                                                      2027          2032             2037
  International Passengers
                                             13          40            50             64              82
    – Commercial (MPPA)
    Domestic Passengers –
                                          36,195      67,181         116,411       175,580          200,865
     Commercial (MPPA)

  Total Passengers (MPPA)                 36,208      67,220         116,462       175,644          200,947
Source: IOS Partners, Inc.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                      REPORT 5 - PAGE | 79
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                    DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

As stated in the NAMP, the total footprint of the current terminal facility covers approximately a total
floor area of 5,000 m², of which 2,110 m² are dedicated for passenger processing areas. EAC data
reports a nominal capacity declared to reach 400 passenger/hour and 150,000 MPPA.

Since the analysis, based on peak-hour figures would not be possible, as the Consultant Team was not
able to survey the facilities (processing times, equipment performance, etc.) at ABS, due to the fact that
site visits were not permitted, the sizing of terminal areas will take into account benchmarking
parameters, based on total annual passengers and overall facilities’ areas.

Applying the ratios for overall space calculations, related to the figures of passenger forecast summary
(most likely scenario) presented in the previous table, the following results are obtained:

                 Table 69 – Analysis of Passenger Terminal Area Requirements for Abu Simbel Airport


                                                                 2023-         2028-         2032-
                                                   2022
                                                                 2027          2032          2037


                Total Passengers (MPPA)           67,220        116,462       175,644       200,947

              Ratio of Gross Terminal-Area
                Space Requirements per                           0.01 m²/ annual pax
                    Annual Passenger
                  Total Area Required
             (passenger terminal building)          675          1,165         1,760          2,100
                          in m²
          Source: IOS Partners, Inc.


Results

As noted, capacity enhancements, in terms of new area requirements – according to the reported
existing available terminal space of 2,110 m² (dedicated to passenger services) - are not needed at ABS,
in order to satisfy the projected passenger traffic demand, throughout the entire study period.
Furthermore, the current declared capacity of ABS – in terms of total annual passengers - is 150,000,
lower than the estimated passenger traffic for the year 2032 (almost 176,000) it is suggested that
expansion planning processes to be observed, for actual implementation by the expected period, in
order to avoid capacity constraints and declining Level of Service at ABS’ terminal facilities. This
planning process is to take into consideration three stages: short, medium and long term periods, in
order to optimize the implementation of additional area requirements, according to the analyses.

In order to ensure that capacity limits are addressed with sufficient time to address needs before
congestion develops, regular Master Plan updates are proposed, including the measure as triggers for
initiating expansion improvements for passenger terminals whenever 80% of the annual passenger
levels of either the international or domestic passenger terminals are reached, taking into account the
time lag between project start and availability of additional capacity for operations, which could take
as long as 2-3 years, depending on the magnitude of such expansion.

In addition, it should be noted that periodic investigations through passenger/aircraft/operations
traffic study and updates of the Master Plan shall be conducted - at least - every five (5) year intervals
to ensure that provided Level of Service and capacity/requirements in the Passenger Terminal Complex
at ABS are adequate and according to the forecasted demand.

           2.4.12.            Small Airports

The Consultant Team was not able to survey the facilities (airside and landside) at the airports, due to
the fact that site visits (at all airports) were not permitted. The secondary information regarding
existing facilities at the Small Airports in Egypt (airside and landside) were provided to the Consultant

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 80
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                  DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Team, following a questionnaire index and data request sheets. The following Table provides a
summary of this information.

               Table 70 – Summary of Existing Terminal and Airside Facilities at Small Airports

                  EL ARISH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (AAC) – Terminal Complex
                                                          Terminal
                     Terminal Use        Levels                              Other Considerations
                                                          Capacity
    Terminal
                    Mix use –         Multi-level    200 PHP (peak         12 commercial aircraft
     Building
                    International     (operational) hour pax)               parking positions
                    and Domestic
                                           Airside System
                                    Runway
  Number of       Runway                                 Taxiways /              Aircraft Aprons /
                                  Dimensions /
  Runways     Denomination                             Characteristics            Characteristics
                                   Equipment
                                3,019m X 45m        6 taxiways,             1 apron area on the
                                 PCN                 connecting runways,      aerodrome
                                    55/F/B/W/         aprons and airside     Total apron area higher
                                    U                 facilities               than 38,000 m²
  Runway 1    16 / 34            Asphalt           Taxiways are built      Apron areas with PCN
                                    pavement          on asphalt, with PCN     55/F/B/W/U
                                 SALS/16 -           55/F/B/W/U             Flexible pavement -
                                    SALS /34        Taxiway width’s           asphalt
                                   VOR/DME           dimensions vary

                    TABA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (TBC) – Terminal Complex
                                                           Terminal
                     Terminal Use        Levels                               Other Considerations
                                                           Capacity
    Terminal
                    Mix use –         Single-level    600 PHP (peak         9 commercial aircraft
     Building
                    International     (operational) hour pax)                parking positions
                    and Domestic
                                            Airside System
                                    Runway
  Number of       Runway                                  Taxiways /              Aircraft Aprons /
                                  Dimensions /
  Runways     Denomination                              Characteristics            Characteristics
                                   Equipment
                                4,000m X 45m         8 taxiways,             2 apron areas in the
                                 PCN                  connecting runways,      aerodrome
                                    70/F/B/W/          aprons and airside       (1) : 480 X 140M
                                    U                  facilities               (2) : 460 X 185M
                                 Asphalt            Taxiways are built      Apron areas with PCN
  Runway 1    04 / 22
                                    pavement           on asphalt, with PCN     70/R/B/W/U
                                 VOR / DME            70/F/B/W/U             Reinforced concrete
                                 LLZ (04)           Taxiway width’s           pavement
                                 ILS CAT2 -           dimensions vary
                                    GP

              MARSA MATRUTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (MUH) – Terminal Complex
                                                          Terminal
                     Terminal Use        Levels                             Other Considerations
                                                           Capacity
    Terminal
                    Mix use –         Single-level    300 PHP (peak       4 commercial aircraft
     Building
                    International     (operational) hour pax)              parking positions
                    and Domestic
                                            Airside System
                                    Runway
  Number of       Runway                                  Taxiways /           Aircraft Aprons /
                                  Dimensions /
  Runways      Denomination                             Characteristics         Characteristics
                                   Equipment
                                3,000m X 45m         18 taxiways,          1 apron area on the
  Runway 1    06 / 24            PCN                  connecting runways,    aerodrome
                                    38/F/A/X/U

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                               REPORT 5 - PAGE | 81
MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                             DECEMBER 2018
AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

                                   Asphalt         aprons and airside        Total apron area higher
                                    pavement        facilities                 than 15,000 m²
                                                   Taxiways are built        Apron areas with PCN
                                3,000m X 45m        on asphalt, with PCN       40/F/B/W/U
                                 PCN               40/F/B/W/U                Flexible pavement -
                                    40/F/B/W/      Taxiway width’s            asphalt
                                    U               dimensions IS 27 m
 Runway 2     15 / 33            Asphalt
                                    pavement
                                 VOR / DME
                                 SALS /15 -
                                    CAT1 /33

                        PORT SAID AIRPORT (PSD) – Terminal Complex
                                                         Terminal
                    Terminal Use       Levels                                Other Considerations
   Terminal                                              Capacity
    Building       Domestic         Single-level    500 PHP (peak           4 commercial aircraft
                                    (operational) hour pax)                  parking positions
                                          Airside System
                                  Runway
 Number of       Runway                                 Taxiways /               Aircraft Aprons /
                               Dimensions /
 Runways     Denomination                             Characteristics             Characteristics
                                 Equipment
                              2,349m X 45m         2 taxiways,               1 apron area on the
                               PCN                  connecting runways,       aerodrome
                                  35/F/C/X/U         aprons and airside       Total apron area of
                               Asphalt              facilities                35,000 m²
 Runway 1    10 / 28              pavement         Taxiways are built        Apron areas with PCN
                               SALS/10 -            on asphalt, with PCN      35/R/C/X/U
                                  SALS/28            35/F/C/X/U               Reinforced concrete
                               DVOR/DME           Taxiway width’s            pavement
                                                     dimensions is 23m

               EL ALAMEIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (DDB) – Terminal Complex
                                                        Terminal
                    Terminal Use       Levels                            Other Considerations
                                                        Capacity
   Terminal
                   Mix use –         N/A           N/A                   N/A
    Building
                   International
                   and Domestic
                                         Airside System
                                   Runway
 Number of       Runway                                Taxiways /            Aircraft Aprons /
                                 Dimensions /
 Runways     Denomination                            Characteristics          Characteristics
                                  Equipment
                               3,500m X 45m       2 taxiways,            1 apron area on the
                                PCN                connecting runways,    aerodrome
                                   72/F/A/W/T       aprons and airside    Total apron area of
                                Asphalt            facilities             6,000 m²
 Runway 1    13 / 31               pavement       Taxiways are built     Apron areas with PCN
                                DVOR/DME           on asphalt, with PCN   72/F/A/W/T
                                                    72/F/A/W/T            Flexible pavement -
                                                  Taxiway width’s         asphalt
                                                    dimensions is 30m




IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                           REPORT 5 - PAGE | 82
MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                              DECEMBER 2018
AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

                          EL TOR AIRPORT (ELT) – Terminal Complex
                                                         Terminal
                    Terminal Use       Levels                                Other Considerations
   Terminal                                              Capacity
    Building       Domestic         Single-level    100 PHP (peak            5 commercial aircraft
                                    (operational) hour pax)                  parking positions
                                          Airside System
                                  Runway
 Number of       Runway                                 Taxiways /                 Aircraft Aprons /
                               Dimensions /
 Runways     Denomination                             Characteristics               Characteristics
                                 Equipment
                              3,000m X 45m         8 taxiways,               1 apron area on the
                               PCN                  connecting runways,       aerodrome
                                  65/F/A/W/          aprons and airside       Total apron area of
                                  U                  facilities                66,240 m²
 Runway 1    28 / 10           Asphalt            Taxiways are built        Apron areas with PCN
                                  pavement           on asphalt, with PCN      65/R/A/W/U
                                                     65/F/A/W/U               Reinforced concrete
                                                   Taxiway width’s            pavement
                                                     dimensions vary

                       ST. CATHERINE AIRPORT (SKV) – Terminal Complex
                                                        Terminal
                    Terminal Use       Levels                             Other Considerations
   Terminal                                             Capacity
    Building       Domestic         Double-level   80 PHP (peak          4 commercial aircraft
                                    (operational) hour pax)              parking positions
                                         Airside System
                                  Runway
 Number of       Runway                                Taxiways /            Aircraft Aprons /
                               Dimensions /
 Runways     Denomination                            Characteristics          Characteristics
                                 Equipment
                              2,115m X 36m        3 taxiways,            1 apron area on the
                               PCN                 connecting runways,     aerodrome
                                  40/F/B/W/         aprons and airside    Total apron area of
                                  U                 facilities              14,400 m²
 Runway 1    17 / 35           Asphalt           Taxiways are built     Apron areas with PCN
                                  pavement          on asphalt, with PCN    40/R/B/W/U
                                                    40/F/B/W/U            Reinforced concrete
                                                  Taxiway width’s          pavement
                                                    dimensions is 30m

                           6th OCTOBER AIRPORT – Terminal Complex
                                                          Terminal
                    Terminal Use        Levels                               Other Considerations
   Terminal                                               Capacity
    Building       Domestic          Single-level    Training                N/A
                                     (operational)
                                           Airside System
                                   Runway
 Number of       Runway                                  Taxiways /                Aircraft Aprons /
                                Dimensions /
 Runways     Denomination                              Characteristics              Characteristics
                                  Equipment
                               2,000m X 35m         9 taxiways,              1 apron area on the
                                PCN                  connecting runways,      aerodrome
                                   9/F/A/X/T          aprons and airside      Total apron area of
                                Asphalt              facilities               30,000 m²
 Runway 1    01 / 19               pavement         Taxiways are built       Apron areas with PCN
                                SALS/01 -            on asphalt, with PCN     28/R/A/W/T
                                   SALS/19            9/F/A/X/T               Mixed Asphalt /
                                NDB - VOR           Taxiway width’s          Reinforced concrete
                                                      dimensions is 24m        pavement




IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                           REPORT 5 - PAGE | 83
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                             DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

                            DAKHLA AIRPORT (VIL) – Terminal Complex
                                                           Terminal
                      Terminal Use       Levels                               Other Considerations
     Terminal                                              Capacity
      Building       Domestic         Single-level    100 PHP (peak           1 commercial aircraft
                                      (operational) hour pax)                 parking position
                                            Airside System
                                    Runway
   Number of       Runway                                 Taxiways /              Aircraft Aprons /
                                 Dimensions /
   Runways     Denomination                             Characteristics            Characteristics
                                   Equipment
                                2,489m X 45m         2 taxiways,              1 apron area on the
                                 PCN                  connecting runways,      aerodrome
                                    30/F/B/X/U         aprons and airside      Total apron area of
                                 Asphalt              facilities               39,600 m²
   Runway 1    15 / 33
                                    pavement         Taxiways are built       Apron areas with PCN
                                 NDB                  on asphalt, with PCN      30/F/B/X/U
                                                       30/F/B/X/U              Flexible pavement -
                                                                                asphalt

                          EL KHARGA AIRPORT (UVL) – Terminal Complex
                                                           Terminal
                      Terminal Use       Levels                              Other Considerations
     Terminal                                              Capacity
      Building       Domestic         Single-level    100 PHP (peak         1 commercial aircraft
                                      (operational) hour pax)               parking position
                                            Airside System
                                    Runway
   Number of       Runway                                 Taxiways /             Aircraft Aprons /
                                 Dimensions /
   Runways     Denomination                             Characteristics           Characteristics
                                   Equipment
                                3,500m X 45m         11 taxiways,           2 apron areas in the
                                 PCN                  connecting runways,     aerodrome
                                    40/F/C/X/U         aprons and airside      (1) : 300M X 120M
                                 Asphalt              facilities              (2) : 150M X 39M
   Runway 1    18 / 36              pavement         Taxiways are built     Apron areas with PCN
                                 SALS / 18 -          on asphalt, with PCN    40/F/C/X/U
                                    CAT1 /36           40/F/C/X/U            Flexible pavement -
                                 VOR / DME          Taxiway width’s          asphalt
                                                       dimensions is 26m

                       SHARQ EL OWAINAT AIRPORT (GSQ) – Terminal Complex
                                                           Terminal
                      Terminal Use       Levels                              Other Considerations
     Terminal                                              Capacity
      Building       Domestic         Single-level    100 PHP (peak         1 commercial aircraft
                                      (operational) hour pax)               parking position
                                            Airside System
                                    Runway
   Number of       Runway                                 Taxiways /             Aircraft Aprons /
                                 Dimensions /
   Runways     Denomination                             Characteristics           Characteristics
                                   Equipment
                                3,500m X 45m         3 taxiways,            2 apron areas in the
                                 PCN                  connecting runways,     aerodrome
                                    60/F/A/W/          aprons and airside      (1) : 300M X 110M
                                    U                  facilities              (2) : 300M X 150M
   Runway 1    01 / 19
                                 Asphalt            Taxiways are built     Apron areas with PCN
                                    pavement           on asphalt, with PCN    60/F/A/W/U
                                 CAT1 /01 -           60/F/A/W/U            Flexible pavement -
                                    SALS/19                                    asphalt
Source: EHCANN / EAC


Since the small airports in the national network do not feature significant traffic, with even several
aerodromes currently closed to commercial operations, the forecasted traffic has been estimated as
aggregate (please, refer to Report 2). As such, capacity and requirements evaluation for these small

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                           REPORT 5 - PAGE | 84
    MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                  DECEMBER 2018
    AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

airports is not relevant. Besides, even in cases where individual small airports could experience more
significant traffic growth during the study, in none of these cases are traffic levels expected to exceed
historical high levels at the same airport.


       2.5. PRELIMINARY INVESTMENT PROGRAM

Preliminary investment schedules and costing were prepared for those airports that require significant
capacity related improvements/new construction areas according to the demand/capacity assessment
presented in the previous section.

Though it has been recommended that the construction or extension of parallel taxiways at certain
airports be studied, these potential projects have not been included in this investment plan.

The airports that require major capacity related investments over the next 20 years are:

          Borg El Arab (HBE)
          Sharm El Sheik (SSH)
          Hurghada (HRG)
          Marsa Alam (RMF)
          Aysut (ATZ)

It was not possible to include a comprehensive list of major rehabilitation or replacement projects
because the Consultant was not provided with information on the condition of existing infrastructure
and equipment and was not able to verify this condition through site visits. Having said that, it is
possible to predict the overall rehabilitation requirements for airside pavements (runways, taxiways,
aprons) that will likely be required during the 20-year planning period, even if not the exact timing of
these investments. These periodic major maintenance CAPEX have been estimated for each of the large
and medium airports.

For purposes of this preliminary investment plan, parametric capital investment costs per square meter
were estimated that incorporate:

          Construction (materials and labor)
          Electromechanical and other major equipment
          Design and engineering,
          Project management and construction supervision
          Contingency

The cost estimates are based on 2018 prices, not including the impact of depreciation, inflation, interest
payments, land acquisition and building furniture.

The parametric unit price for terminal building construction and expansion was calculated with regards
to investment costs associated with the recent construction of the Cairo International Airport Terminal
3 (TB-3). The cost per square meter of that project was $1791 (once the IT/ELV portion of the project
is deducted).4 This was rounded up to $1800 and further 20% contingency was added to obtain a
parametric unit cost of $2160 per sqm.

The estimated unit price for the rehabilitation of airside pavements is based on the recently completed
project for the upgrade, rehabilitation and resurfacing of Runway 05R/23L at Cairo airport, with total
cost of around $30m. This translates into approximately $110 per square meter for asphalt pavement.
The Consulting Team’s experience at other Egyptian airports would indicate that the reinforced
concrete pavement is generally around 20% more expensive relative to the asphalt and thus it should
be around $132 per square meter.

4
    Cost information for the TB3 project was obtained from the World Bank’s “Implementation and Completion Report”
    IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                               REPORT 5 - PAGE | 85
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                   DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


The estimated cost for the construction of new concrete apron areas is estimated at $198 per sqm; also
based on the Consulting Team’s experience with this type of construction in Egypt, as well as the current
2018 prices of the basic components of the construction materials; primarily cement, aggregates and
reinforcing steel.

For each airport, a table is presented that includes units, quantities, unit costs and total costs (in 2018
USD) for each project. This is followed by a table summarizing the costs and phasing of airports
improvements.

It is important to emphasize again that these investment projects were identified based on secondary
information provided by the EAC. The Company’s current investment program was not provided.
Projects that may require further verification are noted.

         2.5.1. Borg El Arab (HBE)

The primary capacity related investment projects identified for HBE are:

    1- Aircraft Parking Apron:
           a. Development Stage – Years 2028 – 2032
                   i. 1 additional aircraft parking area – 3,100 m²

            b. Development Stage – Years 2033 – 2037
                   i. 2 additional aircraft parking areas – 2 X (3,100 m²) = 6,200 m²

    2- Passenger Terminal
          a. Development Stage – Years 2017 – 2022
                  i. Additional 7,000 to 8,000 m², up to approx. 30,000 m² of terminal area

            b. Development Stage – Years 2023 – 2027
                   i. Additional 6,000 to 7,000 m², up to approx. 37,000 m² of terminal área

            c. Development Stage – Years 2028 – 2032
                   i. Additional 8,000 m², up to approx. 45,000 m² of terminal area

            d. Development Stage – Years 2033 – 2037
                   i. Additional 10,000 m², up to approx. 55,000 m² of terminal area

The following table presents an estimate of the costs of each of these projects:

                      Table 71 – Borg El-Arab - List of Required Major Capacity Investments


                                                              Unit Cost
     Year                Facility            Area (m2)                      Total in USD      Total in EGP
                                                                (USD)
  2028-2032    Aircraft Parking Apron           3100           $198,00         $613.800            11.048.400
  2033-2037    Aircraft Parking Apron           6200           $198,00        $1.227.600           22.096.800
  2017-2022    Passenger Terminal               8000          $2.160,00      $17.280.000          311.040.000
  2023-2027    Passenger Terminal               7000          $2.160,00      $15.120.000          272.160.000
  2028-2032    Passenger Terminal               8000          $2.160,00      $17.280.000          311.040.000
  2033-2037    Passenger Terminal              10000          $2.160,00      $21.600.000          388.800.000
                         Total                                              $73.121.400        1.316.185.200



The overall investment plan totals over USD $73 million (or EGP 1.3 billion) in 2018 prices over the
next 20 years, divided into 5-year periods as presented in the following table. This includes an
estimated USD $17.28 million in investments over the short-term.
 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 86
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                         DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                     Table 72 – Borg El-Arab - Investment Plan - Major Capacity Investments (USD)

                                      2022     2023-2027   2028-2032   2032-2037                         Total
 Airside                                    $0          $0    $613.800  $1.227.600                       $1.841.400
 Terminals                         $17.280.000 $15.120.000 $17.280.000 $21.600.000                      $71.280.000
             Total                $17.280.000 $15.120.000 $17.893.800 $22.827.600                      $73.121.400


The following table summarizes the estimate of the cost of major airside maintenance projects.

             Table 73 – Borg El-Arab - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD)

                    BORG EL-ARAB INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (HBE) – Airside System
                                  Runway         Runway         Rehabilitation /
                  Number of
                              Denomination     Dimensions /  Resurfacing Unit Cost
                  Runways
                              / Construction       Area             (US$/m²)
                              14 / 32        3,400m X 45m    US$ 110/m²
                               Asphalt       153,000 m²    Total Area – 153,000
                                                                m²
                  Runway 1
                                                             Total Cost –
                                                                US$ 16,830,000

                                       Number of
                                                                               Rehabilitation /
                     Aircraft       Aircraft Apron      Aircraft Apron
                                                                             Resurfacing Unit Cost
                     Aprons              Areas /             Area
                                                                                  (US$/m²)
                                     Construction
                                    2 aircraft apron   142,820 m²            US$ 132/m²
                                    areas                                    Total Area – 142,820
                Aircraft Apron       Reinforced                              m²
                    Areas               concrete                             Total Cost –
                                                                              US$ 18,852,240




        2.5.2. Sharm El Sheik (SSH)

The primary capacity related investment projects identified for SSH are:

   1- Passenger Terminal
         a. Development Stage – Years 2017 – 2022
                 i. Additional 4,000 m², up to approx. 64,000 m² of terminal area

             b. Development Stage – Years 2023 – 2027
                    i. Additional 14,000 m², up to approx. 78,000 m² of terminal area

             c. Development Stage – Years 2028 – 2032
                    i. Additional 15,000 m², up to approx. 93,000 m² of terminal area

             d. Development Stage – Years 2033 – 2037
                    i. Additional 8,000 m², up to approx. 102,000 m² of terminal area

The following tables present an estimate of the costs and timing of each of these investments.

The overall investment plan totals over USD $88.6 million (or EGP 1.6 billion) in 2018 prices over the
next 20 years, divided into 5-year periods.

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                   REPORT 5 - PAGE | 87
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                      Table 74 – Sharm El-Sheik - List of Required Major Capacity Investments


                                                               Unit Cost
     Year                 Facility              Area (m2)                      Total in USD        Total in EGP
                                                                (USD)
  2017- 2022     Passenger Terminal                 4000       $2.160,00          $8.640.000          155.520.000
  2023-2027      Passenger Terminal                14000       $2.160,00         $30.240.000          544.320.000
  2028-2032      Passenger Terminal                15000       $2.160,00         $32.400.000          583.200.000
  2033-2037      Passenger Terminal                 8000       $2.160,00         $17.280.000          311.040.000
                          Total                                                 $88.560.000        1.594.080.000


                  Table 75 – Sharm El-Sheik - Investment Plan - Major Capacity Investments (USD)

                                      2022         2023-2027    2028-2032         2032-2037            Total
  Airside                                  $0                $0          $0                 $0                $0
  Terminals                        $8.640.000       $30.240.000 $32.400.000        $17.280.000       $88.560.000
              Total               $8.640.000       $30.240.000 $32.400.000        $17.280.000       $88.560.000


The following table summarizes the estimate of the cost of major airside maintenance projects.

            Table 76 – Sharm El Sheik - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD)

                   SHARM EL-SHEIKH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SSH) – Airside System
                                  Runway          Runway         Rehabilitation /
                  Number of
                               Denomination     Dimensions /  Resurfacing Unit Cost
                  Runways
                               / Construction       Area            (US$/m²)
                              04L / 22R       3,081m X 45m    US$ 110/m²
                  Runway 1     Asphalt        138,645 m²    Total Area – 277,290
                                                                m²
                              22L / 04R       3,081m X 45m
                                                              Total Cost –
                  Runway 2     Asphalt        138,645 m²
                                                                US$ 30,501,900

                                        Number of
                                                                              Rehabilitation /
                   Aircraft          Aircraft Apron      Aircraft Apron
                                                                            Resurfacing Unit Cost
                   Aprons                 Areas /             Area
                                                                                 (US$/m²)
                                      Construction
                                     2 aircraft apron   142,820 m²          US$ 110/m²
                                     areas                                  Total Area – 450,259
                Aircraft Apron        Asphalt                               m²
                    Areas                                                   Total Cost –
                                                                             US$ 49,528,490




From the interviews carried out with EAC officials, the Consultant understands that in 2008, EHCAAN
announced plans to build a new (third) terminal at SSH. The new terminal was (reportedly) planned to
double the airport's capacity from 7.5 to 15 million passengers per year. The design phase was due to
be completed by early 2010 and international contractors then were invited for an open tender to
construct the terminal which was scheduled to be completely constructed by 2015. However, this
project has not been carried out do to the decline in air traffic at the airport during the current decade.
While SSH experienced some loss of traffic after the 2011 and 2013 revolutions, it was after the
downing of a Russian Charter flight in late 2015 and ban on Russian visitors that traffic declined very
significantly.



 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 88
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

The master-plan presented in this report would indicate that a phased approach to a third terminal
project may be justified. As it would not be practical to construct only the required 4000 sqm of new
terminal in the very short-term, an alternative approach would involve an initial construction of
approximately 18,000 sqm over the medium-term, followed by an additional 23,000 m2 to be
constructed between 2028 and 2037, should traffic growth approximate the forecast used in this study.

The cost of the initial phase of construction of the third terminal would be estimated at $38.8 million.

         2.5.3. Hurghada (HRG)

The primary capacity related investment project identified for HRG are:

    1- Passenger Terminal
          a. Development Stage – Years 2033 – 2037
                  i. Additional 10,000 m², up to approx. 102,000 m² of terminal area

It is important to note that this project depends on first verifying the total area provided by both
terminals at HRG. The NAMP reported that Terminal 1 (older facility) had a total area of 30,020 m²
(20,720 m² existing area plus 9,300 m² of ongoing expansion – at the time of the NAMP study). From
the information received from EAC, it is unclear if the reported 92,000 m² of passenger area at the
airport is the result of the combined surface of both facilities, or just the new area provided by the newer
passenger terminal. In summary, it is necessary to validate whether the total currently operational area
of the terminal complex is 92,000 m² or 122,000 m². If the existing area is the later, then this project
would no longer be necessary.

The following table presents an estimate of the costs of this project, should it be necessary:

                        Table 77 – Hurghada - List of Required Major Capacity Investments

                                                            Unit Cost
      Year                Facility           Area (m2)                     Total in USD         Total in EGP
                                                             (USD)
   2033-2037     Passenger Terminal              10000      $1.160,00         $21.600.000         388.800.000
                         Total                                               $18.000.000         388.800.000



The overall investment plan would total over USD $21.6 million (or EGP 388,8 million) in 2018 prices
and would be required during the 2032-2037 period.

                     Table 78 – Hurghada - Investment Plan - Major Capacity Investments (USD)

                                     2022         2023-2027     2028-2032  2032-2037               Total
 Airside                                    $0            $0            $0          $0                    $0
 Terminals                                  $0            $0            $0 $21.600.000           $21.600.000
             Total                          $0            $0            $0 $21.600.000          $21.600.000


The following table summarizes the estimate of the cost of major airside maintenance projects.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                REPORT 5 - PAGE | 89
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                 DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


            Table 79 – Hurghada - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD)

                   HURGHADA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (HRG) – Airside System
                              Runway          Runway         Rehabilitation /
                Number of
                           Denomination     Dimensions /  Resurfacing Unit Cost
                Runways
                           / Construction       Area            (US$/m²)
                          16 / 34         4,000m X 45m    US$ 110/m²
                Runway 1   Asphalt        138,645 m²    Total Area – 420,000
                                                             m²
                          34 / 16         4,000m X 60m
                                                          Total Cost –
                Runway 2   Asphalt        138,645 m²
                                                             US$ 46,200,000

                                   Number of
                                                                           Rehabilitation /
                 Aircraft       Aircraft Apron      Aircraft Apron
                                                                         Resurfacing Unit Cost
                 Aprons              Areas /             Area
                                                                              (US$/m²)
                                 Construction
                                3 aircraft apron   210,000 m²            US$ 132/m²
                                areas                                    Total Area – 210,000
              Aircraft Apron     Reinforced                              m²
                  Areas             concrete                             Total Cost –
                                                                          US$ 27,720,000




        2.5.4. Marsa Alam (RMF)

The primary capacity related investment projects identified for RMF are:

   1- Passenger Terminal
         a. Development Stage – Years 2017 – 2022
                 i. Additional 4,000 m², up to approx. 11,000 m² of terminal area

           b. Development Stage – Years 2023 – 2027
                  i. Additional 5,000 m², up to approx. 16,000 m² of terminal area

           c. Development Stage – Years 2028 – 2032
                  i. Additional 4,000 m², up to approx. 20,000 m² of terminal area

           d. Development Stage – Years 2033 – 2037
                  i. Additional 4,000 m², up to approx. 24,000 m² of terminal area

As was the case with HRG, it is necessary to verify the total operational area provided by the passenger
terminal complex at RMF. The NAMP reported areas could not be verified by EAC nor by site visits. It
is unclear if the original (Phase I) terminal is still currently operating or if expansions and/or
modifications have been implemented lately. In summary, it would be important to validate the total
area of the terminal complex at Marsa Alam International Airport.

The following tables present an estimate of the costs and timing of each of these projects, assuming that
the terminal area identified in the NAMP remains unchanged.

The overall investment plan totals over USD $36.7 million (or EGP 661 million) in 2018 prices over
the next 20 years, divided into 5-year periods as follows:




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                               REPORT 5 - PAGE | 90
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                      DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                        Table 80 – Marsa Alam - List of Required Major Capacity Investments

                                                                 Unit Cost
     Year                  Facility               Area (m2)                  Total in USD        Total in EGP
                                                                  (USD)
  2017-2022     Passenger Terminal                  4000         $2.160,00     $8.640.000          155.520.000
  2023-2027     Passenger Terminal                  5000         $2.160,00    $10.800.000          194.400.000
  2033-2037     Passenger Terminal                  4000         $2.160,00     $8.640.000          155.520.000
  2028-2033     Passenger Terminal                  4000         $2.160,00     $8.640.000          155.520.000
                         Total                                               $36.720.000          660.960.000


                     Table 81 – Marsa Alam - Investment Plan - Major Capacity Investments(USD)

                                      2022    2023-2027           2028-2032       2032-2037          Total
 Airside                                   $0          $0                   $0              $0              $0
 Terminals                         $8.640.000 $10.800.000           $8.640.000      $8.640.000     $36.720.000
             Total                $8.640.000 $10.800.000           $8.640.000      $8.640.000     $36.720.000


Should a new terminal be required, then it is recommended that the airport operator consider
combining the first two of these projects into one 9000 sqm facility.

        2.5.5. Aysut

The primary capacity related investment projects identified for ATZ are:

   1- Aircraft Parking Apron:
          a. Development Stage – Years 2028 – 2032
                  i. 1 additional aircraft parking area – 3,100 m²

             b. Development Stage – Years 2033 – 2037
                    i. 2 additional aircraft parking areas – 2 X (3,100 m²) = 6,200 m²

The following table presents an estimate of the costs of each of these projects:

                           Table 82 – Asyut - List of Required Major Capacity Investments

                                                                 Unit Cost
     Year                  Facility               Area (m2)                  Total in USD        Total in EGP
                                                                  (USD)
  2028-2032     Aircraft Parking Apron              3100         $198,00           $613.800         11.048.400
  2033-2037     Aircraft Parking Apron              6200         $198,00          $1.227.600        22.096.800
                          Total                                                  $1.841.400        33.145.200



The overall investment plan for the construction of three new aircraft parking stands totals over USD
$1.8 million (or EGP 33 million) in 2018 prices and is only required in the long-term, as follows:

                       Table 83 – Asyut - Investment Plan - Major Capacity Investments (USD)

                                      2022          2023-2027     2028-2032       2032-2037           Total
 Airside                                     $0             $0       $613.800       $1.227.600       $1.841.400
 Terminals                                   $0             $0             $0               $0               $0
             Total                           $0             $0      $613.800       $1.227.600       $1.841.400




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                   REPORT 5 - PAGE | 91
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                  DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

The following table summarizes the estimate of the cost of major airside maintenance projects.

              Table 84 – Asyut - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD)

                                 ASSIUT AIRPORT (ATZ) – Airside System
                                    Runway          Runway            Rehabilitation /
               Number of
                                 Denomination     Dimensions /      Resurfacing Unit Cost
               Runways
                                 / Construction       Area               (US$/m²)
                                13 / 31         3,500m X 45m        US$ 110/m²
                                 Asphalt        157,500 m²        Total Area – 157,500
                                                                      m²
                Runway 1
                                                                    Total Cost –
                                                                      US$ 17,325,000

                                   Number of
                                                                           Rehabilitation /
                 Aircraft       Aircraft Apron       Aircraft Apron
                                                                         Resurfacing Unit Cost
                 Aprons              Areas /              Area
                                                                              (US$/m²)
                                 Construction
                                2 aircraft apron   59,005 m²              US$ 121/m²
                                areas                                      (approximate
                                 Reinforced                               average for different
                                    concrete                               areas: concrete and
              Aircraft Apron     Asphalt                                  asphalt)
                  Areas                                                   Total Area – 59,005
                                                                           m²
                                                                          Total Cost –
                                                                           US$ 7,139,605




        2.5.6. Sohag (HMB)

Sohag Airport does not require any major capacity related investments over the next 20 years, but the
major airside rehabilitation costs are estimated in the following table.

             Table 85 – Sohag - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD)

                    SOHAG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (HMB) – Airside System
                               Runway          Runway        Rehabilitation /
               Number of
                            Denomination     Dimensions /  Resurfacing Unit Cost
               Runways
                            / Construction       Area            (US$/m²)
                           15 / 33         3,000m X 45m    US$ 110/m²
                            Asphalt        135,000 m²    Total Area – 135,000
                                                             m²
               Runway 1
                                                           Total Cost –
                                                             US$ 14,850,000

                                   Number of
                                                                           Rehabilitation /
                 Aircraft       Aircraft Apron       Aircraft Apron
                                                                         Resurfacing Unit Cost
                 Aprons              Areas /              Area
                                                                              (US$/m²)
                                 Construction
                                1 aircraft apron   37,950 m²              US$ 132/m²
                                areas                                     Total Area – 37,950
              Aircraft Apron     Reinforced                               m²
                  Areas             concrete                              Total Cost –
                                                                           US$ 5,009,400




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                               REPORT 5 - PAGE | 92
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                 DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


        2.5.7. Luxor (LXR)

Luxor Airport also does not require any major capacity related investments over the next 20 years.
An estimate of the major airside rehabilitation CAPEX is in the following table.

             Table 86 – Luxor - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD)

                    LUXOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (LXR) – Airside System
                              Runway          Runway          Rehabilitation /
               Number of
                           Denomination     Dimensions /   Resurfacing Unit Cost
               Runways
                           / Construction       Area             (US$/m²)
                          02 / 20         3,000m X 45m     US$ 110/m²
                           Asphalt        135,000 m²     Total Area – 135,000
                                                             m²
               Runway 1
                                                           Total Cost –
                                                             US$ 14,850,000

                                  Number of
                                                                          Rehabilitation /
                Aircraft       Aircraft Apron       Aircraft Apron
                                                                        Resurfacing Unit Cost
                Aprons              Areas /              Area
                                                                             (US$/m²)
                                Construction
                               2 aircraft apron   246,288 m²             US$ 132/m²
                               areas                                     Total Area –
              Aircraft Apron    Reinforced                               246,288 m²
                  Areas            concrete                              Total Cost –
                                                                          US$ 32,510,016




        2.5.8. Aswan (ASW)

Aswan Airport also does not require any major capacity related investments over the next 20 years.
An estimate of the major airside rehabilitation CAPEX is in the following table.

             Table 87 – Aswan - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD)

                    ASWAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (ASW) – Airside System
                               Runway         Runway         Rehabilitation /
               Number of
                           Denomination     Dimensions /  Resurfacing Unit Cost
               Runways
                           / Construction       Area             (US$/m²)
                           17 / 35        3,402m X 45m    US$ 110/m²
                           Asphalt        153,090 m²    Total Area – 153,090
                                                             m²
               Runway 1
                                                          Total Cost –
                                                             US$ 16,839,900

                                  Number of
                                                                          Rehabilitation /
                Aircraft       Aircraft Apron       Aircraft Apron
                                                                        Resurfacing Unit Cost
                Aprons              Areas /              Area
                                                                             (US$/m²)
                                Construction
                               4 aircraft apron   232,202 m²             US$ 132/m²
                               areas                                     Total Area –
              Aircraft Apron    Reinforced                               232,202 m²
                  Areas            concrete                              Total Cost –
                                                                          US$ 30,650,664



 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                              REPORT 5 - PAGE | 93
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                   DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


        2.5.9. Cairo (CAI)

As noted earlier, Cairo does not require any major capacity related investments over the next 20 years
under the Most Likely air traffic forecast; and it is assumed that the new Cairo area airports will absorb
some of the demand. But Cairo will have significant major maintenance CAPEX during the 20 year
period.

The following table summarizes the estimate of the cost of these rehabilitation projects at CAI.

              Table 88 – Cairo - Investment Plan - Major Airside Rehabilitation Investments (USD)

                        CAIRO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (CAI) – Airside System
                                   Runway         Runway          Rehabilitation /
               Number of
                               Denomination     Dimensions /    Resurfacing Unit Cost
                Runways
                               / Construction       Area              (US$/m²)
                              05L / 23R       3,301m X 60m      US$ 110/m²
                Runway 1      Cat I            198,060 m²      Total Area – 678,000
                                Asphalt                          m²
                              05R / 23L       3,999m X 60m      Total Cost –
                Runway 2      Cat II           239,940 m²        US$ 74,580,000
                                Asphalt
                              05C / 23C       4,000m X 60m
                Runway 3
                                Asphalt       240,000 m²
                                 Number of
                                                                  Rehabilitation /
                 Aircraft      Aircraft Apron  Aircraft Apron
                                                                Resurfacing Unit Cost
                 Aprons            Areas /          Area
                                                                      (US$/m²)
                                Construction
                              17 aircraft     820,393.47 m²     US$ 132/m²
                              apron areas                       Total Area – 820,394
              Aircraft Apron    Reinforced                       m²
                  Areas           concrete                      Total Cost –
                                                                  US$ 108,293,000




        2.5.10.        Overall Investment Plan

The table on the following page provides a summary of the overall investment plan for the airport
system, including both capacity related facility expansions and major rehabilitation works.

As note previously, this investment plan does not include the following due to lack of sufficient data to
estimate requirements:

   1- Any major expansion or rehabilitation works at the Small Airports (which should be
      minimized).

   2- Any investments required to meet regulatory and safety considerations.

The timing of the rehabilitation investments is only estimated for purposes of this analysis based on the
use-life of the different types of airside pavements. The timing of these investments will likely need to
be adjusted based on the current condition of pavements and any existing maintenance plans.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                REPORT 5 - PAGE | 94
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                            DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


               Table 89 – Summary of Overall Airport System Investment Plan (2018 USD millions)

 Airport                       2022                  2023-2027         2028-2032         2032-2037             Total
 Capacity Investments
 Borg El-Arab (HBE)               $17.28                   $15.12            $17.89            $22.83            $73.12
 Sharm Al-Sheik (SSH)               $8.64                  $30.24            $32.40            $17.28            $88.56
 Hurghada (HRG)                     $0.00                   $0.00             $0.00            $21.60            $21.60
 Marsa Alam (RMF)                   $8.64                  $10.80             $8.64             $8.64            $36.72
 Aysut (AZT)                        $0.00                   $0.00             $0.61             $1.23             $1.84
 Sub-Total Capacity               $34.56                   $56.16            $59.55            $71.58           $221.84
 Major Rehabilitation Investments
 Cairo (CAI)                       $21.79                  $80.54             $80.55             $0.00          $182.87
 Borg El-Arab (HBE)                 $9.43                  $16.83              $9.43             $0.00           $35.68
 Sharm Al-Sheik (SSH)               $0.00                  $40.02             $40.02             $0.00           $80.03
 Hurghada (HRG)                     $0.00                  $33.66             $40.26             $0.00           $73.92
 Aysut (AZT)                        $3.57                  $17.33              $3.57             $0.00           $24.46
 Sohag (HMB)                        $2.50                  $14.85              $2.50             $0.00           $19.86
 Luxor (LXB)                       $16.26                  $14.85             $16.26             $0.00           $47.36
 Aswan (ASW)                       $15.33                  $16.84             $15.33             $0.00           $47.49
 Sub-Total Rehabilitation         $68.87                 $234.91            $207.90             $0.00           $511.68
 Total Investment               $103.43                  $291.07            $267.45            $71.58           $733.52
 Notes: The timing of rehabilitation investments is only an initial estimate. There was insufficient information to estimate
 rehabilitation costs for Marsa Alam Airport



As can be seen the table, the airport system will require at least US$ 733 million at 2018 prices in
capital investments over the next 20 years.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                        REPORT 5 - PAGE | 95
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                            DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


 3. PPP PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT

       3.1. PPP SCREENING METHODOLOGY

The objective of this activity was to screen potential projects in the Egyptian Airport sector in terms of
the applicability of utilizing different PPP modalities from the point of view of both the Government and
the private sector. This screening process is utilized to then select a pipeline of potential PPP projects
that will be further evaluated in Task 6 of this study.

The IOS Partners Team has developed and applied a tool that permits recording critical information for
prospective PPP projects that facilitated their screening in accordance with criteria eventually agreed
for ranking/ selecting projects for further development. This tool consists of a model that the
consulting team has used for systematically organizing collected data and rating each potential project
according to specific criteria and variables.

The following figure illustrates the overall approach to assessing potential PPP projects. The
application of Step 1 for the initial screening of projects is carried out in this report, while Steps 2, 3 and
4 will be applied to the projects that pass this first screening as part of the subsequent task and included
in Report 6.

                                      Figure 13: Overall Approach to PPP Project Assessment


                                                Step 2:
           Step 1:                                                          Step 3:
                                         Do PPP options satisfy                                         Step 4:
     Screen Potential PPP                                             Will private sector
                                          objectives given the                                       Rank in order
           Projects                                                   (PS) accept risk?
                                         constraints identified?

 Criteria:                                                    Yes
                                           Corporatization
                                                              No                                      Goverment = 2
 • Consitent with government                                                    Yes                      PS = 2
   development strategy                                       Yes
                                            O&M contract                        No                      Total = 4
 • Technically feasible                                       No
 • Satisfy future demand                                                        Yes
 • Financially feasible                                       Yes                                     Goverment = 1
                                            Mgmt contrat
 • Minimize cost to government                                No                No                       PS = 1
 • Increase efficiency and                                                      Yes                     Total = 2
   capabilities                                               Yes
                                           BOT Concession                       No
 • Ease of implementation                                     No
 • Ensure continuity of service                               Yes
 • Attractive for private investors          Divestiture
                                                              No
                                                                                                        PROJECT




Determining project eligibility and selection is a fundamental component of any PPP program. If a
program is too rigid in its eligibility criteria, then the opportunity for capturing the highest number of
viable projects is lessened. If the PPP program is too loosely designed, the risk of selecting unacceptable
or overly risky projects is heightened. This methodology provides a practical and highly effective model
for identifying, screening and ranking PPP projects in the airport sector, allowing a determination of
the weight assigned to given priorities, that include financial and economic viability, socioeconomic
impact, required government support, potential risks and risk allocation, and project readiness. Any
potential PPP project must meet basic criteria for affordability, bankability and Value for Money.

Several criteria can be defined for prioritization. However, it is important to consider the relevance of
the information available and the feasibility of covering all the priorities that the PPPs can be expected


 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                           REPORT 5 - PAGE | 96
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                  DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

to serve. The screening criteria methodology is structured to consider variables that match each of the
key objectives of the PPP program, as follows:

    1. Fit with Egypt’s national development priorities and expected project impact in terms of the
       need for the infrastructure service to be provided
           o Project consistent future development requirements
           o Impact on government budgets for the airport sector (project minimizes requirement
               for government financing and subsidies; or maximizes potential income from the
               activity that can be applied to other less financially self-sufficient airports)
           o Project will lead to gains in operational efficiency and human resources capacities

    2. Technical Feasibility
          o Project meets existing and future demand
          o Project is a technically viable solution
          o Project complies with social and environmental standards

    3. Financial Feasibility
           o Project is structured to be affordable, bankable and not rely on sovereign guarantees
           o Project can generate enough revenue to cover investment and operating costs, with
              acceptable rates of return on investment
           o Project can lead to improved cost recovery

    4. Ease of Implementation
          o Extent of challenges could hinder project implementation (e.g. ability to obtain land and
               required permits, need for any legal or regulatory changes, project size and/or technical
               difficulty, etc.)
          o Ensure continuity of service

    5. Private sector attractiveness: ability and interest of qualified private sector parties to undertake
       the project and/or provide necessary financing. Particularly important is to identify key risks
       to potential investors associated with the project and to measure these against potential
       rewards.

Two levels of indicators have been defined based on the above list. First, in this report as part of the
Step 1 screening, “main criteria” have been identified that will serve as the basis for the development
of a list of priority projects to the extent possible at this stage of availability of information, to cover all
the essential characteristics of a priority PPP project.

The projects that pass this first hurdle will then be subject to a more detailed analysis in Report 6 that
includes a more complete financial modeling of different potential PPP alternative schemes applicable
at the targeted airports. In effect, the main criteria evaluated in the initial screening cover the questions
addressed by these other criteria more generally, while the final assessment in Task 6 addressed these
questions in much greater detail.

Five (5) main criteria are defined. Each is assigned a weight according to its relative importance; the
total points of all these criteria being 100. The following table summarizes the weights assigned to each
criterion.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                               REPORT 5 - PAGE | 97
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                    DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

                         Table 90: Assignment of the Weights of the Prioritization Criteria

                    N°                           Criteria                          Weight
                1        Meet Government Objectives                                   20
                2        Technical Feasibility                                        20
                3        Financial Feasibility                                        20
                4        Ease of Implementation                                       15
                5        Attractiveness to Private Sector                             25
                Total                                                                100



In principle, all projects should be eligible for consideration, regardless of size as the market may be
amendable to projects of all sizes and structures as long as they are realistic. A lack of enough detailed
financial and other information has made it difficult to consider the smaller of the airports operated by
EAC. Therefore, the focus has been on the large and medium airports for which it was possible to carry
out at least a preliminary evaluation of each of the screening criteria. This includes airports that
required capacity related investments, and/or those for which it has only been possible to estimate
major airfield rehabilitation and resurfacing costs.

The specific airports included in this initial screening are:

       Borg El-Arab (HBE), serving the Alexandria area
       Sharm El Sheik (SSH), serving the primary tourism destination in South Sinai
       Hurghada (HRG), serving the primary tourism destination on the Red Sea
       Aysut (AZT), serving the Nile Region
       Sohag (HMB), serving the Nile Region
       Luxor (LXR), in Upper Egypt
       Aswan (ASW) in Upper Egypt
       Abu Simbel (ABS)
       Cairo (CAI)

The one medium sized airport for which insufficient financial data was made available to apply the
screening criteria was Marsa Alam (RMF). But this airport is currently being operated under an ongoing
BOT concession agreement. As noted in Report 3 of the study, the EAC reported during interviews
carried out by the Consultant that the concession has been relatively successful up to the present.

Though this initial screening treats each airport as a separate potential PPP project, possible groupings
of these airports will be considered as part of the detailed evaluation of the PPP pipeline in Task 6.

It should be noted that the focus of this analysis has been on identifying PPP’s at the airport level. The
CAC does participate in several PPPs for the provision of specific services, such as the cargo concession
and the operation of the train that connects the three passenger terminals.

     3.2. STEP ONE FINANCIAL SCREENING

         3.2.1. Approach

In order to apply the Step-One screening for three of the five primary criteria outlined in the previous
section, rough cash flow models were prepared for each of the airports that represent potential PPP
projects. The purpose is to first evaluate their financial capacity and sustainability under the projected
current investment regimes.

The models represent the view of the government owner (EAC or CAC), either for its own continued
operation, or as a precursor to a public sector comparator it would use if for a PPP transaction. Full

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                   REPORT 5 - PAGE | 98
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                               DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

cash flow analyses will later be prepared for each alternate PPP scheme for those projects that pass this
first step of the screening process as part of Task 6.

As part of this first step screening,

       Under Meeting Government Objectives, one of the sub-criteria is the extent to which each
        airport provides a scenario of required infrastructure financing from the private sector. This
        would include the extent to which the airport (or EAC) can finance the required investments in
        the first place – because as long as sovereign budget is not burdened, external or third-party
        engagement would not be needed; assuming the priority was not to just add management
        capacity. The cash flow modelling helped to show whether ample coverage remains after
        operations for financing investments of capex.

       For the Financial Feasibility criteria, there is a limit to what can be surmised without carrying
        out a fuller financial analysis as called for in Task 6. But from this Task 5 cash flow modelling,
        sufficient implications can be drawn that a project would be financially feasible, even before
        growth of revenue and/or efficiencies in operational expenditures are evaluated.

       For Private Sector Attractiveness, the initial financial modelling assists in commenting on the
        ability and interest of qualified private sector parties to undertake the project and/or provide
        necessary financing. Providing a picture of debt service coverage-ability (and quality of
        sustainable revenue resource therein) assists the conversation concerning likely debt/equity
        ratio, ease of debt financing without extensive credit enhancements and controls, and complex
        financial engineering. These aspects don’t mean to diminish the importance of the balance of
        the risk matrices for private sector attractiveness – that in addition to the financing risks require
        due-diligence. If for example a majority of traffic is supplied by a national low-cost carrier, the
        traffic and revenue base although apparently sustainable is certainly not diversified for risk
        purposes.

The following describes the development of the preliminary cash flow models used at this stage of
study.

       From the (pre-2017) financial data provided by EAC for the airports, appropriate accounting
        years were selected for purposes of extrapolation for the investment horizons shown in the
        Preliminary Investment Program presented in Section 2.5 of this report. The accounting years
        were evaluated for stability. In the case of HRG, while three years of accounting data may have
        been provided by the EAC up to 2016 inclusive, only 2014 and 2016 were chosen because those
        showed stabilization while 2015 data was entirely inconsistent.

       Using the data for a base year of 2017, and ratios for financial performance for extrapolation
        were computed:

            o   Averages of %-growth or %-revenue ratios for each line item of revenue, grants and
                subsidy (which were insignificant), operating costs, depreciation, consumption, and
                undefined burdens and losses were applied to the accounting years data selected by IOS,
                to arrive at values for these same line items for the 2017 base year.
            o   For example, in the case of HBE, a 2017 base year revenue of LE 406,471,963 was
                calculated by multiplying the average of 15% + 19% growth for 2015 and 2016,
                respectively, i.e. 17% of growth to the 2016-year revenue of 347,411,934.
            o   Similarly, 2017 operating costs of LE 183,463,698 resulted from multiplying the average
                of 8% + .11% i.e. an average 4% efficiency gain over the two years, times the 2016-line
                item for operating costs.

       For the cash flow, the 16-year period between 2022 and 2037 (inclusive) was modelled; this
        matches the investment horizon utilized for the master planning exercise. Going out to 2022, it
        was assumed that the same operating policy reflected in the operating data for the airports has
 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                             REPORT 5 - PAGE | 99
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                              DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

       been stabilized pre-2017 and can be projected out to 2022, only three years from this writing.
       Year 2022 is also not an unreasonable expectation for the first year of a PPP transaction.

      The analysis of the cash flows focuses on yearly EBITDA performance (free cash flow, before
       Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization accounting charges, but after capex estimates).
       It is the standard parameter for measuring financial operating performance and sustainability
       of both public and private operators of commercial airports.

      To extrapolate the cash flow, each subsequent year’s revenue and operating cost is a product of
       the prior year revenue and operating cost and the ratio of traffic growth as projected to the
       subsequent year, as shown in the traffic forecasts presented in Report 2 of this study.

           o   For example, in HBE, the 2022 revenue of LE 522M results from multiplying the 2017
               revenue by 1.28 which is the ratio of traffic growth from 2017 to 2022.

      The analysis is crude. The forecasted traffic growth rates for each year after 2022 does not vary
       within each five-year span that makes up the 15 years up through 2037. As a result, the
       EBITDA’s are also equal each year within each of those five-year spans. The extrapolations may
       be viewed as conservative however, not overstated, as applying the same growth ratios to costs
       year on year does not account for likely efficiencies that rationally will occur. Also, as discussed
       in Report 2, EAC journals an item on the accounting ledger named ‘Burdens and Losses’ as a
       part of operating costs, that is not insignificant. Requests for clarification were made to
       determine its makeup, without response. Conservatively for this analysis, the costs were
       maintained – but ordinarily it would be assumed that burdens are likely a form of capitalization
       – such as loans and commitments and should not be deducted when reflecting free cash flow.
       (The journal item is discussed more in detail in Report 6).

      All accounting data for the EAC airports used were in current LE, unadjusted for any
       devaluation. (The accounting statements for CAC indicated charges (losses) for apparent
       currency devaluation, while the EAC data provided did not state such charges explicitly.) The
       $US capex estimates used in the analyses were adjusted to LE using the current (“devalued”)
       exchange rate – thus making the analyses for EAC airports even more conservative.

The results of the preliminary cash flow analysis for each of the EAC airports that require capacity
investments are summarized below.

The following is noted first, regarding EAC’s 2015 consolidated statements, which indicates EAC overall
dependence on just a few of the subject airports going forward (this is separate from the “free cash
flow” issue, to help judge from some of the clues available in the accounting data). We are cautioned to
screen any one individual airport on its own in a vacuum, without noting a single PPP transaction’s
ramification on the EAC as a whole (this issue will be treated in greater detail in Report 6):

      The total magnitude of ’Burdens and Losses’ shown in the income statements of all airports in
       EAC appear to reconcile with the total short- and long-term commitments that are owed ...
      E.g. annual Burdens and Losses for the airports are seen in the LE 75-100M range ...
      Long-term Loans and Commitments (from the Balance Sheet) total LE 2.6B …
      A quick calculation of what would “service” the LT Loan and Commitments for say an average
       loan life of 12 years at 8%, would be 270M. For 25 years, 190M. The three healthiest airports
       below, together fulfil such servicing.
      Total Current Liabilities amount to LE 4B; EAC owes suppliers LE 2.6B; the total of “labor costs”,
       “resources, fuel, oil, spare-parts”, and “other expenses” (being in the mid 40’s e.g. for HBE)
       across the airports is paying suppliers what is owed.
      Short-term Assets exist; Cash is at .8B, and Reserves also .8B; a total of “Liquid” assets is 1.9B
       (1B being in securities, the remaining in receivables);

 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                          REPORT 5 - PAGE | 100
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                               DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

       A quick ratio can be calculated to see if a company can honor its short term commitments with
        its liquid assets. By adding cash, cash equivalents, short-term investments, and current
        receivables together then dividing them by current liabilities, a ratio is determined. For
        the consolidated EAC, not counting a valuation of the market securities (i.e. using the 1B), the
        ratio is .625. In other words it can’t cover the total of s.t. commitments with liquid assets on
        hand, were they all called. Reuters reports that the sector average is 2.0. (Adding the 1B in
        securities, the ratio goes up to .875).
       Having said all this – the preliminary cash flow analyses as explained below clearly indicate
        sufficient capacity going forward to cover all capex financing after operations with ample
        reserves remaining; in fact EAC total should be adding ample cash on hand in a short period of
        time. (This is consistent with IOS’s comments on the ability of EAC as a whole to profit in the
        projected years – as discussed in Task 2).
       (Indications of “equity” in the balance sheet are ignored because it makes no provision for
        accumulated depreciation against LE 8B in fixed assets.)

         3.2.2. Borg El-Arab Airport (HBE)

The conclusions of the preliminary cash flow analysis for HBE carried out as part of this Step One
screening are as follows:

Under Meeting Government Objectives,

       From the analysis, HBE projects a solid financial condition over the period. All of the $73M +
        capex projected in Table 72 of this report (divided by five in each of the five-year spans) is
        financeable off the balance sheet requiring no debt, with robust reserves remaining. Only in
        year one 2022 does HBE run a deficit, and that is immediately taken up by ample surplus in
        2023. A scenario of required infrastructure financing from the private sector clearly doesn’t
        exist.

For the Financial Feasibility criteria,

       HBE shows an EBITDA of 67% when well performing operations globally operate at 35%. At an
        average annual LE 487M ($27M) it has plenty of capacity to service total credit accounts and
        long-term loans – the balance of which for EAC consolidated as of the end of 2015 stood at LE
        2.6B (explained more in detail above). The account “Burdens and Losses” represents that much
        more of free cash flow that, at least in part, increases EBITDA further. It is consistently at around
        LE 80M-100M. As discussed, the total amount conservatively, along with “Headquarters Share
        Expense” and the Table 72 capex were subtracted from the EBITDA for net annual cash flow.

For Private Sector Attractiveness,

       Given the above it is reasonable to conclude that from a financial perspective there is ability and
        interest of qualified private sector parties to undertake a project and/or provide necessary
        financing … were the government of a mind to transact in the first place – and were financing
        even required, which it is not. The projected capex is entirely financed with cash surplus, and
        the private partner would earn a management fee – not taking financing risk. The “debt” service
        coverage-ability suggests a well leveraged debt/equity ratio at favourable terms for investor
        returns without having to arrange complex credit enhancements, in the event of higher levels
        of capex if anticipated. Given the relatively conservative nature of the traffic forecasts used in
        this analysis, these results can also be considered sufficiently robust to offset any reasonable
        level of risk associated with future demand and/or quality of sustainable revenue resource.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                            REPORT 5 - PAGE | 101
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                              DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


         3.2.3. Sharm El-Sheik Airport (SSH)

The conclusions of the preliminary cash flow analysis for SSH carried out as part of Step One screening
are as follows:

Under Meeting Government Objectives,

       From the analysis, SSH projects equally robust operating margins compared with HBE. All of the
        nearly $89M capex projected in Table 74 of this report (divided by five in each of the five-year
        spans) is financeable off the balance sheet requiring no debt, with robust reserves remaining.
        In no years does SSH run a deficit. Like HBE, a scenario of required infrastructure financing from
        the private sector doesn’t exist.

For the Financial Feasibility criteria,

       SSH’s EBITDA of 67%, lower operating costs compared to HBE, and average annual LE 885M
        ($50M) provide more than ample capacity to service total credit accounts and long-term loans
        for its share of the consolidated LE 2.6B explained above. Net annual cash flow following
        assumed total debt service adds to reserves year-on-year. (The income statement account items
        “Burdens and Losses” and “Headquarters Share Expense” were treated the same as described
        for HBE above.)

For Private Sector Attractiveness,

       Same as HBE, from a financial perspective there is ability and interest of qualified private sector
        parties to undertake a project and/or provide necessary financing … were the government of a
        mind to transact in the first place – and were financing even required, which it is not. The
        projected capex is entirely financed with cash surplus, and the private partner would earn a
        management fee – not taking financing risk. The “debt” service coverage-ability suggests a well
        leveraged debt/equity ratio at favorable terms for investor returns without having to arrange
        complex credit enhancements, in the event of higher levels of capex if anticipated – more than
        ample cash coverage exists to provide comfort against the entire array of reasonable risks
        assumed for a project risk matrix.

         3.2.4. Hurghada Airport (HRG)

The conclusions of the preliminary cash flow analysis for HRG carried out as part of Step One screening
are as follows:

Under Meeting Government Objectives,

       From the analysis, HRG projects nearly equal robust operating margins compared with HBE and
        SSH. Given the relatively lower level of capex projected in Table 76: $22M – and occurring as
        late as 2032, HRG is in exceptional shape and this is in consideration of lower level cost
        performance compared with HBE and SSH. (It could be that HBE and SSH may have more
        superior cost performance by comparison, with HRG being normal.) Like SSH, in no years does
        HRG run a deficit. A scenario of required infrastructure financing from the private sector doesn’t
        exist.

For the Financial Feasibility criteria,

       HRG’s EBITDA of 56% against its operating costs provide a robust average annual LE 705M
        ($40M) capacity to service its share of the total consolidated credit accounts and long-term
        loans. Like SSH – with the same accounting treatment, net annual cash flow following assumed
        total debt service adds to reserves year-on-year, right from the start.
 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                          REPORT 5 - PAGE | 102
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                            DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


For Private Sector Attractiveness,

       Same as HBE and SSH, from a financial perspective there is ability and interest of qualified
        private sector parties to undertake a project and/or provide necessary financing … were the
        government of a mind to transact in the first place – and were financing even required, which it
        is not. The projected capex is entirely financed with cash surplus, and the private partner would
        earn a management fee – not taking financing risk. The “debt” service coverage-ability suggests
        a well leveraged debt/equity ratio at favorable terms for investor returns without having to
        arrange complex credit enhancements, in the event of higher levels of capex if anticipated –
        more than ample cash coverage exists to provide comfort against the entire array of reasonable
        risks assumed for a project risk matrix.

         3.2.5. Aysut Airport (AZT)

The conclusions of the preliminary cash flow analysis for AZT carried out as part of Step One screening
are as follows:

Under Meeting Government Objectives,

       From the analysis, AZT operates in the red, year-on-year from the start– providing no margin
        for even the meager $2M total capex projected in Table 80 scheduled for 2028-2037. Operating
        costs are more than double its revenue, and so/there is not ample coverage after operations for
        financing investments of any capex. The airport financial statements provide therefore the
        scenario of required infrastructure financing from external sources, including if feasible from
        the private sector (see below). Clearly EAC budget could be justified to cover the investment
        given the surpluses earned at the other airports, to finance the small investment in these out
        years.

For the Financial Feasibility criteria,

       HRG’s EBITDA is an average annual minus LE 50M (-$3M). It’s financial sustainability is negative
        considering operations alone – even before capital investment consideration.

For Private Sector Attractiveness,

       From a financial perspective there would be no perceived interest of qualified private sector
        parties to undertake a project and/or provide necessary financing at AZT on its own. Average
        annual net income is a minus $3.5M. It would be a candidate for consideration if bundled with
        another airport opportunity whereby shared capitalization could be the solution. At current, by
        itself AZT provides no cash comfort for the array of reasonable risks that would be assumed for
        a project risk matrix, for a project of any size.

         3.2.6. Upper Egypt Airports

Financial information for the Upper Egypt medium sized airports of Luxor (LXR), Aswan (ASW) and
Abu Simbel (ABS) was provided. None of these airports are expected to require major capacity related
investments over the planning horizon however. Each of them have handled substantially more traffic
in the past than they are projected to handle in the future.

The EBITDA’s for these airports are not healthy anyway; with ASW and ABS being very negative, while
LXR is not performing much above zero. Operating revenues are not sufficient to cover ordinary
operating expenses, and therefore fall short of added requirements to service normal debt, pay for taxes
and provide owners a return on investment.



 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                         REPORT 5 - PAGE | 103
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                               DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

This is attributed to the precipitous decline in traffic of well over 60% experienced since 2008, even
though benefited with operating costs holding normal and/or growing normally with inflation. Looking
forward, LXR is expected to recover lost traffic but significant growth will be impacted by little potential
for large hotel expansions in the area, and ASW is a “mature” tourist destination, with checked hope for
sustained increases in visitors in the medium to long term. ABS currently receives minimal scheduled
traffic. While traffic at all three airports is expected to recover somewhat, it is doubtful that it would be
sufficient to allow acceptable returns to a PPP. Furthermore, there is considerable risk associated with
the extent of the recovery of this traffic.

         3.2.7. Cairo International Airport (CAI)

Though Cairo is not projected to require any significant capacity related investments over the next 20
years, the airport can be expected to incur substantial rehabilitation, replacement and other major
maintenance costs.

In the case of the cash flow analysis, the following is noted:

       2017 accounting data that was provided by the CAC was used for the analysis.

       Although payments made into the accounting ledger named Service Development Fund (SDF)
        annually should be added for a realistic picture of free cash flow from operations for the year, it
        was conservatively considered as a fixed obligation. (SDF is actually a financing capitalization,
        that should be treated the same as loans, after EBITDA).

       To provide a representation of annual asset renewal and other usual “capex” the following
        conservatively was assumed: accounting data for “Payments for Fixed Assets” and “Payments
        for Projects Under Progress” were totalled and used throughout the cash flow years; these
        represented 47% of revenue; less the 16% of revenue in SDF contribution (stated above), the
        cash flow analysis assumed the average annual net cash outflow for this category of 31% of
        revenue. This was added to the capex estimates for major rehabilitation listed above in Table
        88.

The conclusions of the preliminary cash flow analysis for CAC carried out as part of Step One screening
are as follows.

Under Meeting Government Objectives,

       From the analysis, CAC projects robust operating margins. With EBITDA (before capex) at 62%
        of revenue beginning in 2017 it has plenty of capacity for the total of capex assumptions. (This
        is even the case if it didn’t receive the SDF contribution). Like SSH and HRG, in no years does
        CAC run a deficit. A scenario of required infrastructure financing from the private sector doesn’t
        exist.

For the Financial Feasibility criteria,

       Ongoing operations and investments as-is are entirely financially feasible. All assumptions
        made for outflows are financeable with cash, with net annual cash flow ($113M in year 2020,
        adding to reserves year-on-year, right from the start.

For Private Sector Attractiveness,

       Same as for the profitable operations of the EAC airports discussed above, from a financial
        perspective there is ability and interest of qualified private sector parties to undertake a project
        and/or provide necessary financing at CAC … were the government of a mind to transact in the
        first place – and were additional financing even required, which it is not with the current
        assumptions for projected capex spending.
 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                            REPORT 5 - PAGE | 104
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                            DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


      The projected capex is entirely financed with cash surplus, and the private partner would earn
       a management fee – not taking financing risk. As in above … sufficient “debt” service coverage-
       ability suggests a well leveraged debt/equity ratio at favorable terms for investor returns
       without having to arrange complex credit enhancements, in the event of higher levels of capex
       if anticipated – and ample cash coverage exists to provide comfort against the entire array of
       reasonable risks assumed for a project risk matrix.


    3.3. STEP-ONE PRIORIZATION OF PROJECTS

As noted previously, the initial screening of potential airport PPP projects is based on the assignation
of points to each of the five primary criteria and each key variable that composes that criteria.

To determine which projects pass the initial screening and will be subject to more detailed analysis in
a subsequent task, we have established the following ranking for total points once all the criteria and
indicators have been summed up (out of a maximum of 100):

      70 to 100 points:       Likely to be a feasible PPP project
      60 to 69 points:        Possibly a feasible PPP project
      50 to 59 points:        Unlikely to be a feasible, but could be considered as part of a group
      Less than 50 points:    Eliminated from consideration.

Minimum thresholds of at least 40% of the available points have also been established for each of the
primary five criteria. Airports that do not achieve at least this much for each individual criterion are
unlikely to represent feasible PPP projects no matter how well they are rated for the remaining criteria.

The following tables present a summary of the analysis and the points assigned to each indicator for
each of the airports including in the screening process.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                         REPORT 5 - PAGE | 105
MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                     DECEMBER 2018
AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                Table 91 – Summary of Screening Criteria for Borg El Arab International Airport

     Criteria              Variables                            Comments                              Points
1. Meet               Consistent with        The operation and future development of HBE with          2
Government            future                 a PPP should allow the airport to continue playing
Objectives            development            an important role in the development of the
(20 points)           requirements           Alexandria region and the country.
                      (3 pts)
                      Importance of         There is little need for private sector or debt           2
                      obtaining              financing as preliminary financial assessment
                      additional             indicates that future investments should be
                      financing for          financeable off the balance sheet.
                      project
                      implementation
                      (7 pts)
                      Maximizes income     Despite the above, a PPP does offer the potential of       6
                      to Government (or     maximizing net income from this airport, part of
                      EAC)                  which can be passed on through concession
                      (7 pts)               payments to the EAC. These resources can be
                                            utilized to finance the smaller less financially self-
                                            sufficient airports in the system.
                      Gains in             Depending on how it is structured, a PPP does offer        3
                      operational           the potential for improved operational efficiency
                      efficiency & quality and quality of service.
                      of service
                      (3 pts)
2. Technical          Meets existing and  The proposed master plan update and investment              7
Feasibility           future demand         program has been determined based on the
(20 points)           (7 pts)               estimated demand. The timing of medium to long-
                                            term investments can be established based on
                                            surpassing specific traffic thresholds, thus assuring
                                            compliance with this criterion.
                      Technically viable  The proposed master plan update and investment              5
                      solution              program has taken into account the most
                      (7 pts)               technically viable solutions as could be determined.
                                            But limitations in the available data must also be
                                            considered.
                      Complies with        As the project involves an existing airport, the           6
                      social and            primary social or environmental impact would be
                      environmental         incremental in that it would increase airport
                      standards             capacity to allow more traffic. A PPP can be
                      (6 pts)               structured to assure that it complies with all
                                            pertinent social and environmental standards.
3. Financial          Can be structured  The preliminary financial assessment would                   6
Feasibility           to be affordable,     indicate that the airport operates with high EBITDA
(20 points)           bankable and not      of 67% and has plenty of capacity to service total
                      rely on sovereign     credit accounts and long-term loans. This is a
                      guarantees            positive indicator that a PPP can be structured that
                      (8 pts)               meets                these               requirements.
                      Can generate                                                                     6
                      enough revenue to Total estimated magnitudes for these conclusions are
                      cover investment      to be made through a more detailed cash flow
                      and operating         analysis in Task 6 of the projects that make it through
                      costs, with           this preliminary screening process.
                      acceptable returns
                      on investment
                      (8 pts)
                      Can improve cost  The worldwide experience with airport PPPs is that            3
                      recovery              an international private airport operator can
                      (4 pts)               usually significantly increase non-aeronautical

IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 106
MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                           DECEMBER 2018
AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

     Criteria             Variables                                   Comments                              Points
                                                revenues. A specific determination of the potential
                                                for improved revenue generation based on a
                                                comparison with benchmarks will be determined in
                                                the final detailed financial analysis in Task 6.
4. Ease of           Potential legal and       As concluded in the legal and regulatory analysis            4
Implementation       regulatory                 undertaken as part of Task 4 of this study, the EAC
(15 points)          impediments                as a corporatized entity, has significant flexibility in
                     (5 pts)                    establishing the PPP modality most suited to the
                                                project
                     Project size and          The project requires a very significant expansion of         3
                     technical difficulty       the existing available terminal space of 21,790 m²
                     (5 pts)                    to approximately 55,000 m² over the next two
                                                decades, along with associated apron expansions.
                                                Planning these expansions without interfering with
                                                ongoing airport operations will be relatively more
                                                complex than at the other airports considered in
                                                this screening process.
                     Ability to obtain         The project requires the expansion of facilities on          5
                     land and required          the existing airport property. There should be no
                     permits                    requirement to obtain additional land or undertake
                     (5 pts)                    works on undisturbed land.
5. Private Sector    Financing Risks           The projected capex can be entirely financed with            5
Attractiveness       (6 pts)                    cash surplus. In the event of higher levels of capex
(25 points)                                     if anticipated, the “debt” service coverage-abililty
                                                suggests a well leveraged debt/equity ratio at
                                                favourable terms for investor returns without
                                                having to arrange complex credit enhancements.
                     Demand and                There is some demand risk given the variability of           5
                     Revenue Risks              traffic growth at the airport in recent years and the
                     (7 pts)                    potential for a continuation of exogenous events.
                                                But the more than ample cash coverage would
                                                provide some protection against a high variability
                                                in traffic growth.
                     Risk vs. Reward           The high potential profitability of the project given        6
                     (7 pts)                    current high EBITDAs could help offset many of the
                                                risks faced by a private operator.
                     Other Risks                Though Egypt has experienced significant political           3
                     (political, country,       instability over the past decade, it is of note that this
                     etc.)                      has not tended to affect the existing BOT contracts
                     (5 pts)                    in the airport sector or other PPPs in the country.
TOTAL                                                                                                      77




IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                      REPORT 5 - PAGE | 107
MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                   DECEMBER 2018
AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                 Table 92 – Summary of Screening Criteria for Coastal Tourism Airports

    Criteria          Variables                                Comments                                Points
                                                                                                    SSH     HRG
1. Meet         Consistent with           The operation and future development of these              2        2
Government      future development        airports with a PPP should allow them to continue
Objectives      requirements              playing an important role in the development of the
(20 points)     (3 pts)                   tourism destinations in the South Sinai and Red Sea.
                Importance of             There is little need for private sector or debt            3      2
                obtaining additional      financing as preliminary financial assessment
                financing for project     indicates that future investments should be
                implementation            financeable off the balance sheet.
                (7 pts)
                Maximizes income to       Despite the above, a PPP does offer the potential of       6      6
                Government (or EAC)       maximizing net income from this airport, part of
                (7 pts)                   which can be passed on through concession
                                          payments to the EAC. These resources can be
                                          utilized to finance the smaller less financially self-
                                          sufficient airports in the system.
                Gains in operational      Depending on how it is structured, a PPP does offer        3      3
                efficiency & quality of   the potential for improved operational efficiency
                service                   and quality of service.
                (3 pts)
2. Technical    Meets existing and        The proposed master plan update and investment             6      6
Feasibility     future demand             program has been determined based on the
(20 points)     (7 pts)                   estimated demand. The timing of medium to long-
                                          term investments can be established based on
                                          surpassing specific traffic thresholds, thus assuring
                                          compliance with this criterion.
                Technically viable        The proposed master plan update and investment             5      5
                solution                  program has taken into account the most
                (7 pts)                   technically viable solutions as could be determined.
                                          But limitations in the available data must also be
                                          considered.
                Complies with social      As the project involves an existing airport, the           6      6
                and environmental         primary social or environmental impact would be
                standards                 incremental in that it would increase airport
                (6 pts)                   capacity to allow more traffic. A PPP can be
                                          structured to assure that it complies with all
                                          pertinent social and environmental standards.
3. Financial    Can be structured to      The preliminary financial assessment would                 6      6
Feasibility     be affordable,            indicate that the airports operate with high
(20 points)     bankable and not rely     EBITDAs of 67% and 56% for SSH and HRG
                on sovereign              respectively indicates that both airports have
                guarantees                plenty of capacity to service total credit accounts
                (8 pts)                   and long-term loans. This is a positive indicator
                Can generate enough       that a PPP can be structured that meets these              6      6
                revenue to cover          requirements.
                investment and
                operating costs, with     Total estimated magnitudes for these conclusions are
                acceptable returns on     to be made through a more detailed cash flow
                investment                analysis in Task 6 of the projects that make it through
                (8 pts)                   this preliminary screening process.




IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                              REPORT 5 - PAGE | 108
MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                      DECEMBER 2018
AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

    Criteria           Variables                                 Comments                                 Points
                                                                                                       SSH     HRG
                 Can improve cost          The worldwide experience with airport PPPs is that           3        3
                 recovery                  an international private airport operator can
                 (4 pts)                   usually significantly increase non-aeronautical
                                           revenues. A specific determination of the potential
                                           for improved revenue generation based on a
                                           comparison with benchmarks will be determined in
                                           the final detailed financial analysis in Task 6.
4. Ease of       Potential legal and       As concluded in the legal and regulatory analysis            4      4
Implementation   regulatory                undertaken as part of Task 4 of this study, the EAC
(15 points)      impediments               as a corporatized entity, has significant flexibility in
                 (7 pts)                   establishing the PPP modality most suited to the
                                           project
                 Project size and          SSH requires a very significant expansion of the             3      4
                 technical difficulty      existing available terminal space by approximately
                 (7 pts)                   44,000 m² (a 73% increase) spread out over the
                                           next two decades, along with associated apron
                                           expansions. HRG requires a more modest 10,000
                                           m² expansion of the terminal. Planning these
                                           expansions without interfering with ongoing
                                           airport operations will be relatively more complex
                                           than at the other airports considered in this
                                           screening process, particularly for SSH.
                 Ability to obtain land    The project requires the expansion of facilities on          5      5
                 and required permits      the existing airport property. There should be no
                 (6 pts)                   requirement to obtain additional land or undertake
                                           works on undisturbed land.
5. Private       Financing Risks           The projected capex at both airports can be entirely         5      5
Sector           (5 pts)                   financed with cash surplus. In the event of higher
Attractiveness                             levels of capex if anticipated, the “debt” service
(25 points)                                coverage-ability suggests a well leveraged
                                           debt/equity ratio at favorable terms for investor
                                           returns without having to arrange complex credit
                                           enhancements.
                 Demand and                There is considerable demand risk given the                  2      2
                 Revenue Risks             relatively high variability of traffic growth in Egypt
                 (5 pts)                   in recent years and the potential for a continuation
                                           of exogenous events. But the more than ample cash
                                           coverage would provide some protection against a
                                           high variability in traffic growth.

                 Risk vs. Reward           The high potential profitability of the projects given       5      6
                 (5 pts)                   current high EBITDAs at both airports could help
                                           offset many of the risks faced by a private operator

                 Other Risks (political,   Though Egypt has experienced significant political           2      2
                 country, etc.)            instability over the past decade, it is of note that this
                 (5 pts)                   has not tended to affect the existing BOT contracts
                                           in the airport sector or other PPPs in the country.
                                           At the same time, demand at both of these airports
                                           has shown more sensitivity to political events.


Total Points                                                                                           72     73




IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 109
MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                      DECEMBER 2018
AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                     Table 93 – Summary of Screening Criteria for Nile Region Airports

    Criteria            Variables                                Comments                                 Points
                                                                                                       AZT    HMB
1. Meet           Consistent with           The operation and future development of these               2        2
Government        future development        airports with a PPP should allow them to continue
Objectives        requirements              playing an important role in the development of the
(20 points)       (3 pts)                   Nile region and the country.
                  Importance of             There is very significant need for private sector or        6      1
                  obtaining additional      debt financing for AZT as preliminary financial
                  financing for project     assessment indicates that future investments
                  implementation            cannot be covered from internal resources. HMB
                  (7 pts)                   does not require major investments.
                  Maximizes income to       A PPP does offer the potential of maximizing net            3      3
                  Government (or EAC)       income from this airport, part of which can be
                  (7 pts)                   passed on through concession payments to the EAC.
                                            These resources can be utilized to finance the
                                            smaller less financially self-sufficient airports in the
                                            system.
                  Gains in operational      Depending on how it is structured, a PPP does offer         3      3
                  efficiency & quality of   the potential for improved operational efficiency
                  service                   and quality of service.
                  (3 pts)
2. Technical      Meets existing and        The proposed master plan update and investment              7      7
Feasibility       future demand             program has been determined based on the
(20 points)       (7 pts)                   estimated demand. The timing of medium to long-
                                            term investments can be established based on
                                            surpassing specific traffic thresholds, thus assuring
                                            compliance with this criterion.
                  Technically viable        The proposed master plan update and investment              5      5
                  solution                  program has taken into account the most
                  (7 pts)                   technically viable solutions as could be determined.
                                            But limitations in the available data must also be
                                            considered.
                  Complies with social      As the project involves an existing airport, the            6      6
                  and environmental         primary social or environmental impact would be
                  standards                 incremental in that it would increase airport
                  (6 pts)                   capacity to allow more traffic. A PPP can be
                                            structured to assure that it complies with all
                                            pertinent social and environmental standards.
3. Financial      Can be structured to      The preliminary financial assessment would                  2      4
Feasibility (20   be affordable,            indicate that AZT operates with a negative EBITDA
points)           bankable and not rely     indicating a lack of capacity to service total credit
                  on sovereign              accounts and long-term loans. This is a negative
                  guarantees                indicator that a PPP can be structured that meets
                  (8 pts)                   these requirements. The financial situation of HMB
                  Can generate enough       is         somewhat           more          positive.       2      3
                  revenue to cover
                  investment and            Total estimated magnitudes for these conclusions are
                  operating costs, with     to be made through a more detailed cash flow
                  acceptable returns on     analysis in Task 6 of the projects that make it through
                  investment                this preliminary screening process.
                  (8 pts)




IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 110
MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                      DECEMBER 2018
AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

    Criteria           Variables                                 Comments                                 Points
                                                                                                       AZT    HMB
                 Can improve cost          The worldwide experience with airport PPPs is that           2        2
                 recovery                  an international private airport operator can
                 (4 pts)                   usually significantly increase non-aeronautical
                                           revenues. A specific determination of the potential
                                           for improved revenue generation based on a
                                           comparison with benchmarks will be determined in
                                           the final detailed financial analysis in Task 6, but the
                                           profile of passengers for these airports would
                                           indicate possibly less potential for revenue
                                           enhancement.
4. Ease of       Potential legal and       As concluded in the legal and regulatory analysis            4      4
Implementation   regulatory                undertaken as part of Task 4 of this study, the EAC
(15 points)      impediments               as a corporatized entity, has significant flexibility in
                 (7 pts)                   establishing the PPP modality most suited to the
                                           project
                 Project size and          AZT only requires expansion of the existing apron            4      4
                 technical difficulty      over the next two decades, while HMB only requires
                 (7 pts)                   the rehabilitation of airside pavements. Planning
                                           these expansions without interfering with ongoing
                                           airport operations will be relatively less complex
                                           than at the other single runway airports considered
                                           in this screening process.
                 Ability to obtain land    The project requires the expansion of facilities on          5      5
                 and required permits      the existing airport property. There should be no
                 (6 pts)                   requirement to obtain additional land or undertake
                                           works on undisturbed land.
5. Private       Financing Risks           The projected capex at AZT cannot be financed, nor           1      2
Sector           (5 pts)                   all operational expenditures, with the available
Attractiveness                             EBITDA. A leveraged debt/equity capitalization is
(25 points)                                not a realistic assumption without sufficient
                                           revenue. The smaller required capex and better
                                           financial situation at HRB are more favorable.


                 Demand and                There is considerable demand risk given the high             3      3
                 Revenue Risks             variability of traffic growth at these two airports in
                 (5 pts)                   recent years, though when traffic to the Nile Region
                                           as a whole, it has been somewhat more stable.



                 Risk vs. Reward           The low potential profitability of the project given         2      3
                 (5 pts)                   current negative or very low EBITDAs at these
                                           airports would not help offset many of the risks
                                           faced by a private operator.
                 Other Risks (political,   Though Egypt has experienced significant political           2      2
                 country, etc.)            instability over the past decade, it is of note that this
                 (5 pts)                   has not tended to affect the existing BOT contracts
                                           in the airport sector or other PPPs in the country.
                                           But a specific important risk to these two airports
                                           would be a change in the situation in Saudi Arabia
                                           or relations with that country that leads to a
                                           reduction of Egyptian guest workers.
Total Points                                                                                           59     59




IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                 REPORT 5 - PAGE | 111
MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                   DECEMBER 2018
AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                 Table 94 – Summary of Screening Criteria for the Upper Egypt Airports

     Criteria             Variables                           Comments                              Points
1. Meet              Consistent with      The operation and future development of these             2
Government           future                airports with a PPP should allow them to continue
Objectives           development           playing an important role in the development of
(20 points)          requirements          Upper Egypt and the country.
                     (3 pts)
                     Importance of        There is little need for private sector or debt           2
                     obtaining             financing as future investments are primarily
                     additional            related to the rehabilitation of existing assets and
                     financing for         should be financeable off the balance sheet (at least
                     project               under the Medium Traffic Forecast).
                     implementation
                     (7 pts)
                     Maximizes income     Despite the above, a PPP does offer the potential of      3
                     to Government (or     maximizing net income from this airport, part of
                     EAC)                  which can be passed on through concession
                     (7 pts)               payments to the EAC. These resources can be
                                           utilized to finance the smaller less financially self-
                                           sufficient airports in the system.
                     Gains in             Depending on how it is structured, a PPP does offer       3
                     operational           the potential for improved operational efficiency
                     efficiency & quality and quality of service.
                     of service
                     (3 pts)
2. Technical         Meets existing and  The proposed master plan update and investment             5
Feasibility          future demand         program has been determined based on the
(20 points)          (7 pts)               estimated demand. The timing of medium to long-
                                           term investments can be established based on
                                           surpassing specific traffic thresholds, thus assuring
                                           compliance with this criterion. Greater uncertainty
                                           over future traffic growth could become a factor.
                     Technically viable  The proposed master plan update and investment             5
                     solution              program has taken into account the most
                     (7 pts)               technically viable solutions as could be determined.
                                           But limitations in the available data must also be
                                           considered.
                     Complies with        As the project involves an existing airport, the          6
                     social and            primary social or environmental impact would be
                     environmental         incremental in that it would increase airport
                     standards             capacity to allow more traffic. A PPP can be
                     (6 pts)               structured to assure that it complies with all
                                           pertinent social and environmental standards.
3. Financial         Can be structured  The preliminary financial assessment would                  1
Feasibility          to be affordable,     indicate that these airports currently operate with
(20 points)          bankable and not      a negative or minimal EBITDA indicating a lack of
                     rely on sovereign     capacity to service total credit accounts and long-
                     guarantees            term loans. This is a negative indicator that a PPP
                     (8 pts)               can be structured that meets these requirements.
                     Can generate                                                                    2
                     enough revenue to
                     cover investment
                     and operating
                     costs, with
                     acceptable returns
                     on investment
                     (8 pts)



IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                               REPORT 5 - PAGE | 112
MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                       DECEMBER 2018
AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

     Criteria              Variables                              Comments                              Points
                     Can improve cost  The worldwide experience with airport PPPs is that               2
                     recovery               an international private airport operator can
                     (4 pts)                usually significantly increase non-aeronautical
                                            revenues. A specific determination of the potential
                                            for improved revenue generation based on a
                                            comparison with benchmarks would need to be
                                            determined through a more detailed financial
                                            analysis.
4. Ease of           Potential legal and  As concluded in the legal and regulatory analysis             4
Implementation       regulatory             undertaken as part of Task 4 of this study, the EAC
(15 points)          impediments            as a corporatized entity, has significant flexibility in
                     (5 pts)                establishing the PPP modality most suited to the
                                            project
                     Project size and  No significant capacity related investments are                  4
                     technical difficulty   required over the next two decades at these
                     (5 pts)                airports. The planning of the rehabilitation of
                                            airside pavements may be somewhat more complex
                                            than at Cairo because they have fewer runways.
                     Ability to obtain  The project requires the rehabilitation of existing             5
                     land and required      facilities on the property of these airports. There
                     permits                should be no requirement to obtain additional land
                     (5 pts)                or undertake works on undisturbed land.
5. Private Sector    Financing Risks        Operating revenues are not sufficient to cover               1
Attractiveness       (6 pts)                ordinary operating expenses, and therefore fall
(25 points)                                 short of added requirements to service normal debt,
                                            pay for taxes and provide owners a return on
                                            investment.
                                          
                     Demand and            There is significant demand risk given the sharp             1
                     Revenue Risks          decline in traffic at these airports in recent years
                     (7 pts)                and the potential for a continuation of exogenous
                                            events. The lack of ample cash coverage provides
                                            little protection against variability in traffic growth.
                     Risk vs. Reward  The low potential profitability of the project given              1
                     (7 pts)                current negative or very low EBITDAs at these
                                            airports would not help offset many of the risks
                                            faced by a private operator
                     Other Risks           Though Egypt has experienced significant political           1
                     (political, country,   instability over the past decade, it is of note that this
                     etc.)                  has not tended to affect the existing BOT contracts
                     (5 pts)                in the airport sector or other PPPs in the country.
                                            But traffic to the Upper Egypt region seems
                                            particularly sensitive to political events.
TOTAL                                                                                                  48




IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 113
MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                    DECEMBER 2018
AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                Table 95 – Summary of Screening Criteria for Cairo International Airport

     Criteria             Variables                             Comments                             Points
1. Meet              Consistent with       The operation and future development of these             2
Government           future                 airports with a PPP should allow them to continue
Objectives           development            playing an important role in the development of the
(20 points)          requirements           Cairo region and the country.
                     (3 pts)
                     Importance of         There is little need for private sector or debt           1
                     obtaining              financing as preliminary financial assessment
                     additional             indicates that future investments are primarily
                     financing for          related to the rehabilitation of existing assets and
                     project                should be financeable off the balance sheet.
                     implementation
                     (7 pts)
                     Maximizes income     Despite the above, a PPP does offer the potential of       6
                     to Government (or     maximizing net income from this airport, part of
                     EAC)                  which can be passed on through concession
                     (7 pts)               payments to the EAC. These resources can be
                                           utilized to finance the smaller less financially self-
                                           sufficient airports in the system.
                     Gains in             Depending on how it is structured, a PPP does offer        3
                     operational           the potential for improved operational efficiency
                     efficiency & quality and quality of service.
                     of service
                     (3 pts)
2. Technical         Meets existing and  The proposed master plan update and investment              7
Feasibility          future demand         program has been determined based on the
(20 points)          (7 pts)               estimated demand. The timing of medium to long-
                                           term investments can be established based on
                                           surpassing specific traffic thresholds, thus assuring
                                           compliance with this criterion.
                     Technically viable  The proposed master plan update and investment              5
                     solution              program has taken into account the most
                     (7 pts)               technically viable solutions as could be determined.
                                           But limitations in the available data must also be
                                           considered.
                     Complies with        As the project involves an existing airport, the           6
                     social and            primary social or environmental impact would be
                     environmental         incremental in that it would increase airport
                     standards             capacity to allow more traffic. A PPP can be
                     (6 pts)               structured to assure that it complies with all
                                           pertinent social and environmental standards.
3. Financial         Can be structured  The preliminary financial assessment would                   6
Feasibility          to be affordable,     indicate that the airport operates with high EBITDA
(20 points)          bankable and not      of 62% and has plenty of capacity to service total
                     rely on sovereign     credit accounts and long-term loans. This is a
                     guarantees            positive indicator that a PPP can be structured that
                     (8 pts)               meets                these               requirements.
                     Can generate                                                                     6
                     enough revenue to  Total estimated magnitudes for these conclusions
                     cover investment      are to be made through a more detailed cash flow
                     and operating         analysis in Task 6 of the projects that make it through
                     costs, with           this preliminary screening process.
                     acceptable returns
                     on investment
                     (8 pts)
                     Can improve cost  The worldwide experience with airport PPPs is that            3
                     recovery              an international private airport operator can
                     (4 pts)               usually significantly increase non-aeronautical

IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                REPORT 5 - PAGE | 114
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                       DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

       Criteria            Variables                                Comments                             Points
                                              revenues. A specific determination of the potential
                                              for improved revenue generation based on a
                                              comparison with benchmarks will be determined in
                                              the final detailed financial analysis in Task 6.
 4. Ease of           Potential legal and    As concluded in the legal and regulatory analysis           4
 Implementation       regulatory              undertaken as part of Task 4 of this study, the EAC
 (15 points)          impediments             as a corporatized entity, has significant flexibility in
                      (5 pts)                 establishing the PPP modality most suited to the
                                              project
                      Project size and       No significant capacity related investments are             5
                      technical difficulty    required over the next two decades. The planning
                      (5 pts)                 of the rehabilitation of airside pavements is
                                              facilitated by the fact that the airport has 3 runways.
                      Ability to obtain      The project requires the rehabilitation of existing         5
                      land and required       facilities on the airport property. There should be
                      permits                 no requirement to obtain additional land or
                      (5 pts)                 undertake works on undisturbed land.
 5. Private Sector    Financing Risks        The estimated projected capex at these airports can         5
 Attractiveness       (6 pts)                 be financed with cash surplus.
 (25 points)
                      Demand and            There is some demand risk given the variability of           5
                      Revenue Risks          traffic growth at the airport in recent years and the
                      (7 pts)                potential for a continuation of exogenous events.
                                             But the more than ample cash coverage would
                                             provide some protection against a high variability
                                             in traffic growth.
                      Risk vs. Reward  The high potential profitability of the project given             6
                      (7 pts)                current high EBITDAs could help offset many of the
                                             risks faced by a private operator
                      Other Risks           Though Egypt has experienced significant political           3
                      (political, country,   instability over the past decade, it is of note that this
                      etc.)                  has not tended to affect the existing BOT contracts
                      (5 pts)                in the airport sector or other PPPs in the country.
 TOTAL                                                                                                  78



The following table that summarizes the results of this screening evaluation. Dark green shading
represents a very positive result (70% of the points or greater), light green represents a marginally
positive result, yellow represents a marginally negative result, while red is used when the minimum
points are not met.

The primary conclusions of this preliminary screening are as follows:

       HBE, SSH, HRG and CAI all offer good potential for a possible PPP and deserve further
        consideration both on an individual basis and possibly as part of a group of airports. There are
        some differences between these airports worth noting:
           o Only SSH received greater than 60% of the points available for meeting government
               objectives. The relatively low points received for that criteria is that none of these
               airports require outside financing or private sector involvement to be able to finance
               the estimate required capex.
           o SSH and HRG may be somewhat less attractive to the private sector than CAI or HBE
               because future revenues are more highly dependent on a single sector of the economy
               (tourism) and have proved very sensitive to the impact of exogenous events.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                                  REPORT 5 - PAGE | 115
 MASTER PLAN FOR EGYPT FUTURE NATIONAL AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT                                 DECEMBER 2018
 AND POTENTIAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS


                              Table 96 – Summary of Step One Screening Results


          Prioritization
                                                                                     Upper
           Criteria and        HBE       SSH        HRG        AZT        HMB                   CAI
                                                                                      Nile
             Weights
       1. Meet
       Government
                                13        14         13         14          9          10        12
       Objectives
        (20 points)
       2. Technical
       Feasibility              18        17         17         18         18          16        18
       (20 points)
       3. Financial
       Feasibility              15        15         15          6          9           5        15
       (20 points)
       4. Ease of
       Implementation           12        12         13         13         13          13        14
       (15 points)
       5. Private Sector
       Attractiveness           19        14         15          8         10           4        19
       (25 points)


       Total                    77        72         73         59         59          48        78




        HMB and AZT are less likely to be feasible on an individual basis but may be more attractive if
         included as part of a PPP covering a group of airports.
             o AZT will likely require outside financing (whether government subsidies or private
                capital), which makes its inclusion in a PPP more attractive from the point of view of the
                Government, but much less attractive from the point of view a private investor.
             o HMB is in a slightly better financial situation, which means it may be less critical to
                obtain private capital, but it is also unlikely to generate significant returns for that
                investor.

        The three Upper Nile Airports (LXR, AWS and ABS) do not meet the minimum requirements for
         further consideration. They are also much less likely to work as a PPP for a group of airports.

It should be note that though insufficient information was available to apply the screening criteria to
the smaller airports, the grouping of larger and smaller airports under the same PPP is a strategy that
has been applied elsewhere. Though usually in these cases, even the smaller airports do have more
scheduled traffic than most of those in the current EAC system.




 IOS PARTNERS, INC.                                                              REPORT 5 - PAGE | 116