At Ninoy Aquino International Airport, the runway is not the only thing shifting. Airlines are now studying a government proposal to redraw the airport map itself, clustering carriers by business model in a sweeping terminal realignment.
On paper, it sounds tidy. In practice, it may be anything but.
The plan would turn Terminal 1 into an international low cost carrier hub and assign Terminal 3 to full service international airlines. Domestic flights would be consolidated in Terminals 2, 4 and 5. The goal is clear. Segment the market, streamline passenger flow and give Manila’s congested gateway a cleaner identity.
The complication is timing. Terminals 4 and 5 are still works in progress, with industry estimates placing full readiness closer to 2027. Airlines worry about moving into a system that may not yet be fully built, only to move again once construction dust settles.
Relocating a terminal is not a matter of shifting signboards. It means hauling ground equipment across the airfield, rewiring IT systems, reconstructing lounges, renegotiating service contracts and retraining teams.
Even a single transfer can cost millions. Two moves in quick succession can turn strategic planning into an expensive guessing game. Carriers that have only recently restored profitability are wary of reopening their capital budgets for changes that may not be final.
Then there is connectivity, the quiet engine of airline economics. Terminal 3 sits apart from Terminals 1 and 2. The NAIA Expressway helps, but Metro Manila traffic still obeys its own logic.
For full service airlines that depend on seamless transfers, a 15 minute delay on paper can stretch into something far less predictable in reality. Missed connections carry compensation costs and reputational fallout. Neither fits neatly into a master plan.
Security adds another layer of complexity. As a last point of departure airport for US bound flights, Manila must meet strict screening standards. Any reshuffle must ensure screening facilities, equipment and personnel are fully aligned before aircraft doors close. Compliance cannot be improvised.
None of this means the strategy lacks merit. Grouping airlines by model could reduce congestion and clarify passenger flows over time. But aviation history offers a simple lesson. Infrastructure changes succeed not because they are bold, but because they are sequenced well.
Airlines can adapt to almost anything. What rattles them is uncertainty. At NAIA, the real test is not the blueprint. It is whether execution can keep pace with the goal.
