This is a big change in the structure of the delivery of air transport services in Japan, not only adding capacity but also connectivity to other cities in Japan.

At the same time, Narita is adding extra flights from 220,000 a year to 300,000 (through new options made possible by lengthening a runway) and also eventually including more domestic connections in those extra flights.

The hope is that this will contribute to tourism growth in Japan and cut transport costs (including time costs) for people and freight. Both changes are contributors to growth.

The advocates of structural reform might be much heartened by these developments, but these events also raise more questions and they highlight some of the challenges of reform.

One of the drivers has been to compete with Korea, which had been channeling travelers to regional cities in Japan. This was facilitated by a more open arrangement to regional centres between Korea and Japan.  So better connectivity between international and domestic flights (and avoiding the bus trip from Narita to Haneda) is part of the response.

A second driver is to make more space for the low cost carriers. Japan has so far missed out on the low cost carrier boom. Its air transport traffic has stagnated.

A third is to help Japanese carriers design better networks and become more efficient and therefore more competitive. They compete with US and EU carriers who have much more flexibility in their homes (and across the Atlantic as well). And Japan has just finished a negotiation on a new open skies agreement with the US, which will signed on 25/10.

But questions remain.

First, there is a problem that regulatory process is being used to limit access to the new capacity. Flights to the US and Europe are currently constrained to take off between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Officials in Japan say this is because of the lack of capacity. This leads to arrivals in the middle of the night, which airlines describe as ‘not ideal’.

Second, structural reform is sometimes assumed to mean privatisation or a degree of privatisations, and that has happened in airports.

But more important is competition, which has not happened. In fact, landing fee revenue is pooled and then distribution across regional airports to cover their costs, and their scale and number has increased in response to domestic political pressure.

IATA estimates landing fees in Japan are 2-3 times higher than say Singapore or Incheon. And the Wall Street Journal reports that it costs about 770,000 yen, or about $9,400, to land a Boeing 747-400 at Narita, compared with 70,000 yen at Heathrow.

This is the next frontier for reform in this activity. Having built the capacity, there is certainly scope for a competitive market in airport services, and a boom in international LCC travel (supported by the train network). Of course, that can run in both directions, so outbound travel might also rise.

So forces from the international markets can trigger reform, but domestic political interest can still constrain its outcome or slow down its progress.

Proponents of structural reform are often brilliant at coming up with the list of things that should be done.  Implementation is another question. Those who argue for structural reform are naïve if they don’t provide along with their action lists some sense of strategy, of what will drive reform and how to deal with private interests who oppose it.

Vital is to have a clear understanding of the endpoint of the reform process and the gains it offers. This means provide a clear view of the benchmark and therefore of the costs of the halfway house and the likely benefits of hitting the target. These data can be used to mobilise the countervailing interest groups at home. There also has to an institutional set-up in which the debate can be managed and then resolved.

Sharing experience on these matters is also useful and that is exactly where APEC can be a great help.

Bring on the meetings in Yokohama, but the suggestion here is to include a field trip to Haneda.

Christopher Findlay is Professor of Economics and Head of School at the University of Adelaide.