UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 20-F

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20142015

Commission File Number: 001-32751

Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacífico, S.A.B. de C.V.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Avenida Mariano Otero No. 1249-B

Torre Pacífico, Piso 6

Col. Rinconada del Bosque

44530 Guadalajara, Jalisco

Mexico

(Address of principal executive offices)

Saúl Villarreal

Chief Financial Officer

Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacífico, S.A.B. de C.V.

Avenida Mariano Otero No. 1249-B

Torre Pacífico, Piso 6

Col. Rinconada del Bosque

44530 Guadalajara, Jalisco

Mexico

Telephone: + 52 (33) 38801100 ext 20154ext. 20151

svillarreal@aeropuertosgap.com.mx

(Name, telephone, e-mail and/or facsimile number and address of company contact person)

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act: N/A

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report:

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

  Yes  x             No  ¨

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

  Yes  ¨             No  x

Note: Checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from their obligations under those Sections.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

  Yes  x             No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

N/A

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer  x                  Accelerated filer  ¨                  Non-accelerated filer  ¨

Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing:

U.S. GAAP  ¨                  IFRS  x                    Other  ¨

If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow:

Item 17  ¨              Item 18  ¨

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

  Yes  ¨              No  x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

ii

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This annual report on Form 20-F contains forward-looking statements. We may from time to time make forward-looking statements in our reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, on Forms 20-F and 6-K, in our annual reports to shareholders, in offering circulars and prospectuses, in press releases and other written materials and in oral statements made by our officers, directors or employees to financial analysts, institutional investors, representatives of the media and others. Examples of such forward-looking statements include:

Words such as “believe,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “expect,” “intend,” “target,” “estimate,” “project,” “predict,” “forecast,” “guideline,” “should” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements but are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements.

Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties. We caution you that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the projections, plans, objectives, expectations, estimates and intentions expressed in forward-looking statements. These factors, some of which are discussed below under “Risk Factors,” include material changes in the performance or terms of our concessions, developments in legal proceedings, economic and political conditions and government policies in Mexico or elsewhere, inflation rates, exchange rates, regulatory developments, customer demand and competition. We caution you that the foregoing list of factors is not exclusive and that eventualities related to other risks and uncertainties may cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and we do not undertake any obligation to update them in light of new information or future developments.

PART I

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following tables present a summary of our consolidated financial information for each of the periods indicated. This information should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, our audited consolidated financial statements referred to in Item 18 hereof and included elsewhere in this document, including the notes thereto. Our audited consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, or IASB.

References in this annual report on Form 20-F to “dollars,” “U.S. dollars” or “U.S.$” are to the lawful currency of the United States of America. References in this annual report on Form 20-F to “pesos,” “Mexican pesos” or “Ps.” are to the lawful currency of Mexico. References in this annual report on Form 20-F to “Jamaican dollars” or “J$” are to the lawful currency of Jamaica. We publish our audited consolidated financial statements in Mexican pesos.

This annual report on Form 20-F contains translations of certain peso amounts into U.S. dollars at specified rates solely for the convenience of the reader. These translations should not be construed as representations that the peso amounts actually represent such U.S. dollar amounts or could be converted into U.S. dollars at the rate indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, U.S. dollar amounts have been translated from Mexican pesos at an exchange rate of Ps.14.7500Ps.17.1950 to U.S.$1.00, the noon buying rate for pesos on December 31, 2014,2015, as published by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board. On April 10, 20158, 2016 the exchange rate for pesos as published by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board was Ps.15.1670Ps.17.7600 to U.S.$1.00.

This annual report on Form 20-F contains references to “workload units,” which are units measuring an airport’s passenger traffic volume and cargo volume. A workload unit currently is equivalent to one terminal passenger or 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of cargo. When we refer to “terminal passengers” we mean the sum of all arriving and departing passengers on commercial and general aviation flights, other than transit passengers. “Transit passengers” are those who are generally not required to change aircraft while on a multiple-stop itinerary and who generally do not disembark from their aircraft to enter the terminal building. When we refer to “total passengers,” we mean the sum of terminal passengers and transit passengers. When we refer to “commercial aviation passengers,” we mean the sum of terminal and transit passengers, excluding general aviation passengers, such as those on private, non-commercial aircraft. Country-wideThe data for Mexico presented herein are based on commercial aviation passengers, but we generally measure our operations based on terminal passengers.

This annual report on Form 20-F contains references to “air traffic movements,” which represent the sum of all aircraft arrivals and departures of any kind at an airport.

International Financial Reporting Interpretation Committee 12 (IFRIC 12)Service Concession ArrangementsArrangements (“IFRIC 12”), which arose from the need to provide clarification on the accounting treatment to be followed for service concession contracts for services that are considered public in nature.

IFRIC 12nature, requires, subject to certain conditions, that the infrastructure of a service concession contract falling within its scope

not be recognized as property, plant and equipment. It also requires that revenues obtained when the operator performs both construction or upgrade services and operating services under a single contract be recognized according to each type of service provided, based on the fair value of consideration received at the time the service is rendered. We recognize revenues and the associated costs of improvements to concession assets that we are obligated to perform at the airports as established by our Master Development Programs.Programs for our Mexican airports and Capital Development Program for the Montego Bay airport. The amount of revenues for these services are equal to the amount of costs incurred, as we do not obtain any profit margin for these construction services. The amounts paid are set at market value. As a result, revenues from improvements to concession assets do not have a cash impact on our results and do not represent a cash inflow. Furthermore, they are not directly related to our passenger traffic, which is the main driver of our revenues.

In reviewing this annual report, you should take into account the fact that certain margin and ratio calculations that utilize “total revenues” or “total operating costs” will reflect the effects of IFRIC 12. Consequently, changes in total revenues, total operating costs, operating margin, total revenues per terminal passenger and other ratios included in this annual report, as well as other ratios potentially useful to investors, may not be comparable between periods. In such instances we have included a parenthetical notation with comparable amounts or measures. Nominal results for amounts used in calculating certain margins, such as operating income, are not affected by the adoption of IFRIC 12 and are therefore comparable.

The use of aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues is more common in our industry as they represent the revenues generated from our core operations: services provided to passengers, airlines, and other third parties based on passenger traffic at our airports. Consequently, in several sections of this annual report we take into account only revenues that resulted in actual cash inflows (which we categorize as aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues, or the sum of the two) for ratios or comparative calculations. Both of these categories of revenues are dependent, either directly or indirectly, on passenger traffic, while revenues generated from improvements to concession assets under IFRIC 12 are not dependent upon passenger traffic, but rather stem from the level of capital expenditures carried out at each airport. Information reported using only revenues that generated cash inflows may be more useful for readers of this annual report because those revenues stem from the key driversAs a result of our business: passenger trafficacquisition of Desarrollo de Concesiones Aeroportuarias, S.L. (“DCA”) in April 2015, our summary consolidated financial and our maximum tariffs. We indicate each instanceoperating information for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 includes the consolidation of DCA’s financial and operating information from April 1, 2015. DCA has a 74.5% stake in which we use only aeronauticalMBJ Airports Limited (“MBJA”), the entity that holds the concession to operate Montego Bay International Airport in Montego Bay, Jamaica. Therefore, financial and non-aeronautical revenues by indicatingoperating information for the category of revenues used.fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 may not be directly comparable with financial and operating information for prior fiscal years.

The summary financial and other information set forth below reflects our financial condition, results of operations and certain operating data according to IFRS for the periods indicated. Our first financial statements reported under IFRS were for the year 2012; therefore, our date of transition to IFRS was January 1, 2011. A description of the effects on our financial information due to our transition from our previous generally accepted accounting principles, Mexican Financial Reporting Standards, or MFRS, to IFRS was presented in Note 31 to our audited consolidated financial statements in our annual report on formForm 20-F for 2012. The selected financial information for 2011 differs from the information we previously published in our annual report for 2011, because it is presented in accordance with IFRS.

Total current assets			2,885,072				2,459,168				2,872,087				2,062,571				3,386,683				196,957
Airport concessions, net			10,463,499				10,179,422				9,895,346				9,611,296				12,240,167				711,845
Rights to use airport facilities, net			1,327,189				1,270,490				1,213,792				1,157,093				1,100,394				63,995
Total assets			24,719,675				24,533,637				25,234,600				24,286,207				31,473,399				1,830,381
Current liabilities			1,062,027				1,132,711				1,212,154				1,582,227				4,658,310				270,911
Total liabilities			3,038,492				3,080,424				3,021,889				3,000,316				9,317,356				541,864
Total controlling interest			21,681,183				21,453,213				22,212,711				21,285,891				21,273,951				1,237,217
Non-controlling interest			n/a				n/a				n/a				n/a				882,092				51,299
Other data:
Net cash flows provided by operating activities		Ps.	2,256,718			Ps.	2,661,274			Ps.	2,964,713			Ps.	3,460,230			Ps.	4,904,753			U.S.$	285,243
Net cash flows used in investing activities			(1,253,470	)			(983,785	)			(680,951	)			(633,040	)			(3,669,927	)			(213,430	)
Net cash flows (used in) provided by financing activities			(1,217,045	)			(2,148,816	)			(1,779,258	)			(3,399,875	)			166,171				9,664
(Decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents			(213,797	)			(471,327	)			504,504				(572,685	)			1,400,997				81,477

EXCHANGE RATES

The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high, low, average and period-end exchange rate expressed in pesos per U.S. dollar. The average annual rates presented in the following table were calculated using the average of the exchange rates on the last day of each month during the relevant period. The data provided in this table is based on the rates published by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board in its weekly H.10 Release – Foreign Exchange Rates. All amounts are stated in pesos and have not been restated in constant currency units. We make no representation that the Mexican peso amounts referred to in this annual report could have been or could be converted into U.S. dollars at any particular rate or at all.

Sources: U.S. Federal Reserve Board.

On April 10, 2015,8, 2016, the exchange rate for pesos, as published by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, was Ps.15.1670Ps.17.7600 per U.S.$1.00.

Fluctuations in the exchange rate between the peso and the U.S. dollar affect the U.S. dollar value of securities traded on the Mexican Stock Exchange (Bolsa(Bolsa Mexicana de Valores, S.A.B. de C.V.), or “BMV”),“BMV,” and, as a result, will likely affect the market price of our American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”)(ADSs). Such fluctuations may also affect the U.S. dollar conversion by The Bank of New York Mellon, the depositary for our ADSs, of any cash dividends paid in pesos.

RISK FACTORS

Risks Related to Our Operations

Our revenues are highly dependent on levels of passenger and cargo traffic volumes and air traffic, which depend in part on factors beyond our control.

Our revenues are closely linked to passenger and cargo traffic volumes and the number of air traffic movements at our airports. These factors directly determine our revenues from aeronautical services and indirectly determine our revenues from non-aeronautical services. Our principal source of aeronautical service revenues is passenger charges. Passenger charges are payable for each passenger (other than diplomats, infants and transit and transfer passengers, if the transfer of the passenger occurs within 24 hours of the passenger’s arrival at the airport) departing from the airport terminals we operate (except certain exclusions in each of Mexico and Jamaica, described below under “Item 4,Information on the Company – Business Overview – Our Sources of Revenues – Aeronautical Services – Passenger Charges”) and are collected by the airlines and paid to us. In 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2014,2015, passenger charges represented 57.1%58.8%, 58.8%60.8% and 60.8%55.3%, respectively, of our total revenues (in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2014,2015, passenger charges represented 64.5%64.2%, 64.2%64.1% and 64.1%61.7%, respectively, of the sum of our aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues).

Passenger and cargo traffic volumes and air traffic movements depend in part on many factors beyond our control, including economic conditions in Mexico, andJamaica, the United States, Canada and Europe, the political situation in Mexico, Jamaica and elsewhere in the world, public health crises, the attractiveness of the destinations that our airports serve relative to those of other competing airports, fluctuations in petroleum prices, disruptions of global debt markets and changes in regulatory policies applicable to the aviation industry. Any decreases in air traffic to or from our airports as a result of factors such as these could adversely affect our business, results of operations, prospects and financial condition.

A global economic and financial crisis may affect our business.

The global economic and financial crisis that began in 2007 and continued through 2009 led to high volatility and lack of liquidity in the global credit and other financial markets. The downturn in the U.S. and global economies led to increased commercial and consumer delinquencies, lack of consumer confidence, decreased market valuations, increased market volatility, high financial risk premiums and a widespread reduction of business activity generally. These conditions also limited the availability of credit and increased financial costs for companies around the world, including companies in Mexico and the United States. Although economic conditions improved starting in 2010 and the availability of credit has increased while interest rates remained stable, another recession could significantly affect our ability to access credit to finance our future projects, therefore adversely affecting our business.

Negative economic developments in MexicoCompetition from other tourist destinations could reduce domestic passenger traffic at our airports, which would adversely affect our business andbusiness.

The principal factor affecting our results of operations.

Althoughoperations and business is the number of passengers using our airports. The number of passengers using our airports (particularly our international airports at Los Cabos, Puerto Vallarta and Montego Bay) may vary as a substantial portionresult of factors beyond our revenues is derived from foreigncontrol, including the level of tourism Mexican domestic passengers in recent years have represented approximately two-thirds of theMexico and Jamaica. In addition, our passenger traffic volume atmay be adversely affected by the attractiveness, affordability and accessibility of competing tourist destinations in Mexico, such as Acapulco and Cancun, or elsewhere, such as Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Florida, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, the other Caribbean islands and destinations in Central America. The attractiveness of the destinations we serve is also likely to be affected by perceptions of travelers as to the safety and political and social stability of Mexico and Jamaica, particularly as a result of the uncertainty and safety concerns resulting from the Mexican government’s ongoing effort against drug cartels. There can be no assurance that tourism levels, and therefore the number of passengers using our airports. In addition, all ofairports, in the future will match or exceed current levels. A reduction in tourism to the destinations served by our assets are located,airports could directly and all of our operations are conducted, in Mexico. Becauseindirectly affect our revenues are largely dependent on the level of passenger traffic at our airports, any decline in domestic traffic could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, prospectsfrom aeronautical and financial conditions. Therefore, if inflation or interest rates increase significantly or the Mexican economy is otherwise adversely impacted, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected because, among other things, domestic demand for transportation services may decrease. For more information on the potential impact of negative economic developments in Mexico, see “– Risks Related to Mexico – Adverse economic conditions in Mexico may adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations” in this section.non-aeronautical services.

Our business is particularly sensitive to economic conditions and other developments in the United States.

Our business is particularly sensitive to trends in the United States relating to leisure travel, consumer spending and international tourism. In 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2014, 88.0%2015, 89.7%, 89.7%89.5% and 89.5%89.7%, respectively, of the international terminal passengers served by our Mexican airports arrived andor departed on flights originating in or departing to the United States and 67.0%, 66.2% and 67.0%, respectively, of the passengers served by our Jamaican airport arrived or departed on flights originating on or departing to the United States.

Thus, our business is highly dependent on the condition of the U.S. economy, and events affecting the U.S. economy may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. In 2012,2013, 2014 and 2015, the U.S. gross domestic product (“GDP”) increased at an annualized rate of 2.2%. In 20131.9%, 2.4% and 2014,2.4%, respectively, according to the U.S. GDP grew 1.9% and 2.4%, respectively.Bureau of Economic Analysis. Although the U.S. economy has grown every year since the economic crisis that lasted from the end of 2007 until the middle of 2009, if the U.S. economy falls back into a recession, it would likely have a material adverse effect on our results of operations due to decreased passenger traffic travel to and from the United States.

Other trends and developments in the United States may also adversely impact the frequency and pattern of our international passenger traffic. For example, any development that could make travel to and from the United States less attractive to our passengers, including legislative developments related to immigration policy in the United States, could negatively affect the level of passenger traffic in our airports, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Negative economic developments in Mexico could reduce domestic passenger traffic at our Mexican airports, which would adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Although a substantial portion of our revenues is derived from foreign tourism, Mexican domestic passengers in recent years have represented approximately two-thirds of the passenger traffic volume at our Mexican airports. Aside from our interest in the Montego Bay airport concession in Jamaica, all of our assets are located, and all of our operations are conducted in Mexico. Because our revenues are largely dependent on the level of passenger traffic at our airports, any decline in domestic traffic in our Mexican airports could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, prospects and financial conditions. Therefore, if inflation or interest rates increase significantly or the Mexican economy is otherwise adversely impacted, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected because, among other things, domestic demand for transportation services may decrease. For more information on the potential impact of negative economic developments in Mexico, see “– Risks Related to Mexico – Adverse economic conditions in Mexico may adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations” in this section.

Levels of passenger and cargo traffic volumes and air traffic at our airports are highly sensitive to the impact on airlines of international petroleum prices and access to credit.

Our revenues are closely linked to passenger and cargo traffic volumes and air traffic movements at our airports, which are determined by the operating levels of airlines at our airports. Airlines’ costs are highly sensitive to the price of petroleum and their access to credit to finance their operations. Increased costs may increase ticket prices and reduce fleets, thereby decreasing flight frequencies and negatively impacting passenger and cargo traffic volumes.

International petroleum prices have experienced significant volatility in the recent past, reachingpast. For example, European Brent crude oil spot prices reached their record highshigh of U.S.$143.95 per barrel on July 3, 2008 followed by their four-year record low of U.S.$33.73 per barrel on December 26, 2008, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. More recently, European Brent crude oil spot prices decreased from U.S.$55.27 per barrel on December 31, 2014 to U.S.$36.61 per barrel on December 31, 2015, with an average price of U.S.$52.32 per barrel during 2015. The decrease in the third quarter of 2008. Althoughfuel prices declinedin 2015 allowed airlines to well below the highs of 2008 over the second half of 2014reduce ticket prices, open new routes and first quarter of 2015, theincrease flight frequencies. The price of fuel may be subject to further fluctuations resulting from a reduction or increase in output of petroleum, voluntary or otherwise, by oil-producing countries, other market forces, a general increase in international hostilities, or any future terrorist attacks. IncreasesIf fuel prices return to their prior levels, the resulting increases in airlines’ costs as a result of higher petroleum prices may lead to airline bankruptcies, higher ticket prices, cancellations of routes and decreases in frequencies of flights, and may decrease demand for air travel generally, whichgenerally. Each of these may reduce passenger and cargo traffic at our airports.

Most airlines also depend on reliable access to credit at interest rates they can afford to finance their fleet of aircraft and make other large investments. As evidenced by the recent global recession and financial crisis, high interest rates and disruptions in the global debt markets had an adverse effect on airlines’ ability to operate their fleets, forcing many to raise ticket prices, cancel routes, decrease the frequencies of flights or forego scheduled investments. Such reductions in operations by airlines led to lower passenger and cargo traffic volumes at our airports, which has had an adverse impact on our results of operations.

See “–The loss of or suspension of operations by one or more of our key customers could result in a loss of a significant amount of our revenues” in this section for a more detailed description of which of our major airline customers have recently reduced or cancelled operations at our airports.

Our business is highly dependent upon revenues from fourfive of our airports and could be adversely impacted by any condition affecting those airports.

In 2014,2015, approximately 81.1%83.9% of the sum of aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues was generated from fourfive of our twelvethirteen airports. The following table lists the percentage of the sum of aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues generated at our airports in 2014:2015:

As a result of the substantial contribution to our aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues from these fourfive airports, any event or condition affecting these airports could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, prospects and financial condition.

Competition from other tourist destinations could adversely affect our business.

The principal factor affecting our results of operations and business is the number of passengers using our airports. The number of passengers using our airports (particularly our Los Cabos International Airport and our Puerto Vallarta International Airport) may vary as a result of factors beyond our control, including the level of tourism in Mexico. In addition, our passenger traffic volume may be adversely affected by the attractiveness, affordability and accessibility of competing tourist destinations in Mexico, such as Acapulco and Cancun, or elsewhere, such as Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Florida, Cuba, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and other Caribbean islands and destinations in Central America. The attractiveness of the destinations we serve is also likely to be affected by perceptions of travelers as to the safety and political and social stability of Mexico, particularly as a result of the uncertainty and safety concerns resulting from the government’s ongoing effort against drug cartels. There can be no assurance that tourism levels, and therefore the number of passengers using our airports, in the future will match or exceed current levels. A reduction in tourism to the destinations served by our airports could directly and indirectly affect our revenues from aeronautical and non-aeronautical services.

International events, including acts of terrorism, wars and global epidemics, could have a negative impact on international air travel.

International events such as themay negatively impact international air travel. The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, wars, such as the onethose in Iraq and Syria, and public health crises, such as the Influenza A/H1N1 epidemicpandemic of 2009-2010, have negatively affected the frequency and pattern of air travel worldwide in recent years.

The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, had a severe adverse impact on the air travel industry, particularly on U.S. carriers and on carriers operating international service to and from the United States. Airline traffic in the United States fell precipitously after the attacks. Our terminal passenger volumes declined 1.4% in 2001 and an additional 5.3% in 2002 (in each case as compared to the prior year). Any future terrorist attacks, whether or not involving aircraft, will likely adversely affect our business, results of operations, prospects and financial condition. Moreover, we cannot predict what effect any future terrorist attacks or threatened attacks on the United States or any retaliatory measures taken by the United States in response to these events may have on the U.S. economy or leisure travel trends, which may negatively affect our results of operations. Similarly, our Mexican and Jamaican airport operations could be negatively impacted by terrorist attacks on aircraft such as those which occurred with international airlines’ aircraft operating over Egypt and the Ukraine in 2015.

In April 2009, Mexico, as well aslike several other countries, was affected by an outbreak of Influenza A/H1N1. As a result of the outbreak, a number of countries, including the United States, Great Britain and France, advised against nonessential travel to Mexico, although these advisories had beenwere lifted by the end of May 2009. While we cannot completely isolate the impact on travel of the advisories and restrictions imposed by national and international governments from other potential factors such as the economy, our domestic passenger traffic and international passenger traffic declined by 33.3% and 43.7%, respectively, during May 2009 (in each case compared to May 2008). A new outbreak of Influenza A/H1N1 or any other pandemic or contagious disease, such as avian flu, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and the Ebola virus, could once again disrupt our operations or significantly affect passenger and cargo traffic levels.

On February 1, 2016, the World Health Organization designated the Zika virus and its suspected complications in newborns an international public health emergency. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a travel advisory for people traveling to regions within the Zika virus outbreak, which include popular vacation destinations in Mexico and Jamaica. While these travel advisories to Mexico and Jamaica have not negatively affected the frequency and pattern of travel to our airports, such public health crises or any future public health crises and related travel advisories could disrupt our operations or significantly affect passenger and cargo traffic levels.

Because our revenues are largely dependent on the level of passenger traffic in our airports, any general increase of hostilities relating to reprisals against terrorist organizations, further armed conflict around the world, outbreaks of health epidemics or other events of general international concern (and any related economic impact of such events) could result in decreased passenger traffic and increased costs to the air travel industry and, as a result, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, prospects and financial condition.

Security enhancements and requirements may require additional investments or result in additional expenses.

The air travel business is susceptible to, and has experienced, increased costs resulting from enhanced security and higher insurance. Following the events of September 11, 2001, we reinforced security at our airports, and our general liability insurance premiums increased substantially. Since August 1, 2003, we have carried a Ps.500 million insurance policy covering damage to our property resulting from terrorist acts. We carry a U.S.$150 million insurance policy covering personal and property damage to third parties resulting from terrorist acts. Because ourFor more information on the insurance policies do not cover all losseswe carry, see “Item 4,Information on the Company – Property, Plant and liabilities resulting from war or terrorism,Equipment.” Because a substantial majority of our international flights involve travel to the United States, we could incur significant costs if we weremay be required to be directly affected by eventscomply with security directives of this nature. Any such increasethe U.S. Federal Aviation Authority, in our operating costs would have an adverse effect on our resultsaddition to the directives of operations.the Mexican and Jamaican civil aviation authorities.

The users of airports, principally airlines, also have been subject to increased costs following the events of September 11, 2001. Airlines2001, as they have been required to adopt additional security measures and may be required to comply with more rigorous security rules or guidelines in the future. Premiums for aviationtheir insurance premiums have also increased substantially in the years following 2001 and could rise further in the future.substantially. While governments in other countries have agreed to indemnify airlines for liabilities they might incur resulting from terrorist attacks, the Mexican government hasand Jamaican governments have not done so and hashave given no indication of any intention to do the same. In the future, airlines may be required to comply with more rigorous security rules or guidelines and premiums for aviation insurance could rise further. In addition, fuel prices, supplies and interest rates for airlines’ aircraft lease agreements, which constitute a significant cost for airlines using our airports, may be subject to increases resulting from any future terrorist attacks, a general increase in international hostilities or a reduction in output of fuel, voluntary or otherwise, by oil producing countries. Such increasesIncreases in airlines’ costs have resultedmay result in higher airline ticket prices and decreased demand for air travel generally, thereby having an adverse effect on our revenues and results of operations. In addition, because a substantial majority of our international flights involve travel to the United States, we may be required to comply with security directives of the U.S. Federal Aviation Authority, in addition to the directives of Mexican aviation authorities.

If authorities require enhancements to security enhancementsequipment or require us to adoptadoption of additional security measures, we may be required to undertake significant additional expenses and capital expenditures, and weexpenditures. We cannot guarantee that thosethese expenses and/or capital expenditures will be taken in tointo account for our Mexican airports in our Maximum Tariff and Master Development Programs negotiations. Therefore, these additional expenses could negatively affect our cash flows and affect our results of operations. In the case of any change in security enhancement requirements in Jamaica, the Jamaican civil aviation authorities have permitted any such unavoidable and unforeseen expenditure to be treated as a cost pass-through for the purposes of regulation, allowing for an increase in regulated charges at any time within the tariff review period to cover the cost of additional security requirements. However, we can provide no assurance that we would be successful in negotiating new tariffs to recover the expenses and/or capital expenditures needed to comply with any new security requirements.

The operation of new baggage screening equipment could increase our expenses and may expose us to greater liability.

In 2005, the Mexican government issued a policy letter (carta de política) calling for all checked baggage on all commercial flights to undergo a new comprehensive screening process. The new screening process required the installation of dedicated screening equipment and the manual inspection of baggage if such equipment signalsalerted to the potential presence of prohibited items. Because of uncertaintyUncertainty over the policy letter’s implementation of the new screening process, was initially delayed.caused a delay in the implementation. Although the Mexican Airport Law expressly provides that airlines bear the responsibility for baggage screening, the fact that the policy letter is silent as to responsibility caused some of our airline customers to contend that the policy letter’s intent is for airport concessionaires, such as us, to bear responsibility for the new screening process. In addition, certain questions have been raised regarding the constitutionality of the new screening process. Since the issuance of the policy letter, the Mexican BureauDirectorate General of Civil Aviation (Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil), or DGAC, has been expected to issue implementing regulations. On November 23, 2012, the Mexican Bureau of Civil Aviation (Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil, or “DGAC”)civil aviation authority published a recommendation titled a “(Circular Obligatoriacircular obligatoria),” on the SCT (Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes, or “SCT”) website that, instead of modifying the legal responsibilities set forth in the Mexican Airport Law, attempted to facilitate contracts between parties through certain non-binding recommendations regarding issues of responsibility that have been raised by the policy letter. These non-binding recommendations have no legal effect unless incorporated into a valid contract.

We have operated checked baggage screening equipment in our ten busiest Mexican airports since 2011;2011, and today only flights departing from Terminal 2 in Guadalajara and from the Aguascalientes and Los Mochis airportsairport continue to rely on manual inspection. As of December 31, 2014,2015, we have signed agreements to operate the baggage screening equipment with every airline customer with a non-negligible volume of traffic. As a result, as of the end of 2014,traffic, and approximately 95%99.3% of the passengers travelling through our airports were using the baggage screening system, compared to approximately 90% at the end of 2013. During 2015, we plan to integrate Guadalajara airport’s Terminal 2 and the Aguascalientes airport into the baggage screening system, which would increase the percentage of baggage inspected with automated systems to 99%.system.

We incur ongoing expenses to maintain and operate this equipment. Currently, the operational costs of the screening system have been limited to the level necessary to provide the required services to airlines, and we expect to continue recovering those costs. We also expect to incur ongoing expenses to maintain any equipment purchased, and we could be required to undertake significant additional capital expenditures for items such as a new screening technology or additional equipment if screening guidelines are expanded further and require that additional steps be taken to comply with the requirements. For instance, replacement of current baggage screening equipment with new Computer Tomography X-ray (CTX) bagged screening equipment is scheduled for 2022, although regulatory changes could force our Mexican airports to undertake this replacement sooner. These additional expenses could restrict our liquidity and adversely affect our results of operations. In addition, if it is determined that we are responsible for all or a portion of the cost or that we are liable for certain issues arising from our operation of the screening systems, our exposure to liability could increase significantly. These operational costs were reviewed during the negotiation of the Master Development ProgramPrograms for our Mexican airports for the years 2015-2019, completed in December of 2014, and there were no changes contemplated to the operational costs or to the cost recovery procedures. For more information on screening equipment, see “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework – Mexican Airport Concessions – Scope of Concessions.”

Our revenues and profitability may be adversely affected if we fail in our business strategy.

Our ability to increase our revenues and profitability depends in part on our business strategy, which consists of setting prices as close as possible to our regulatory maximum rates for any given year for our Mexican airports and for any given five-year period for the Montego Bay airport, reducing operating costs, controlling our capital expenditure commitments under our Master Development Programs with the Mexican government and under the Capital Development Program with the Jamaican government, increasing passenger and cargo traffic at our airports and increasing revenues from commercial activities.

Our ability to increase our commercial revenues is significantly dependent, among other factors, upon increasing passenger traffic at our airports and on our ability to renegotiate rental agreements with our tenants to provide for contractual terms more favorable to us and for the ability for us to directly operate business lines. In addition, our ability to increase revenues from commercial activities depends on our ability to continue the remodeling, expansion and modernization of the commercial areas we operate within our airports and on the introduction of new business lines. Further, we are in the process of expanding the amount and types of business lines that we operate directly within our airports. Revenues from business lines operated directly by us represented 7.4%28.1% of totalnon-aeronautical revenues during 2014,in 2015, as compared with 6.7%30.5% of totalnon-aeronautical revenues during 2013 (7.8%in 2014 (7.2% of the sum of aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues generated in our airports in 2014,2015, as compared to 7.3%7.8% in 2013)2014).

We cannot provide assurance that we will be successful in implementing our strategy of increasing our passenger traffic or our revenues from commercial activities, including commercial activitiesthose that we operate directly. The passenger traffic volume in our airports depends on factors beyond our control, such as the attractiveness of the commercial, industrial and tourist centers that the airports serve. Additionally, our new commercial strategy of increasing revenues by operating lines of businesses in our airports directly could result in the loss of a significant amount of revenues, or not generate the level of profitability sufficient to increase our results of operations. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the passenger traffic volume in our airports will increase or that our profitability will increase.

If a change in relations with our labor force should occur, such a change could have an adverse impact on our results of operations.

Although we currently believe we maintain goodpositive relations with our labor force, if any conflicts with our employees were to arise in the future, including with our unionized employees (which accounted for approximately 48%55% of our total employees as of December 31, 2014)2015), resulting events such as strikes or other disruptions that could arise with respect to our workforce could have a negative impact on our results of operations.

The loss of, or suspension of operations by, one or more of our key customers could result in a loss of a significant amount of our revenues.

A majority of our revenues are driven by the operations of a few key customer airlines. In 2015, Concesionaria Vuela Compañía de Aviación, S.A. de C.V. (“Volaris”), or Volaris; Grupo Aeroméxico, S.A.B. de C.V., or Grupo (“Aeroméxico Group”), a holding company that owns Aeroméxico and Aeroméxico Connect;Connect, and ABC Aerolíneas, S.A. de C.V., or Interjet, (“Interjet”) transported a significant amountpercentage of our passenger traffic; during 2014,2015, the passenger charges collected by these three airlines accounted for 21.6%18.0%, 13.7%9.6% and 6.0%4.6%, respectively, of total revenues in our airports (22.8%(20.1%, 14.4%10.7% and 6.3%5.1%, respectively, of the sum of aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues generated in our airports in 2014)2015). Excluding revenues from passenger charges, these airlines accounted for 0.4%1.8%, 0.7%1.1% and 0.2%0.5%, respectively, of our total revenues in 2014 (0.4%2015 (2.0%, 0.7%1.2% and 0.2%0.5%, respectively, of the sum of aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues generated in our airports in 2014)2015).

None of our contracts with our airline customers obligate them to continue providing service to our airports, and we can offer no assurance that if any of our key customers reduce their use of our airports, competing airlines would add flights to their schedules to replace any flights no longer handled by our principal airline customers.

For example, on August 2, 2010, Mexicana de Aviación, S.A. de C.V. (“Mexicana”), one of Mexico’s two largest carriers and previously an airline that was among our three largest customers in terms of passenger traffic, filed for bankruptcy protection in Mexico and in the United States. On August 28, 2010, Mexicana, Mexicana Click (formerly known as Aerovías Caribe) and Mexicana Link

(formerly (formerly known as Mexicana Inter) (collectively, “Grupo Mexicana”) ceased operations. Grupo

Mexicana Click and Mexicana Link filed for bankruptcy protection on September 7, 2010. In 2010, Grupo Mexicana was still our third-largestthird largest carrier and accounted for 8.9% of the sum of aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues generated in our airports. Itairports, and it was not until 2012 that all seats previously flown by Grupo Mexicana were taken over by other airlines. We can offer no assurance that competing airlines would seek to increase their flight schedules if any of our key customers reduced their use of our airports. In addition, Mexican law prohibits an international airline from transporting passengers from one Mexican location to another, except if the passenger originated travel outside Mexico, thus limiting the number of airlines providing domestic service in Mexico. Accordingly, we expect to continue to generate a significant portion of our revenues from domestic travel from a limited number of airlines.

Furthermore, passenger charges, which accounted for 60.8%55.3% of our revenues in 2014 (64.1%2015 (61.7% when taking into account only the sum of aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues), are collected by airlines from passengers on our behalf and are later paid to us, depending on the airline, within no more than 60 days following the date of each flight. During 2014,2015, the average collection term of passenger charges was 4943 days. If any of our key airline customers were to become insolvent or seek bankruptcy protection, we would be an unsecured creditor with respect to any unpaid passenger charges, and we might not be able to recover the full amount of such charges.

During 2009, we renegotiated our passenger charges collection agreements with all of our airline customers.customers in Mexico. See “Item 4,Information on the Company –Business Overview – Our Sources of Revenues – Aeronautical Services – Passenger Charges – Passenger Charges in Mexico.” According to the new agreements that took effect on November 1, 2009, an airline may obtain a grace period of up to a maximum of 60 days for payment on a case-by-case basis (not all airlines received the same grace period). If an airline wants to obtain a grace period of any amount up to the 60-day limit, the airline is required to secure the grace period and the equivalent of 30 additional days with cash, bonds or other collateral equal to the charges the airline would incur during that period by taking into account the peak operational days for that specific airline during the previous 12-month period. Thus,As a result, in the event of insolvency or suspension of operations by an airline, we are able to collect passenger charges invoiced to that airline up to the value of the collateral. Although we would also have a 30-day buffer beyond the grace period, our cash flows from operations or our results of operations could be negatively affected if such collateral were not sufficient to cover the outstanding debt. Thus,Consequently, in the event of any suspension of operations by or insolvency of an airline, such as in the case of Grupo Mexicana in 2010, we would not be assured of collecting 100% of the amounts invoiced to that airline for passenger charges, nor could we be assured that we would recover, in the short term, the traffic they would stop transporting, as a consequence of an airline’s ongoing bankruptcy process. Both scenarios could negatively affect our cash flows from operations or our results of operations.

Additionally, in previous years, some of our commercial clients have had difficulty making their payments to our airports. As a result, we have tried to renegotiate terms with many clients to keep them at our airports. Despite our efforts, some clients have decided to leave our commercial spaces and cancel their contracts. This could potentially have a negative effect on our revenues.

Our business is dependent on international regulations that affect Mexican airlines.

Airline regulations promulgated by international bodies or regulatory agencies in other countries could affect our operations and potentially affect our revenues or results of operations. For instance, on July 30, 2010, the United States Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) announced that, following an assessment of Mexico’s civil aviation authority, it had determined that Mexico was not in compliance with international safety standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (“ICAO”), and, as a result, downgraded Mexico’s aviation safety rating from “Category 1” to “Category 2.”

Under FAA regulations, because of this downgrade, Mexican airlines were not permitted to expand or change their current operations between the United States and Mexico except under certain

limited circumstances; code-sharing arrangements between Mexican and U.S. airlines were suspended; and operations by Mexican airlines flying to the United States were subject to greater FAA oversight. These additional regulatory requirements resulted in reduced service between our airports and the United States by Mexican airlines, which resulted in a decrease in demand for travel between our airports and the United States. Approximately 24.8% of the passengers that traveled through our airports traveled on flights to or from the United States operated by Mexican airlines in 2014.

The FAA restored Mexico’s Category 1 rating on December 1, 2010. The FAA, however, may downgrade Mexico’s air safety rating in the future. We cannot predict what impact such a downgrade would have on our passenger traffic or results of operations, or on the public perception of the safety of Mexican airports.

The main domestic airlines operating at our Mexican airports have in the past refused to pay certain increases in our specific prices for aeronautical services and could refuse to pay additional increases in the future.

In the past, certain of the domestic airlines operating at our Mexican airports refused to pay certain increases in the specific prices we charge for aeronautical services.

Although these prior disputes were resolved by 2006, because only a few airlines contribute a substantial portion of our revenues, our results of operations could be adversely impacted if any of these (or any of our other) airlines should refuse to make payments in the future. Moreover, during periods of economic downturn, the airlines that operate at our airports may be more likely to oppose increases in our charges for aeronautical services in future years, which could adversely impact our results of operations. See “Item 4,Information on the Company – Business Overview – Principal Customers – Principal Aeronautical Services Customers – Airline Customers.”

The airlines at our airports may refuse to continue collecting passenger charges on our behalf or we may decide to collect passenger charges ourselves, which would result in increased costs for us.

WeThe airlines operating at our airports collect a passenger charge foron our behalf from each departing passenger on an aircraft (other than diplomats, infants(except certain exclusions in each of Mexico and transfer and transit passengers, ifJamaica, described below under “Item 4,Information on the transferCompany – Business Overview – Our Sources of the passenger occurs within 24 hours of the passenger’s arrival at the airport)Revenues – Aeronautical Services – Passenger Charges”).

Currently, we have entered into collection agreements with the airlines that operate at our Mexican airports to collect those passenger charges on our behalf. As a result, passenger charges are automatically included in the cost of passengers’ tickets, and we issue invoices for those charges to each airline. See “Item 4,Business Overview – Our Sources of Revenues – Aeronautical Services – Passenger Charges.”

We and the airlines with which we have these collection agreements have the right to cancel them with prior notice to the other party. If we or one of our airline customers were to cancel a collection agreement, we would have to implement a collection system of our own to collect passenger charges from passengers directly. The installation and operation of such a collection system would result in additional costs for us, which would negatively impact our results of operations.

MBJA does not have collection agreements with the airlines that operate at the Montego Bay airport for the collection of passenger charges on its behalf. However, the collection of passenger charges by the airlines is implied under the operating agreements signed by each airline operating at the Montego Bay airport, whereby these airlines must pay MBJA for regulated passenger charges.

The operations of our airports may be disrupted due to the actions of third parties, which are beyond our control.

As is the case with most airports, the operation of our airports is largely dependent on the services of third parties, such as air traffic control authorities, airlines and ground transportation providers. We also depend upon the Mexican government or entities of the government for provision of services, such as electricity, supply of fuel for aircraft, air traffic control and immigration and customs services for our international passengers. Additionally, the disruption or stoppage of taxi or bus services at one or more of our airports could also adversely affect our operations. We are not responsible for and cannot control the services provided by these parties. Any disruption in, or adverse consequence resulting from, their services, including a work stoppage or other similar event, may have a material adverse effect on the operation of our airports and on our results of operations.

In addition, we are dependent on third-party providers of certain complementary services such as catering, baggage handling, and operation of airbuses and passenger walkways. If these service providers were to halt operations at any of our airports, we would be required to seek a new service provider or provide services ourselves, either of which would likely result in increased capital expenditures or costs and have an adverse impact on our cash generation and results of operations.

Actions by the former holders of land comprising certain of our Mexican airports may disrupt the operations of these airports.

Some of our airports are partly sited on lands that were expropriated by the Mexican government pursuant to its power of eminent domain. Prior to their expropriation, some of these lands had been held by groups of individuals through a system of communal ownership of rural land known as anejido. Certain of these formerejidosejidos’’ participants have asserted indemnity claims against the Mexican government challenging the expropriation decrees. See “Item 8,Financial Information – Legal Proceedings – Ejido Participantsparticipants at Tijuana, Guadalajara and Puerto Vallarta Airports.”

Our Mexican concessions guarantee access to the land by the SCT and any interruption caused to our operations by any of theejidos is the responsibility of the Mexican government. Although the Mexican government must provide restitution for any economic loss resulting from a disruption in access to our airports, there can be no assurance that the formerejido participants will not seek to disrupt the airport’s operations if their legal claims against the Mexican government are not resolved to their satisfaction. There also can be no assurance that the legal proceedings will be resolved in our favor, which may negatively impact our results of operations.

In addition to challenging the expropriation, certain of the formerejido participants are also currently occupying portions of the Tijuana International Airport property. While these persons are not currently interfering with the airport’s operations, their presence could limit our ability to expand the airport into the areas they occupy. There can also be no assurance that the formerejido participants will not seek to disrupt the airport’s operations if their legal claims against the Mexican government are not resolved to their satisfaction, which may negatively impact our results of operations.

The actions of squatters on certain portions of the land on which our Guadalajara International Airportairport operates could disrupt operations and security of the airport.

The Mexican government owns the land on which the Guadalajara International Airport operates and has granted us the right to use that land for the purpose of operating the airport pursuant to our concession. Currently, there are squatters residing on or claiming rights to a portion of the property, at least one of whom has attempted to subdivide and sell off certain portions of the property. As owner of the property, the Mexican government must initiate any actions directed at removing these persons from the property. More recently, in February and March 2016, members of an ejido blocked the access to the parking facilities at the Guadalajara International Airport, which resulted in commercial revenues losses of approximately Ps.4.1 million. We are reviewing the actions these persons have taken and are cooperating with the Mexican government to ensure that the actions of these squatters andeijidosdo not adversely affect the operations of the Guadalajara International Airport. However, if the Mexican government or we areis unable to successfully remove these persons from the property, their presence could have an adverse impact on our operations, revenues and security, at the airport and could restrict our ability to expand our operations, at the Guadalajara airport.

We may be liable for property tax claims asserted against us by certain Mexican municipalities.

We remain subject to ongoing property tax claims that have been asserted against us by the municipal authorities of Mexicali, Tijuana, Guadalajara Hermosillo and ManzanilloHermosillo for the payment of property taxes with respect to the property on which we operate our airports in those cities, and similar

claims have been and may be asserted by other municipal authorities where we operate our airports. We believe that under the law, the Mexican government, as the owner of the property upon which we operate our airports, would currently be responsible for paying these taxes directly if a court were to determine that these taxes must be paid. See “Item 8,Financial Information – Legal Proceedings – Property tax claims by certain municipalities” for a full discussion of these property tax proceedings.

In addition, on May 28, 2010, the State Legislature of Jalisco sent to the Mexican Congress a legislative initiative in which they requested that Congress consider changing the current Mexican Airport Law so that privately held airports operating on federal land would be subject to municipal taxes. As of the date of this report, this initiative remains under review by Congress.

If the Mexican government changes the current laws or if we do not prevail in the aforementioned proceedings, these tax liabilities could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

OurNatural disasters could adversely affect our business.

The Pacific and Central regions of Mexico and the island of Jamaica experience seasonal torrential rains and hurricanes (particularly during the months of July through September), as well as earthquakes. Natural disasters may impede operations, damage infrastructure necessary to our operations or adversely affect the destinations served by our airports. Any of these events could reduce our passenger traffic volume.

For example, on September 14, 2014, Hurricane Odile moved through the Baja California coastal area, damaging our La Paz and Los Cabos airports. The La Paz airport terminal experienced minor damage, while the Los Cabos airport experienced damage to the building, including the detachment of the roof covering in Terminal 1 and the collapse of ceiling panels in Terminal 2. The Los Cabos airport also suffered minimal damage to the runways, taxiways and aprons. The Los Cabos airport remained closed to commercial flights for eighteen days, receiving authorization on October 3, 2014 from the Mexican Directorate General of Civil Aviation to re-open for domestic and international commercial flights. We estimate that the effect on passenger traffic at the Los Cabos airport was a one-time loss of approximately 269.6 thousand passengers in the last quarter of 2014. We gradually repaired the remaining areas of the airport, completing renovations in the last quarter of 2015.

The occurrence of natural disasters in the destinations we serve could adversely affect our business, couldresults of operations, prospects and financial condition. We have insured the physical facilities at our airports against damage caused by natural disasters, accidents or other similar events, but do not have insurance covering losses due to resulting business interruption for our Mexican airports. Moreover, should losses occur, there can be adversely affected if penalties are imposedno assurance that losses caused by damages to the physical facilities will not exceed the pre-established limits on us or any of our airports by the Mexican tax authority.insurance policies.

The Mexican tax authority (Servicio de Administración Tributaria, or “SAT”), has the right to review any of our subsidiaries’ tax calculations for the previous five fiscal years. If the tax authority determines that our subsidiaries’ taxes have been underpaid in any of these years, it may require payment of the difference, and any applicable additional penalties.

In connection with its review of 2005 tax returns, SAT sent us official notices in 2008 and 2009 stating that, under its criteria, the fiscal amortization rate used for our La Paz, Morelia and Los Mochis airports was incorrect. We initiated legal proceedings in a federal tax court to challenge SAT’s findings based on our contention that SAT did not take into consideration all the relevant legal matters. Of these proceedings, only the legal proceeding regarding our La Paz airport remains pending, and any modification of tax calculations that may be required as a result could negatively affect our net income. See “Item 8,Financial Information – Legal Proceedings – Federal tax proceedings against La Paz, Morelia and Los Mochis airports.”

Our business could be adversely affected by other claims by certain municipalities.

Certain of our airports are subject to claims by the municipality in which they operate regarding our failure to obtain certain municipal licenses. Although we do not believe that we are subject to the license requirements at issue, if the municipalities require additional licenses or make changes to the current laws and we are unable to obtain the necessary licenses or if we do not prevail in proceedings challenging these requirements, our failure to obtain these licenses could have a material adverse effect on the operations of certain of our airports and consequently on our financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to the Regulation of Our Business

Our business is dependent on international regulations affecting airlines.

Airline regulations promulgated by international bodies or regulatory agencies in other countries could affect our operations and potentially affect our revenues or results of operations. For instance, on July 30, 2010, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) announced that, following an assessment of the Mexican Directorate General of Civil Aviation, it had determined that Mexico was not in compliance with international safety standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (“ICAO”), and, as a result, downgraded Mexico’s aviation safety rating from “Category 1” to “Category 2.”

Under FAA regulations, because of this downgrade, Mexican airlines were not permitted to expand or change their current operations between the United States and Mexico except under certain limited circumstances; code-sharing arrangements between Mexican and U.S. airlines were suspended; and operations by Mexican airlines flying to the United States were subject to greater FAA oversight. These additional regulatory requirements resulted in reduced service between our Mexican airports and the United States by Mexican airlines, which resulted in a decrease in demand for travel at our Mexican airports. Approximately 25.0% of the passengers that traveled through our Mexican airports traveled on flights to or from the United States operated by Mexican airlines in 2015.

The FAA restored Mexico’s Category 1 rating on December 1, 2010. Jamaica has held an FAA Category 1 rating since a similar downgrade to Category 2 from July 1995 to September 1997. The FAA, however, may downgrade Mexico’s or Jamaica’s air safety rating in the future. We cannot predict what impact such a downgrade would have on our passenger traffic or results of operations, or on the public perception of the safety of our airports.

We provide a public service regulated by the Mexican government,governments of Mexico and Jamaica, and our flexibility in managing our aeronautical activities is limited by the regulatory environmentenvironments in which we operate.

Our aeronautical fees charged to airlines and passengers are regulated, like those of most airports in other countries. In 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2014,2015, approximately 68.1%69.2%, 69.2%70.8% and 70.8%66.8%, respectively, of our total revenues were earned from aeronautical services which are subject to price regulation under our maximum rates (in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2014, 76.9%2015, 75.5%, 75.5%74.6% and 74.6%, respectively, of the sum of aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues were earned from aeronautical services)., which are subject to price regulation under our maximum rates in Mexico and under the maximum regulated charges in Jamaica. These regulations may limit our flexibility in operating our aeronautical activities, which could have a material adverse

effect on our business, results of operations, prospects and financial condition. In addition, several of the regulations applicable to our operations that affect our profitability are authorized or established by the Mexican government (as in the case of our Master Development Programs)Programs or establishedour maximum rates, respectively) or the Jamaican government (as in the case of ourMBJ’s maximum rates) by the SCTregulated charges) for five-year terms. Except under limited circumstances, we generally do not have the ability to unilaterally change our obligations (such as the investment obligations under our Master Development Programs and Capital Development Program or the obligation under our Mexican concessions and MBJA’s Jamaican concession to provide a public service) or increase our maximum rates and regulated charges applicable under those regulations should the passenger traffic or other assumptions on which the regulations were based change during the applicable term. In addition, there can be no assurance that this price regulation system will not be amended in a manner that would cause additional sources of our revenues to be regulated.

We cannot predict how the regulations governing our business will be applied.

Many of the laws, regulations and instruments that regulate our business in Mexico were adopted or became effective in 1999, and there is limited precedent that would allow us to predict the impact of these legal requirements on our future operations. In addition, although Mexican law establishes ranges of sanctions that might be imposed should we fail to comply with the terms of one of our Mexican concessions, the Mexican Airport Law and its regulations or other applicable laws, we cannot predict the sanctions that are likely to be assessed for a given violation within these ranges. We cannot provide any assurance that we will not encounter difficulties in complying with these laws, regulations and instruments. Although our maximum rates through 2019 have been set, we cannot predict what our Master Development Programs for the next five-year period from 2020 to 2024 will establish. We also cannot provide assurance that other regulatory agencies or the Mexican legislature will not impose regulations adverse to our operations in the future or that the laws and regulations governing our business, including the Master Development Programs, the maximum rate-setting process and the Mexican Airport Law, will not change in the future or be applied or interpreted in a way that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. For instance, on January 26, 2015, certain amendments to the Mexican Airport Law were enacted that institute an enforcement mechanism for existing requirements. For a discussion of the regulatory provisions applicable to us and certain recent proposed modifications,our business in Mexico, see “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework – Sources of Mexican Regulation.”

Similarly, there is limited precedent that would allow us to predict the impact of the laws, regulations and instruments that regulate our business in Jamaica and we cannot provide any assurance that MBJA will not encounter difficulties in complying with these laws, regulations and instruments. In addition, although MBJA’s concession agreement and Jamaican law establishes ranges of sanctions that might be imposed should MBJA fail to comply with the terms of the concession, other Jamaican applicable law and its regulations, we cannot predict the sanctions that are likely to be assessed for a given violation within these ranges. Although the maximum regulated charges have been set for the Montego Bay airport through March 2020, we cannot predict what maximum regulated charges the Jamaican government will establish for the next five-year period from April 2020 to March 2025. We also cannot provide assurance that other regulatory agencies or the Jamaican legislature will not impose regulations

adverse to MBJA’s operations in the future or that the laws and regulations governing our business in Jamaica, including the Jamaican Civil Aviation and Airports Authority acts and the process for setting maximum regulated charges, will not change in the future or be applied or interpreted in a way that could have a material adverse effect on the results of our operations. For a discussion of the regulatory provisions applicable to our business in Jamaica, see “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework – Sources of Jamaican Regulation.”

The regulations pursuant to which the maximum rates applicable to our aeronautical revenues in Mexico and to the maximum regulated charges that MBJA may collect in Jamaica are established do not guarantee that we or any of our airports will be profitable.

The regulations applicable to our aeronautical activities establish an annual maximum rate for each Mexican airport, which is the maximum annual amount of revenues per workload unit that we may earn at that airport from services subject to price regulation. The maximum rates for our Mexican airports have been determined for each year through 2019. For a discussion of the framework for establishing our maximum rates and the application of these rates, see “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework – Aeronautical Services Regulation.” Under the terms of our concessions, there is no guarantee that our consolidated results of operations or the results of operations of any airport will be profitable.

Our Mexican concessions provide that an airport’s maximum rates will be adjusted periodically for inflation determined by reference to the Mexican Producer Price Index (Índice Nacional de Precios al Productor), or “Mexican PPI,” excluding petroleum. Although we are entitled to request additional adjustments to an airport’s maximum rates under certain circumstances, including the amendment of certain provisions of the Mexican laws and regulations that structure and influence our business, our Mexican concessions provide that such a request will be approved only if the SCT determines that certain events specified in our Mexican concessions have occurred. The circumstances under which we are entitled to an adjustment are described under “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework – Mexican Aeronautical Services Regulation – Special Adjustments to Maximum RatesRates.”. Therefore, there can be no assurance that any such request would be made or granted. For a discussion of the framework for establishing our maximum rates in Mexico and the application of these rates, see “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework – Mexican Aeronautical Services Regulation.”

The Jamaican Airports (Economic Regulation) Act mandates the Jamaica Civil Aviation Authority, or “JCAA,” to regulate five categories of charges: passenger charges, aircraft landing and parking charges, passenger walkway charges and airport security charges. Every five-year period, MBJA is entitled to submit to the JCAA its proposal for increases to the maximum regulated charges as justified by a schedule of five-year estimates for traffic growth and investment commitments (including capital expenditures for capital projects and required improvements at the Montego Bay airport under MBJA’s concession agreement) (a “Capital Development Program”). After its review of the preceding period’s maximum regulated rates and these estimates, the JCAA makes its determination as to the maximum regulated charges for the succeeding five-year period. Under the terms of the Montego Bay airport concession agreement with the Airports Authority of Jamaica, or “AAJ,” upon the JCAA’s approval of the new maximum regulated charges, MBJA has a commitment to fulfill the estimated capital expenditures included in the Capital Development Program. The last review by the JCAA of these maximum regulated charges for the Montego Bay airport was completed in November 2014; changes resulting from that review period took effect in April 2015 and will remain in effect through March 2020. However, this review resulted in the JCAA setting maximum regulated charges for the Montego Bay airport below the proposed increases, and the AAJ has not similarly reduced the estimated capital expenditures included in the Capital Development Program. These maximum rates for regulated charges are adjusted annually for inflation based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index (“U.S. CPI”). For a discussion of the framework for establishing MBJA’s maximum regulated charges in Jamaica, see “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework – Jamaican Aeronautical Services Regulation.” MBJA has an obligation under the concession agreement to satisfy certain requirements applicable to a Capital Development Program. We cannot provide assurance that AAJ will determine that any such Capital Development Program complies with the applicable requirements under the concession agreement, or that AAJ will not request MBJA to undertake additional capital expenditures.

Under the terms of our concessions, there is no guarantee that our consolidated results of operations or the results of operations of any airport will be profitable.

Our results of operations may be adversely affected by required efficiency adjustments to our maximum rates.rates in Mexico.

In addition, our maximum rates in Mexico are subject to annual efficiency adjustments, which have the effect of reducing the maximum rates for each year to reflect projected efficiency improvements. For both of the five-year terms ending 2014 and 2019, an annual efficiency adjustment factor of 70 basis points0.7% was established by the SCT. Future annual efficiency adjustments will be determined by the SCT in connection with the setting of each Mexican airport’s maximum rates every five years. For a description of these efficiency adjustments, see “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework – Mexican Aeronautical Services Regulation – Methodology for Determining Future Maximum RatesRates.”. We cannot provide assurance that we will achieve efficiency improvements sufficient to allow us to maintain or increase our operating income as a result of the progressive decrease in each Mexican airport’s maximum rate.

If we exceed the maximum rate at any Mexican airport at the end of any year, we could be subject to sanctions.

Historically, we have set the prices we charge for aeronautical services at each Mexican airport to come as close as possible to the authorized maximum rate for that airport in any given year. We expect to continue to pursue this pricing strategy in the future. For example, in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2014,2015, our revenues subject to maximum rate regulation represented 100.0%, 100.0%99.9% and 99.9%100.0%, respectively, of the amount we were entitled to earn under the maximum rates for all of our Mexican airports. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish prices in the future that allow us to collect virtually all of the revenues we are entitled to earn from services subject to price regulation.

The specific prices we charge for aeronautical services are determined based on various factors, including projections of passenger traffic volumes, the Mexican Producer Price Index,PPI, excluding petroleum, and the value of the peso relative to the U.S. dollar. These variables are outside of our control. Our projections could differ from the applicable actual data, and if these differences occur at the end of any year, they could cause us to exceed the maximum rate at any one or more of our airports during that year.

If we exceed the maximum rate at any Mexican airport at the end of any year, the SCT may assess a fine and may reduce the maximum rate at that airport in the subsequent year. The imposition of sanctions for violations of certain terms of a concession, including for exceeding an airport’s maximum rate, can result in termination of the concession if the relevant term has been violated and sanctions have been imposed at least three times for the same cause. In the event that any one of our Mexican airport concessions is terminated, our other Mexican airport concessions may also be terminated.

In prior years, in order to ensure our compliance with the maximum rate at a particular airport when the possibility of exceeding that maximum rate has arisen, we have taken actions in the latter part of the year, such as reducing our specific prices and offering discounts. We can offer no assurance that, should external factors cause us to risk exceeding our maximum rates close to or at the end of any given year, we will have sufficient time to take the actions described above in order to avoid exceeding our maximum rates prior to year-end.

If we fail to fulfill the requirements of our Master Development Programs during a given five-year period, we could be subject to sanctions from the Mexican government.

Historically, our capital expenditure commitments under our Master Development Programs are determined by reference to the Mexican Producer Price Index’sPPI’s construction price index. Using the index we aim to be as

close as possible to the five-year period capital expenditure commitments at any time. We expect to continue this capital expenditure control strategy in the future. Using this strategy, our capital expenditure during 2012, 2013, 2014 and 20142015 was 101.1%102.8%, 102.8%101.1% and 101.1%100.9%, respectively, of the commitment for all of our airports during that period.capital expenditure commitments under our Master Development Programs. However, there can be no assurance that our capital

expenditure control strategy will be sufficiently accurate and that we will not fall below our capital expenditure commitments. If, as a consequence of the annual maximum tariff fulfillment review, the SCT determines that we are not in compliance with the committed investments, the government may assess a fine and may reduce the maximum rate of that airport in the subsequent year. Non-compliance with committed investments could also result in the termination of the concession if the relevant term has been violated and sanctions have been imposed at least three times for the same cause. In the event that any one of our Mexican concessions is terminated, our other concessions may also be terminated.

Although in prior years, in order to ensure compliance with our Master Development Programs, we have taken actions in the latter part of the year, such as increasing the amount or pace of certain construction projects, we can give no assurance that, should external factors cause us to risk failing to meet our investment levels, we will have sufficient time to take actions to comply with our Master Development Programs.

Our results of operations could be adversely affected if the airlines fail to collect sufficient Airport Improvement Fees for MBJA to fund, or if MBJA does not receive approval for the use of these funds for, additional capital investments at the Montego Bay airport.

The Airports (Economic Regulation) Act and related agreements require the airlines operating at the Montego Bay airport to charge an Airport Improvement Fee (“AIF”) from embarking international passengers on behalf of MBJA and to deposit the fees on a monthly basis in a trust account controlled by the Jamaican Ministry of Transport and Works (“MTW”). Subject to the MTW’s approval, MBJA may use these funds for additional capital investments not included in the Capital Development Program, as well as for interest expenses relating to the financing thereof. MBJA is required to commit to such additional capital investments in exchange for the right to use the AIF funds.

The MTW approval of collection of AIF funds at the Montego Bay airport was renewed on February 25, 2015 for the period until April 11, 2030, unless otherwise revoked. However, because the MTW’s prior approval of MBJA’s use of AIF funds for specified capital investments expired on April 11, 2015 and has not yet been renewed, MBJA is not currently authorized to use any further AIF funds collected after April 11, 2015.

If MBJA’s passenger traffic projections are above the levels of passenger traffic realized at the Montego Bay airport, the amount of AIF to be collected may not be sufficient to finance any capital projects approved by the MTW and their financial cost. We can provide no assurance that the Montego Bay airport will achieve the passenger traffic required to recover MBJA’s capital investments committed in exchange for the use of the AIF funds.

See “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework – Jamaican Aeronautical Services Regulation.”

If MBJA fails to fulfill the requirements of the Capital Development Program, it could suffer specific negative consequences, including a termination of its concession.

Under its concession agreement, MBJA is required to make capital expenditures in order to meet Capital Development Program requirements. Additionally, MBJA is also responsible for maintaining the tangible concession assets under the concession agreement, which involves capital investment projects and improvements to concession assets. Although in prior years MBJA has complied with all of its committed capital expenditure requirements, if MBJA fails to comply with these terms and conditions of the concession agreement, it could be in default and, if it fails to remedy the breach within the applicable grace period, it could suffer negative consequences, including the termination of its concession.

The Mexican government may terminate or reacquire our Mexican concessions under various circumstances, some of which are beyond our control.

Our concessions are our principal assets, and we would be unable to continue operations without them. A Mexican concession may be revoked by the Mexican government for certain prescribed reasons, including failure to comply with our Master Development Programs, a temporary or permanent halt in our operations, actions affecting the operations of other concession holders in Mexico, failure to pay damages resulting from our operations, exceeding our maximum rates or failure to comply with any other material term of our Mexican concessions. Violations of certain terms of a concession (including violations for exceeding the applicable maximum rate) can result in revocation of a concession only if sanctions have been imposed for violations of the relevant term at least three times. Violations of other terms of a concession can result in the immediate termination of the concession. Our Mexican concessions may also be terminated upon our bankruptcy or insolvency.

We would face similar sanctions for violations of the Mexican Airport Law or the regulations thereunder. Under applicable Mexican law and the terms of our Mexican concessions, our Mexican concessions may also be made subject to additional conditions, including under our renewed Master Development Programs, which we may be unable to meet. Failure to meet these conditions may also result in fines, other sanctions and the termination of the concessions.

The Mexican government may also revoke one or more of our Mexican concessions at any time through reversion, if, in accordance with applicable Mexican law, it determines that it is in the public interest to do so. The Mexican government may also assume the operation of any airport in the event of war, public disturbance or a threat to national security. In addition, in the case of aforce majeure event, the Mexican government may require us to implement certain changes in our operations. In the event of a reversion of the public domain assets that are the subject of our Mexican concessions, the Mexican government under Mexican law is required to compensate us for the value of the concessions or added costs based on the results of an audit performed by appraisers. In the case of a mandated change in our operations, the Mexican government is required to compensate us for the cost of that change. Similarly, in the event of an assumption of our operations, other than in the event of war, the government is required to compensate us and any other affected parties for any resulting damages. There can be no assurance that we would receive compensation equivalent to the value of our investment in, or any additional damages related to, our Mexican concessions and related assets in the event of such action.

In the event that any one of our Mexican airports’ concessions is terminated, whether through revocation or otherwise, our other concessions may also be terminated. Thus, the loss of any concession would have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

The Jamaican government may terminate or reacquire MBJA’s concession under various circumstances, some of which are beyond our control.

The Montego Bay airport concession is MBJA’s principal asset, and MBJA would be unable to continue operations at the Montego Bay airport without it. As owner of the concession assets, the AAJ is entitled under certain circumstances, however, to expel MBJA from all or part of the Montego Bay airport site or to take over or carry on the operation and management of the airport or provision of airport services. The AAJ may step into the public domain assets that are the subject of the Montego Bay airport concession for as long as may be required if it determines that MBJA is in breach of the concession agreement, to prevent material disruptions in service at the Montego Bay airport or in cases of national emergencies. Upon such a step-in by the AAJ, the AAJ must account to MBJA for any revenues collected at the Montego Bay airport during the step-in period. Where the AAJ steps into the public domain assets

that are the subject of the Montego Bay airport concession pursuant to any uncured event of default or to prevent material disruptions in service, MBJA is required to bear all costs (except consequential losses) and expenses associated with the AAJ exercise of its step-in rights. There can be no assurance that MBJA would receive compensation equivalent to the value of its investment in, or any additional damages related to, its concessions and related assets in the event of such action.

Following notice and good-faith consultations to avoid such a result, the AAJ may terminate the concession agreement with MBJA upon an event of default on the part of MBJA. Regardless of cause for termination, a termination fee is due to MBJA upon a termination or revocation of the concession. However, the concession agreement expressly limits the AAJ’s liability to such termination fee. In the event that the AAJ terminates the concession with or without cause, there can be no assurance that the loss of the Montego Bay airport concession would not have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

See “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework – The Montego Bay Airport Concession – AAJ’s Rights to Step In, Terminate or Grant a New Concession.”

The Mexican governmentand Jamaican governments could grant new concessions that compete with our airports.

The Mexican governmentand Jamaican governments could grant additional concessions to operate existing government-managed airports, authorize the construction of new airports or allow existing privately held domestic airports to change into international airports and permit them to receive regular domestic and international flights, all of which could lead to increased competition for our airports.

One factor that may significantly increase competition from other airports is the expansion of the permits of existing private airports that are currently not permitted to operate regular commercial routes. Under Mexican law, any privately held airport that has operated with a permit to provide public service for at least five years automatically acquires the right to also operate regularly scheduled commercial flights and to receive a concession to operate as a public service airport. In addition, through an amendment proposed by the SCT and confirmed by the Presidency, an airport operating with a permit to provide public service could become an international airport. For example, in March 2008 the owner of a small private airport near Cabo San Lucas received a permit to offer public service from the SCT. On November 4, 2009, in response to a petition submitted to the SCT, this airport was authorized to operate regular commercial routes for domestic and international flights. Accordingly, this airport could eventually begin operating domestic or international commercial flights and compete with the Los Cabos International Airport. Until now, we have not experienced any material adverse effect on our business or results of operations from this airport, but it is possible that we may in the future.

Any competition from other such additional airports could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Under certain circumstances, the grant of a concession for a new or existing airport must be made pursuant to a public bidding process. In the event that a competing concession is offered in a public bidding process, we cannot provide assurance that we would participate in such process, or that we would be successful if we were to participate. See “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework – Penalties and Termination and RevocationOther Regulation of Mexican Concessions and Concession Assets – Grants of New Mexican Concessions” and “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework – The Montego Bay Airport Concession – AAJ’s Rights to Step In, Terminate or Grant a New Concession.”

The SCT could require us to monitor certain aircraft movements at our Mexican airports that we do not currently control, which could result in increased costs.

The Mexican Air Traffic Control Authority (Servicios a la Navegación en el Espacio Aéreo Mexicano) currently requires us to manage and control aircraft movements in and out of our arrival and departure gates and remote boarding locations directly at our Guadalajara and Puerto Vallarta International Airports. At our other Mexican airports, these aircraft movements are monitored directly by the Mexican Air Traffic Control Authority. Should the Mexican Air Traffic Control Authority require us to control these aircraft movements directly at any or all of our other ten airports in the future, our results of operations could be negatively impacted by increased operating insurance and liability costs resulting from taking on these obligations.

The Mexican Bureau of Civil Aviationcivil aviation authority could require us to extend the official operating schedule at our Mexican airports, which could result in decreased revenues.

The Mexican BureauDirectorate General of Civil Aviation (Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil) is responsible for establishing the official operating schedules of our Mexican airports. Outside of our Mexican airports’ official hours of operation, we are permitted to double our airport charges for services that we provide. Currently, our airports at Guadalajara, Puerto Vallarta and Morelia have official operating schedules of 24 hours per day. The Mexican BureauDirectorate General of Civil Aviation can issue a decree extending the official operating schedule of one or more of our other airports from its current schedule, which would deprive us of the ability to double our airport charges for off-hour services at airports for which such a decree has been issued. For instance, as of January 17, 2014, the Mexican BureauDirectorate General of Civil Aviation expanded the operating schedule of our Aguascalientes airport from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. There can be no assurance that upon issuance we will be successful in avoiding the consequences of such a decree.

Changes to Mexican laws, regulations and decrees applicable to us could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.

The Mexican government has in recent years implemented various changes to the laws applicable to Mexican companies, including us. The terms of our Mexican concessions do not exempt us from any changes to Mexican laws. Changes to the Mexican constitution or to any other Mexican laws could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.

For instance, in July 2013, the Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Transactions with Proceeds of Illicit Origin was enacted. Its overriding goal is to build up prevention systems as part of the government’s strategies to combat criminal organizations and their activities, such as money laundering, terrorism financing, carjacking, robbery and kidnapping; enhance detection of activities in which illegal proceeds are engaged; and also enforce certain restrictions regarding cash transactions. The law imposes additional obligations and responsibilities on companies’ legal representatives, establishing significant fines and even criminal liability for those who do not comply with the law or who withhold relevant information.

Additionally, as a result of certain 2013 amendments to Mexico’s Constitution, on July 6, 2014, a new Federal Economic Competition Law(Ley Federal de Competencia Económica) went into effect, which, among other things, grants broader powers to the federal competition authority, including the ability to regulate essential facilities. If the new competition authority determines that a specific service or product is an essential facility, it has the ability to regulate access conditions, prices, tariffs or technical conditions for or in connection with the specific service or product. Some of the services we render are public services that are regulated by the Mexican government and we are unsure if the competition authority will apply the new competition law in the same manner and under the same considerations as it would apply to non-regulated service providers. Should the new competition authority determine that all or part of the services we render are considered an essential facility, we may be required to implement significant changes to the way we currently do our business, which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations. For a discussion of the new competition law, see “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework – Sources of Mexican Regulation –Federal– Federal Economic Competition Commission.” Also see “– We cannot predict how the regulations governing our business will be applied.” in this section.

For more detailed information on current sources of regulation governing the operation of airports in Mexico, see “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework – Sources of Mexican Regulation.”

Risks Related to Our Controlling Shareholder

AMP controls our management, and AMP’s interests may differ from those of other shareholders. In the past, disputes among AMP’s shareholders have affected us.

AMP holds Series BB shares currently representing 15% of our outstanding capital stock. The Series BB shares have certain special rights that allow AMP to exercise significant control over our management. Through its right to appoint and remove members of our senior management, AMP has the ability to direct the actions of our management in areas such as business strategy, operations, financing, acquisitions and dispositions of assets or business.

Pursuant to our bylaws, AMP (as holder of our Series BB shares) has the right to appoint and remove our top-level executive officers (upon consultation with our Nominations and Compensation Committee), to elect four members of our board of directors and their alternates and to designate three of

the members of our Operating Committee and 20% of the members of each other board committee (or one member of any committee consisting of fewer than five members), except for the Audit Committee whose members are selected according to Mexican and U.S. independence standards. AMP (as holder of our Series BB shares) also has the right pursuant to our bylaws to veto certain actions requiring the approval of our shareholders (including the approval of our financial statements, increases or decreases of our capital stock, the payment of dividends, the amendment of our bylaws and any decision that has the objective to modify or annul its right to appoint our top-level executive officers). These rights are not conditioned on whether or not the technical assistance agreement and the participation agreement remain in force. Pursuant to our bylaws, if at any time AMP (as the holder of our Series BB shares) were to hold less than 7.65% of our capital stock in the form of Series BB shares, such shares would be mandatorily converted into Series B shares, which would cause AMP to lose all of its special rights. Shareholders of AMP have allocated among themselves certain veto rights relating to the exercise by AMP of its veto and other rights, which increases the risk of impasse at the shareholders’ meeting of AMP and ultimately at our shareholders’ meetings. Differences in points of view among AMP’s shareholders with respect to our management could affect our results of operations. The interests of AMP may differ from those of our other shareholders, and we can offer no assurance that AMP and the officers appointed by AMP will exercise their rights in ways that favor the interests of our other shareholders.

In 2010 and 2011, disputes among AMP’s shareholders affected our shareholders’ meetings and trading of our shares on the Mexican Stock Exchange and the NYSE, as well as involving us in litigation. Notwithstanding those disputes, on December 1, 2011, we were advised by AMP’s shareholders that they had entered into an agreement to end their dispute and to terminate their legal proceedings. As a result, during 2012, all proceedings among AMP’s shareholders including proceedings brought against us were terminated. Additionally, we were informed that AMP’s shareholders agreed to a comprehensive mechanism for decision-making (primarily by consensus, but with specific mechanisms aimed at avoiding deadlocks that could affect our operations), and that AMP’s shareholders will continue developing our business. They also affirmed their intent to defend the rights granted to them by the Mexican government and further confirmed their respective original ownership percentages in AMP.

Stemming from the dispute among AMP’s shareholders, on April 25, 2011, we received a formal notice from the National Banking and Securities Commission (Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores), or “CNBV”)“CNBV,” by which it initiated an administrative proceeding against us for alleged violations of Mexican disclosure statutes primarily in connection with the disputes among AMP’s shareholders during 2010. The formal notice was the first stage in an administrative proceeding by the CNBV to impose economic sanctions on us. On June 3, 2011, we exercised our right to appeal the CNBV’s determination and presented evidence to respond to the notification. On April 24, 2013, we were notified by the CNBV about the imposition of administrative penalties. We challenged these penalties via an administrative proceeding filed on June 27, 2013, before the Fiscal Federal and Administrative Justice Court. This lawsuit has not yet been concluded. See “Item 8, Financial Information – Legal Proceedings —– Infractions of the Mexican Securities Law alleged by the CNBV.”

On November 19, 2014, Controladora Mexicana de Aeropuertos, S.A. de C.V. (“CMA”) entered into an agreement to purchase 33.33% of the capital stock of AMP from Desarrollo de Concesiones Aeroportuarias, S.L. (“DCA”).DCA. Although CMA became 66.66% owner of the capital stock of AMP as a result of this transaction, CMA agreed that the minority shareholders’ consent is required with respect to certain significant actions or decisions. See “Item 7,Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions – Major Shareholders – AMP Trust, Bylaws and Shareholders’ Agreement.”

If any further disputes among AMP’s shareholders were to occur in the future, it is not possible to predict if they would result in deadlock at our shareholders’ meetings or distract our management, or what effects such events might have on the price of our stock, its liquidity or our market value and the effects that these conflicts could have on our business or results of operations. In addition, AMP’s veto, appointment and other rights could adversely impact our operations and constitute an obstacle for us to bring in a new strategic shareholder and/or operator.

If AMP should decide to sell all or a portion of its interest in us, our operations could be adversely affected.

AMP currently exercises a substantial influence over our management, as described above. Our bylaws and certain of the agreements executed in connection with the privatization process prohibited AMP from transferring any of its Series BB shares before August 25, 2004. Since that date, AMP has been permitted to transfer up to 49% of its Series BB shares without restriction. After August 25, 2009, AMP may additionally sell in any year up to 20% of its remaining 51% interest in our Series BB shares. Presently, therefore, AMP is able to sell nearly all of the shares that it owns. Our bylaws provide that, subject to certain exceptions, Series BB shares must be converted into Series B shares prior to transfer. Should AMP divest its interest in us or cease to hold Series BB shares, our management could change and our operations could be adversely and significantly affected as a result.

Our operations could be adversely affected if the technical assistance agreement is not renewed with AMP.

As described above, AMP exercises a substantial influence over our management through the technical assistance agreement, through which AMP provides our airports with expertise in operating in the aeronautical sector and strategic planning guidance to increase aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues, in addition to knowledge of the Mexican government and business sectors and assistance with the negotiation of our Master Development Programs. Therefore, if either we or AMP decides not to renew the technical assistance agreement, it would require time and potentially higher costs for us to replace AMP’s strategic expertise through contracts with new external advisors; apart from the possible higher costs, the need to replace AMP could have an impact on our business strategy and ongoing projects, such as the successful negotiation of tariffs, investments and other elements of our Master Development Programs. As a result, our results of operations could be negatively affected. We were recently involved in a lawsuit regarding the renewal ofFor more detailed information on the technical assistance agreement. For more detailed information,agreement with AMP, see “Item 4,Information on the Company – History and Development of the Company – Investment by AMP.”

Failure to comply with certain requirements of the privatization guidelines and the participation agreement relating to our privatization could have a material and adverse effect on our operations or the value of our securities.

In 1999, as part of the first stage in the process of opening Mexico’s airports to private investment, the Mexican government sold a 15% equity interest in us to AMP pursuant to a public bidding process.

Pursuant to the guidelines published by the Mexican government during the first phase of our privatization and the participation agreement setting forth the rights and obligations of each of the parties involved in our privatization, AMP assumed certain rights and obligations.

Although we believe AMP satisfies all their requirements under the privatization guidelines and the participation agreement, there can be no assurance that allegations or official inquiries relating to AMP’s compliance with its obligations under those requirements will not take place. In the event of future inquiries or an official finding that AMP is or was not in compliance with the requirements of the privatization guidelines or the participation agreement, AMP could be subject to fines and the technical

assistance agreement between us and AMP could be terminated, which could have a material effect on our operations. In addition, there can be no assurance that any such developments would not result in a material decrease in the market value of our shares or ADSs or their liquidity.

Certain actions by Grupo México, S.A.B. de C.V. may affect our management, financial condition or results of operations.

On June 13, 2011, Grupo México, S.A.B. de C.V. (“Grupo México”) announced that its board of directors had approved the acquisition, directly or indirectly, of at least 30%, and up to 100%, of our shares outstanding at that time, excluding treasury shares, through a public tender offer. At that time, Grupo México had disclosed that it owned 20% of our total outstanding capital stock, all in the form of Series B shares. On March 29, 2012, Grupo México informed its shareholders that it had withdrawn its request for the authorization for a public tender offer from the Mexican National Banking and Securities Commission (Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores).

In its most recent filing on Schedule 13D with the SEC on April 6, 2015, Grupo México disclosed that it owned 20.0% of our total outstanding capital stock.

Articles X and XII of our bylaws, among others, limit the ability of Series B shareholders, directly or with related parties, other than AMP, to hold more than 10% of our outstanding capital stock, and any shares held in excess of that amount must be sold in a public offering. In accordance with our bylaws, until the public offering of such shares takes place, such excess shares have no voting power and cannot be represented in any shareholders’ meeting.

On June 13, 2011, Grupo México, S.A.B. de C.V. (“Grupo México”) announced that its board of directors had approved the acquisition, directly or indirectly, of at least 30%, and up to 100%, of our shares outstanding at that time, excluding treasury shares, through a public tender offer. At that time, Grupo México disclosed that it owned 20% of our total outstanding capital stock, all in the form of Series B shares. Grupo México and its subsidiary, Infraestructura y Transportes México, S.A. de C.V. (“ITM”), then commenced two legal proceedings, among others, seeking (i) to modify our bylaws to eliminate the foregoing limitations and (ii) to terminate AMP’s special rights that stem from AMP’s ownership of our Series BB shares. The proceeding regarding AMP’s special rights is currently pending. If successful, these proceedings could affect AMP’s special rights (for additional information, see “—AMP controls our management, and AMP’s interests may differ from those of other shareholders” in this section). The proceeding regarding the modification of our bylaws is also pending.

Initially, Grupo México obtained a favorable decision from a civil court in Mexico City. We appealed this decision; however, on February 25, 2013 we were notified that the decision was affirmed on appeal by the appellate court. We filed a directamparo appeal on March 19, 2013, which will be resolved by a federal court. On April 10, 2013, we were informed that the court ordered the suspension of the civil courts’ decisions, pending the resolution of our appeal. On February 19, 2014,June 17, 2015, the Mexican Supreme Court agreed to reviewissued anamparoruling upholding the legal proceedingvalidity of Articles X and XII of our bylaws regarding the limitations on ownership limits containedof our capital stock. On February 17, 2016, the Superior Court of Mexico City declared that Grupo México and ITM were in violation of the Company’s bylaws.

Althoughbylaws due to the fact that together they held more than 10% of our outstanding capital stock, and ordered Grupo México prevailedand ITM to sell any Series “B” shares held in excess of that limit. Consequently, the lower courts in the proceeding regarding our bylaws, these decisions have been suspended while the Supreme Court proceeding continues to be pending. Consequently, until a final decision is issued, our bylaws remain valid and binding upon our shareholders, including the obligation to dispose of shares heldchallenge initiated by Grupo México aboveand ITM against these articles has been definitively concluded, with the 10% threshold specifiedruling confirming the validity and effectiveness of these articles in our bylaws. Nonetheless,support of the position we cannot predict the contentmaintained and scope of any judicial decision, and a decision by the Supreme Court that is adverse to our bylaws could materially and adversely affect AMP’s special rights and our future management, policies, strategies and results of operations.defended. See “Item 8,Financial Information – Legal Proceedings – Litigation related to Grupo México, S.A.B. de C.V. and suits seeking to void certain of our bylawsbylaws..”

On November 16, 2013, an Extraordinary Shareholders’ Meeting was convoked by means of a judicial order issuedIn its most recent filing on November 12, 2013 bySchedule 13D with the 38th Judge for Civil Matters in the Federal District, in response to a petition submitted bySEC on March 3, 2016, Grupo México. This Extraordinary Shareholders’ Meeting was to take place on December 3, 2013. The stated objectivexico disclosed that it owned 16.0% of the meeting was the possible approval of the non-renewal of the technical assistance agreement with AMP. We filed anamparo proceeding before the federal 6th Civil District Court for the First Circuit in order to halt the carrying out of the shareholders’ meeting, and a provisional suspension of the shareholders’ meeting was granted on November 27, 2013. In addition, we filed for an injunction against the meeting before the 10th Judge for Commercial Matters for the city of Guadalajara, Jalisco, from which we also received a favorable decision on November 29, 2013. Grupo México appealed this latter injunction, and they were successful in getting

this injunction lifted on December 2, 2013. However, Grupo México did not appeal the November 27, 2013 injunction. Nonetheless, the Extraordinary Shareholders’ Meeting did take place, in contravention of the court orders issued in respect of theamparoproceedings. On February 21, 2014, a Mexican federal final court of appeals declared the shareholders’ meeting that took place on December 3, 2013 fully null and void; as a result, all resolutions approved at this meeting were similarly declared null and void. See “Item 8,Financial Information – Legal Proceedings – Grupo México, S.A.B. de C.V. convokes Extraordinary Shareholders’ Meeting via irregular channels.”

total outstanding shares. Although this resolution isthese decisions are definitive and not appealable, it is possible that Grupo México will seek to challenge our management on other matters or through other legal means, which may present further disruptions for our management and the Company.

It is not possible to predict the extent to which these disputes with Grupo México will distract our management, the effects that future developments in this dispute might have on the price of our stock, its liquidity or our market value or the effects that these conflicts could have on our business or results of operations.

We filed a suit against all Mexican stock brokers requiring themmay not continue adhering to adhere tothe injunction from trading in our capital stock when such trading would result in a violation of our bylaws, and to enjoin them from acquiringwe cannot we predict whether we would be successful in enforcing our capital stock for Grupo México and its subsidiaries. Actions by thebylaws upon Mexican stock brokers in response to this suit may affect us.brokers.

In accordance with a decision of a Mexican court that instructed us and our directors and officers to take all necessary legal measures to maintain and protect our bylaws, on February 15, 2012 we initiated a lawsuit against all Mexican stock market brokers seeking that theMexican stock market brokers strictly adhere to our bylaws and to restrictby restricting the sale of our shares to Grupo México and its subsidiaries if, in violation of our bylaws, they hold, individually or in the aggregate, more than 10% of our total

outstanding capital stock.

On February 29, 2012, we were informed that a court issued preliminary injunctions that required Mexican stock brokers to, among other things, refrain from trading our shares for an individual, group or group of related entities, thatwhere such a trade could result in any way in the acquisition of an ownership position that exceeds the 10% maximum allowed by Article X of our bylaws. On December 14, 2012, the State of Jalisco’s Fifth Mercantile Court issued a new ruling that lifted the injunctions. We appealed that order through an indirectamparo on January 3, 2013. On October 30, 2013, a final appellate court ratified the injunctions, overturning the order issued in December 2012. See “Item 8,Financial Information – Legal Proceedings – We filed legal action against all the Mexican stock market brokers, seeking adherence to our bylaws.”

We cannot predict the consequences from this proceeding or the future actions of the Mexican stock brokers, including any limitations on our access to financing. It is also not possible to predict what effects future developments in this dispute might have on the price of our stock, its liquidity or our market value and the effects that this conflict could have on our business or results of operations.

Risks Related to Mexico

Adverse economic conditions in Mexico may adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

All of our operations are conducted in Mexico and are dependent upon the performance of the Mexican economy. As a result, our business, financial condition or results of operations may be affected by the general condition of the Mexican economy, over which we have no control. In the past, Mexico has experienced economic crises, caused by internal and external factors, characterized by exchange rate instability (including large devaluations), high inflation, high domestic interest rates, economic contraction, a reduction of international capital flows, a reduction of liquidity in the banking sector and high unemployment rates. We cannot assure that such conditions will not return or that such conditions will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Mexico began to enter a recession in the fourth quarter of 2008, during which GDP fell by approximately 1.6% and inflation increased by 2.5%. According to the Mexican National Institute for Statistics and Geography (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía), or “INEGI”),“INEGI,” GDP fell by an additional 6.5% and inflation increased by an additional 3.6% in 2009. The Mexican economy has since rebounded, and gross domestic product increased 3.9% in 2012, 1.1% in 2013, and 4.1% in 2014 and 2.5 % in 2015, in each case compared with the previous year.

While interest rates in Mexico have remained at historical lows, Mexico has had, and in the future may have, high real and nominal interest rates. The annualized interest rates for Mexican Treasury Bills (Cetes) issued for the 28-day period averaged approximately 4.2%3.7%, 3.7%,3.0% and 3.0% for 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2014,2015, respectively. As of April 10, 2015,8, 2016, the Interbank Equilibrium Interest Rate (Tasa de Interés Interbancaria de Equilibrio), or “TIIE”)“TIIE,” issued for the 28-day period was 3.0%4.1%. To the extent that we incur peso-denominated debt in the future, it could be at high interest rates.

If the Mexican economy does not continue to recover, if inflation or interest rates increase significantly or if the Mexican economy is otherwise adversely impacted, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Depreciation or fluctuation of the peso relative to the U.S. dollar could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Any future significant appreciation or depreciation of the peso could impact our aggregate passenger traffic volume, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Following the devaluation of the peso and the economic crisis beginning in 1994, the aggregate passenger traffic volume in our airports in 1995 (then operated by our predecessor) decreased as compared to prior years, reflecting a decrease in Mexican passenger traffic volume that more than offset an increase in international passenger traffic volume. Another substantial decrease in value could occur, and it could (notwithstanding other factors) lead to a decrease in domestic passenger traffic that may not be offset by any increase in international passenger traffic. In 2012, the peso appreciated 7.1% against the dollar. In 2013, the peso depreciated 1.0% against the U.S. dollar. In 2014, the peso depreciated 12.6%12.9% against the U.S. dollar. In 2015, the peso depreciated 16.7% against

the U.S. dollar. Any future significant depreciation of the peso could impact our aggregate passenger traffic volume by increasing the cost of travel for domestic passengers, while any future significant appreciation of the peso could impact our aggregate passenger volume by increasing the cost of travel for international passengers.

AlthoughIn 2014, all of our current indebtedness iswas denominated in pesos, depending on economic and credit market conditionspesos. Due to the acquisition of 100% of the shares of DCA in Mexico,2015, we may incur dollar-denominated debt to finance investments we makeincurred indebtedness in the future. Under this scenario, aU.S. dollars. A devaluation of the peso would increase the debt service cost of such U.S. dollar-denominated indebtedness and result in foreign exchange losses. In 2015, approximately 99% of MBJA’s operating revenues and 60% of its operating expenses and capital expenditures were denominated in U.S. dollars, with the remaining 40% of operating expenses and capital expenditures denominated in Jamaican dollars, which are pegged to the U.S. dollar. All of MBJA’s indebtedness was also denominated in U.S. dollars in 2015. Accordingly, fluctuations in the exchange rate between the Mexican peso and the U.S. dollar may also affect our performance through the consolidation of MBJA’s financial and operating results.

In addition, fluctuations in the exchange rate between the peso and the U.S. dollar, particularly depreciations, may adversely affect the U.S. dollar equivalent of the peso price of the Series B shares on the Mexican Stock Exchange. As a result, such peso depreciations will likely affect the market price of the ADSs. Exchange rate fluctuations would also affect the ADS depositary’s ability to convert into U.S. dollars, and make timely payment of, any peso cash dividends and other distributions paid in respect of the Series B shares.

The value and prices of securities issued by Mexican companies may be adversely affected by developments in other countries.

The Mexican economy may be, to varying degrees, affected by economic and market conditions in other countries. Although economic conditions in other countries may differ significantly from economic conditions in Mexico, investors’ reactions to adverse developments in other countries may have an adverse effect on the market value of securities of Mexican issuers. For instance, the credit freeze and global recession that began in 2007 and continued into 2009 had a significant impact in Mexico. Mexico’s stock market fell 48% during that period. Similarly, the European debt crisis that began in Greece and then spread to other countries such as Italy and Spain as well as European financial institutions, affected financial markets around the world and in Mexico.

In addition, economic conditions in Mexico are strongly correlated with economic conditions in the United States as a result of NAFTA and increased economic activity between the two countries. Therefore, adverse economic conditions in the United States, the termination of NAFTA or other related events could have a material adverse effect on the Mexican economy. We cannot provide assurance that events in other emerging market countries, in the United States or elsewhere, will not materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Political conditions in Mexico could materially and adversely affect Mexican economic policy or business conditions and, in turn, our operations.

The Mexican government has exercised, and continues to exercise, significant influence over the Mexican economy. Mexican governmental actions concerning the economy could have a significant impact on Mexican private sector entities in general, as well as on market conditions and prices and returns on Mexican securities, including our securities.

Enrique Peña Nieto, a member of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (“PRI”), began a six-year term as presidentPresident of Mexico on December 1, 2012, after being elected to office on July 1, 2012. As with any governmental change, this change to the country’s administration may lead to significant changes in laws, public policies or regulations, may affect the political and economic environment in Mexico, and

consequently, they may contribute to economic uncertainty and to heightened volatility of the Mexican capital markets and in securities issued by Mexican companies. In addition, because in the July 1, 2012 election for Congress, no single party obtained a clear majority, governmental gridlock and political uncertainty may occur.

We cannotcan provide any assurancesno assurance that changes in the policies of Mexico’s federal government will not have an adverse effect on our business, financial conditions and results of operations. Consequently, we cannotcan provide assurancesno assurance that Mexican political or social developments, over which we have no control, will not adversely affect our financial conditions, results of operations, our ability to make dividend payments to our shareholders or the market price of our securities.

Federal tax legislation in Mexico may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of our operations.

The Mexican government has in recent years implemented various changes to the tax laws applicable to Mexican companies. The terms of our Mexican concessions do not exempt us from generally applicable Mexican tax laws. Changes to tax laws and regulations in Mexico could significantly increase our tax expense, which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.

On January 1, 2014, new tax laws came into force following tax reform in Mexico. Among other changes, these changes in law maintained the income tax rate on corporations of 30%; imposed withholding tax in respect of dividends paid to Mexican and foreign shareholders; eliminated deductions

previously allowed in respect of payments between related parties or certain foreign corporations; limited the tax deductions for certain benefits paid to employees; and increased the value-added tax in certain areas of Mexico.

We have analyzed the scope and implications of the tax reform 2014 on us. In part based on our analysis, we filed anamparo in February 2014 to protect certain rights that we believe were violated by the implementation of these changes in tax law. Nonetheless, we cannot predict the impact that the changes in law will have, if fully implemented and applied to us, on our business, financial condition and results of operations, as a result of higher payroll taxes and higher costs due to additional compliance measures. In addition, we cannot predict the indirect impact that this legislation could have on our customers and shareholders; as one possible effect, our shareholders may be required to pay more taxes than they would have paid prior to the implementation of these tax reforms. Theamparo remains pending.

Our business could be adversely affected if penalties are imposed on us or any of our Mexican airports by the Mexican tax authority.

The Mexican tax authority (Servicio de Administración Tributaria), or “SAT,” has the right to review any of our subsidiaries’ tax calculations for the previous five fiscal years. If the tax authority determines that our subsidiaries’ taxes have been underpaid in any of these years, it may require payment of the difference, and any applicable additional penalties. Such fees and penalties may have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our business could be adversely affected by other claims by certain Mexican municipalities.

Certain of our Mexican airports are subject to claims by the municipalities in which they operate regarding our failure to obtain certain municipal licenses. Although we do not believe that we are subject to the license requirements at issue, if the municipalities require additional licenses or make changes to the current laws and we are unable to obtain the necessary licenses or if we do not prevail in proceedings challenging these requirements, our failure to obtain these licenses could have a material adverse effect on the operations of certain of our airports and consequently on our financial condition and results of operations.

High incidences of crime in Mexico and violence related to drug trafficking could adversely affect our business.

Travel alerts issued by the U.S. Department of State (BureauBureau of Consular Affairs),Affairs, the most recent as of December 24, 2014 (the “Travel Warnings”),January 19, 2016, informed of the risks of traveling in Mexico due to (i) threats to safety and security posed by transnational criminal organizations in the country and (ii) increased violence in many towns and cities across Mexico. TheThese travel warningsalerts emphasize the extent of criminal activity in the states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Guerrero, Michoacán,Michoacan, Sinaloa, Sonora and Tamaulipas. According to the Travel Warnings,U.S. Department of State, while millions of U.S. citizens safely visit Mexico each year, some are victims of violence.

Higher incidences of crime throughout Mexico and drug trafficking-related violence could have an adverse effect on our business as it may decrease the international passenger traffic directed to Mexico or the domestic passenger travel using our airports in affected states.

Natural disasters could adversely affect our business.

The Pacific and Central regions of Mexico experience seasonal torrential rains and hurricanes (particularly during the months of July through September), as well as earthquakes. Natural disasters may impede operations, damage infrastructure necessary to our operations or adversely affect the destinations served by our airports. Any of these events could reduce our passenger traffic volume.

For example, on September 14, 2014, Hurricane Odile moved through the Baja California coastal area, damaging our La Paz and Los Cabos airports. The La Paz airport terminal experienced minor damage, while the Los Cabos airport experienced damage to the building, including the detachment of the roof covering in Terminal 1 and the collapse of ceiling panels in Terminal 2. The Los Cabos airport also suffered damage to the runways, taxiways and aprons. The Los Cabos airport remained closed to commercial flights for eighteen days, receiving authorization on October 3, 2014 from the Mexican Bureau of Civil Aviation to re-open for domestic and international commercial flights. We estimate that the effect on passenger traffic at the Los Cabos airport was a one-time loss of approximately 269.6 thousand passengers in the last quarter of 2014. We are gradually repairing the remaining areas of the airport, and expect to complete these renovations in April 2015. The cost to refurbish the terminal building and replace damaged equipment is estimated at Ps.300.0 million, which we will seek to recover through our insurance policies, but we cannot provide any assurances that we will be able to recover all or most of this amount.

The occurrence of natural disasters in the destinations we serve could adversely affect our business, results of operations, prospects and financial condition. We have insured the physical facilities at our airports against damage caused by natural disasters, accidents or other similar events, but do not

have insurance covering losses due to resulting business interruption. Moreover, should losses occur, there can be no assurance that losses caused by damages to the physical facilities will not exceed the pre-established limits on any of our insurance policies.

Increased environmental regulation and enforcement in Mexico may affect us.

The level of environmental regulation in Mexico is increasing and the enforcement of environmental laws has become more common. There can be no assurance that environmental regulations or their enforcement will not change in a manner that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, prospects or financial condition.

Minority shareholders may be less able to enforce their rights against us, our directors, or our controlling shareholders in Mexico.

Under Mexican law, the protections afforded to minority shareholders are different from those afforded to minority shareholders in the United States. For example, because provisions concerning fiduciary duties of directors have only recently been incorporated into the new Securities Market Law, it may be difficult for minority shareholders to bring an action against directors for breach of this duty and achieve the same results as in most jurisdictions in the United States. In addition, the procedures for class action lawsuits were incorporated into Mexican law and became effective in March 2012; however, certain rules and procedures could be different than the ones in the United States. Therefore, in some cases it may be more difficult for minority shareholders to enforce their rights against us, our directors, or our controlling shareholders than it would be for minority shareholders of a U.S. company.

We are subject to different corporate disclosure and accounting standards than U.S. companies.

A principal objective of the securities laws of the United States, Mexico and other countries is to promote full and fair disclosure of all material corporate information, including accounting information. However, there may be different or less publicly available information about issuers of securities in Mexico than is regularly made available by public companies in countries with highly developed capital markets, including the United States.

In addition, accounting standards and disclosure requirements in Mexico differ from those of the United States. Our Financial Statementsfinancial statements are prepared in accordance with IFRS, which differs from U.S. GAAP in a number of respects. Items on the financial statements of a company prepared in accordance with IFRS may not reflect its financial position or results of operations in the way they would be reflected, if such financial statements had been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP.

Risks Related to Our Business Acquisition

We may fail to realize the benefits anticipated from our new Jamaican airport business.

Our Spanish subsidiary, DCA, holds a 74.5% stake in MBJA, the Jamaican entity that holds the concession for the Montego Bay airport. While MBJA is a similarly positioned airport concessionaire, we may be unable to fully implement our business plans and strategies for the integration of DCA’s business into ours. The business growth opportunities, revenue benefits, cost savings and other benefits we anticipated to result from our acquisition of DCA may not be achieved as expected, or may be delayed. To the extent that we incur higher integration costs or achieve lower revenue benefits or fewer cost savings than expected, or if we are required to recognize impairments of acquired assets, investments or goodwill, our results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

The increase in our leverage as a result of our acquisition of DCA could significantly affect our results of operations and financial condition.

In order to conclude the acquisition of DCA in April 2015, we incurred significant amounts of debt as compared with our previous debt levels, which could adversely affect our capital structure and reduce available cash flow. Our outstanding consolidated indebtedness to banks, financial institutions and others was Ps.6.55 billion as of December 31, 2015. This indebtedness may constrain our ability to raise incremental financing or increase the cost at which we could raise and maintain any such financing or impair our ability to take advantage of significant business opportunities that may arise. We cannot assure you that our business will generate cash in an amount sufficient to enable us to service our debt or to fund our other liquidity needs, which may adversely affect our overall performance. We may need to refinance all or a portion of our debt on or before maturity, and we cannot assure you that we will be able to refinance any of our debt on commercially reasonable terms.

Covenants in our newly incurred indebtedness may limit our discretion with respect to certain business matters.

The instruments governing our indebtedness or the indebtedness of our operating entities may contain restrictive covenants limiting our discretion with respect to certain business matters. These covenants could place significant restrictions on, among other things, our ability to incur additional liabilities, acquire new equity investments, create liens or other encumbrances or make certain other payments, investments, loans and guarantees. These covenants could also require us to meet certain financial ratios and financial condition tests. A failure to comply with any such covenants could result in a default which, if not cured or waived, could permit acceleration of the relevant indebtedness.

Risks Related to Jamaica

Adverse economic conditions in Jamaica may adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

Despite 99% of the passenger traffic through the Montego Bay airport consisting of international passengers, the general condition and performance of the Jamaican economy, over which we have no control, may affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. Jamaica is a small, emerging market country, which has struggled with low growth and high public debt. Due to its size, indebtedness, reliance on exports to a small number of principal markets, such as the United States and Canada, and the concentration of its economic activity in its three principal industries of sugar production, bauxite mining and tourism, the Jamaican economy is highly susceptible to external shocks. Jamaica is also affected by social and security problems, including, among others, trafficking in drugs and high rates of violent crime, underemployment and youth unemployment.

In 2013, the Jamaican government began a comprehensive economic reform program, for which it obtained a multilateral financial support package of approximately U.S.$2 billion over four years, including a U.S.$932 million credit facility from the International Monetary Fund and U.S.$510 million credit facilities from the World Bank Group and the Inter-American Development Bank. The program aims to stabilize the economy by reducing debt and improving the balance of payments position. This reform program has begun to restore confidence in the Jamaican economy: Jamaica jumped 27 places to 58th among 189 economies worldwide in the World Bank Group’s 2015 Doing Business ranking.

If Jamaican inflation or interest rates increase significantly or if the Jamaican economy is otherwise adversely impacted, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

Political conditions in Jamaica could materially and adversely affect Jamaican economic policy or business conditions and, in turn, our operations in Jamaica.

National elections to determine which party forms the Jamaican government for the next five years were held in February 2016, which resulted in the Jamaica Labour Party (“JLP”) holding a majority of the seats in both houses of Parliament. The previous ruling party, the People’s National Party (“PNP”) advocated for the continued implementation of public policies and private partnerships to encourage infrastructure development in the tourism sector, including the expansion of the Montego Bay airport in partnership with the owner of its concession. The change in ruling political parties in Jamaica may lead to significant modifications of the economic and regulatory policies pursued by the previous administration. Any subsequent changes in legislation could have a negative impact on our business, financial condition, performance of operations and cash flows.

Our business in Jamaica is subject to substantial governmental regulation.

The Montego Bay airport concession is regulated principally by the AAJ, an agency of the Jamaican government, under the Airports Authority Act of 1974. In April 2003, the AAJ divested operational responsibility for the Montego Bay airport to MBJA under a concession agreement pursuant to which MBJA is responsible for the management of the day-to-day operations of the Montego Bay airport in keeping with specific performance criteria and prescribed international standards. The AAJ retains ownership of the non-movable assets of the airport. MBJA pays a concession tax to the Jamaican government and at the end of the contract will transfer the Montego Bay airport’s infrastructure and any moveable assets acquired during the period of the concession to the AAJ. Regular performance reviews and other contract administration oversight functions are conducted by the AAJ, as specified under the concession agreement. There can be no assurance that governmental regulations or their enforcement will not change in a manner that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, prospects or financial condition. See “Item 4,Information on the Company – Regulatory Framework.”

High incidences of crime in Jamaica and violence related to drug trafficking could adversely affect our business.

The U.S. Department of State’s Jamaica 2015 Crime and Safety Report states that organized crime and other criminal elements are prevalent and extremely active in Jamaica, and advises U.S. citizens to avoid travelling into certain areas of Montego Bay. Jamaica is a transit point for South American cocaine en route to the United States, Canada and Europe, and is also the largest Caribbean producer and exporter of marijuana. Higher incidences of crime and drug trafficking-related violence in Jamaica could have an adverse effect on our business as it may decrease the international passenger traffic directed to Jamaica.

Item 4.

Information on the Company

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMPANY

We were incorporated in 1998 as part of the Mexican government’s program for the opening of Mexico’s airports to private investment. The duration of our corporate existence has been set at 100 years. We hold concessions to operate, maintain and develop twelve international airports in the Pacific and Central regions of Mexico. Each of our concessions has a term of 50 years beginning on November 1, 1998. The term of each of our concessions may be extended by the SCT under certain circumstances for up to 50 additional years.Mexico and one international airport in Jamaica. As operator of the twelve airports under our concessions, we charge airlines, passengers and other usersusers’ fees for the use of the airports’ facilities. We also derive rental and other income from commercial activities conducted at our airports, such as the leasing of space to restaurants and retailers. For a description of our capital expenditures, see “—Master Development Programs” below.

Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacífico, S.A.B. de C.V. is, a corporation (sociedad anónima bursátil de capital variable) organized under the laws of Mexico. Mexico, was incorporated in 1998 as part of the Mexican government’s initiative to open Mexico’s airports to private investment. The corporation’s period of duration is set at 100 years.

Each of our Mexican concessions has a term of 50 years beginning on November 1, 1998. The term of each of our Mexican concessions may be extended by the SCT under certain circumstances for up to 50 additional years. Our Spanish subsidiary, DCA, holds a 74.5% stake in MBJA, the entity that holds the concession to operate, maintain and utilize the Montego Bay International Airport in Jamaica for a period of 30 years beginning on April 12, 2003.

The address of our registered office is as set forth on the cover of this annual report on Form 20-F. Our telephone number is +52 (33) 3880-1100. Our U.S. agent is Puglisi & Associates. Our U.S. agent’s address is 850 Library Avenue, Suite 204, Newark, Delaware 19711.

Opening of Mexican Airports to Private Investment

In February 1998, the Mexican government issued the Investment Guidelines for the Opening of Investment in the Mexican Airport System. Under these guidelines, the SCT identified 35 of Mexico’s 58 principal airports as being suitable for investment. These 35 airports were divided into four airport groups: Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacífico, S.A.B. de C.V.or the Pacific Airport Group (currently consisting of our twelve Mexican airports);Grupo Aeroportuario del Sureste,, or the Southeast Airport Group (currently consisting of nine airports),Grupo Aeroportuario de la Ciudad de México D.F,.D.F., or the Mexico City Airport Group (currently consisting of one airport) andGrupo Aeroportuario del Centro-Norte,, or the Central-North Airport Group (currently consisting of thirteen airports).

The guidelines generally provided for the airport groups to become open to private investment through a two-stage program. All of the groups except the Mexico City Group have completed both stages of the program.

In the first stage, a series of public bidding processesauctions were conducted to award a minority interest in each airport group to a strategic shareholder. In the second stage, all or a portion of the remaining interest in each airport group was sold through public offerings in the Mexican and international capital markets. Except for the Mexico City Airport Group, all of the other airport groups have completed both stages of the program.

As a result of the opening of Mexico’s airports to private investment, we and our subsidiaries are no longer subject to the Mexican regulations applicable to government wholly-owned companies. We believe that this provides us greater flexibility to develop and implement our business strategy and to respond to potential business opportunities.

Investment by AMP

In 1999, through a public auction held as part of the first stage inof the process of opening Mexico’s airports toprivate investment program, the Mexican government sold a 15% equity interest in us to AMP, pursuant to a public bidding process.AMP.

The following are AMP’s current shareholders:

Aena, S.A. operates 46 airports and two heliports in Spain and is one of the largest airport operators in the world. Pursuant to the privatization guidelines described above, Aena Internacional is one of AMP’s two key partners, acting as its operating Aena operates 46 airports and two heliports in Spain and is one of the largest airport operators in the world. Pursuant to the privatization guidelines described above, Aena Internacional is one of AMP’s two key partners, acting as its designated “operating” partner. In addition to its investment in AMP, Aena Internacional also directly manages two other airports in Latin America, and owns 51.0% of London Luton Airport Holding III Limited, a British airport company that owns the airport company concessionaire of the London Luton Airport.

In 1999, addition to its investment in AMP, Aena Internacional also owns 51.0% of London Luton Airport Holding III Limited, a British airport company that owns the airport company concessionaire of the London Luton Airport in the United Kingdom, as well as relevant stakes in two other airport concession companies in Latin America.

AMP paid the Mexican government a total of Ps.2.45 billion (nominal pesos, excluding interest) (U.S.$261 million based on the exchange rates in effect on the date of AMP’s bid) in exchange for:

The Technical Assistance Agreement with AMP

Under the technical assistance agreement, AMP provides management and consulting services and transfers industry expertise and technology to us in exchange for a fee. The agreement provides us an exclusive license in Mexico to use all technical assistance and expertise transferred to us by AMP or its shareholders during the term of the agreement. AMP provides us assistance in various areas, including development of our commercial activities, preparation of marketing studies focusing on increasing passenger traffic, assistance with the preparation of the Master Development Programs that we are required to submit to the SCT and the improvement of our airport operations. Our management believes that if we were not to receive the lack of technical assistance provided via our agreement with AMP, this could adversely and significantly affect our results of operations.

Upon expiration, the agreement automatically renews for successive five-year terms unless one party provides notice of termination at least 60 days prior to a scheduled expiration date. Under our bylaws, a decision by us to renew or cancel the technical assistance agreement is subject to the approval of 51% of Series B shareholders other than AMP or any related party of AMP (to the extent that AMP or any such related party holds Series B shares). A party may also terminate the technical assistance agreement prior to its expiration date upon non-compliance with its terms by the other party. The technical assistance agreement with AMP was automatically renewed on August 25, 2014 for five additional years. The automatic renewal of the technical assistance agreement was the subject of a lawsuit against us, which resulted in a judgment favorable to us. For more detailed information, see “Item 8,Financial Information – Legal Proceedings – Grupo México, S.A.B. de C.V. convokes Extraordinary Shareholders’ Meeting via irregular channels.”

In 2014,2015, the technical assistance fee amounted to Ps.194.2Ps.234.9 million. Since January 1, 2002, the technical assistance fee has been equal to the greater of U.S.$4.0 million, adjusted annually for U.S. inflation since August 25, 2000 (measured by the U.S. Consumer Price Index)CPI), or 5% of our annual consolidated income from operations from our Mexican airports (calculated prior to deducting the technical assistance fee, income taxes and depreciation and amortization, in each case determined in accordance with Mexican Financial Reporting Standards, or MFRS). We believe that this structure creates an incentive for AMP to increase our annual consolidated earnings. AMP is also entitled to reimbursement for the out-of-pocket expenses it incurs in its provision of services under the agreement.

The technical assistance agreement allows AMP, its shareholders and their affiliates to render additional services to us only if our Acquisitions Committee determines that these related parties have submitted the most favorable bid in a public bidding process involving at least three unrelated parties. For a description of this Committee,committee, see Item 6 herein. Our bylaws, the participation agreement and the technical assistance agreement also contain certain other provisions designed to avoid conflicts of interest between AMP and us.

AMP’s Rights and Obligations under Our Bylaws

Pursuant to our bylaws, AMP (as holder of our Series BB shares) has the right to appoint and remove our top-level executive officers (upon consultation with our Nominations and Compensation Committee), to elect four members of our board of directors and their alternates and to designate three of the members of our Operating Committee and 20% of the members of each other board committee (or one member of any committee consisting of fewer than five members). According to Mexican and United StatesU.S. independence standards, the members of our Audit Committee must be independent. Pursuant to our bylaws, AMP (as holder of our Series BB shares) also has the right to veto certain actions requiring approval by our shareholders (including the payment of dividends, the amendment of our bylaws and any decision that has the objective of modifying or annulling its right to appoint our top-level executive officers). In addition, shareholders of AMP have allocated among themselves certain veto rights relating to the exercise by AMP of its veto and other rights, which increases the risk of impasse at the AMP shareholders’ meetings and ultimately at our shareholders’ meetings.

Our bylaws provide that, subject to certain exceptions, Series BB shares must be converted into Series B shares prior to transfer. Our bylaws and certain of the agreements executed in connection with the privatization process prohibited AMP from transferring any of its Series BB shares before August 25, 2004. Since that date, AMP has been permitted to transfer up to 49% of its Series BB shares without restriction. Since August 25, 2009, AMP has been permitted to sell in any year up to 20% of its remaining 51% interest in our Series BB shares. Also pursuant to our bylaws, if at any time AMP (as the holder of our Series BB shares) were to hold less than 7.65% of our capital stock in the form of Series BB shares, its Series BB shares would be mandatorily converted into Series B shares, which would cause AMP to lose all of its special rights.

AMP Shares in Bancomext Trust

As required under the participation agreement entered into in connection with the Mexican government’s sale of our Series BB shares to AMP, AMP has transferred its Series BB shares to a trust, the trustee of which is Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior, S.N.C. (“Bancomext”). For a description of this trust, see “Item 7,Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions – Major Shareholders – AMP Trust, Bylaws and Shareholders’ Agreement.”

Pursuant to the terms of the trust, AMP may direct the trustee to vote only shares representing up to 10% of our capital stock. Any shares in excess of 10% are voted by the trustee in accordance with the vote of the majority of Series B shares. The trust does not affect the veto and other special rights granted to the holders of Series BB shares described above.

Global Offering and Establishment of ADR Facility with New York Stock Exchange Listing

In 1999, 85% of our capital stock was transferred from the Mexican government to a trust established in Nacional Financiera, S.N.C., Institución de Banca de Desarrollo (“NAFIN”), a Mexican government-owned entity.development banking institution. In February 2006, we conducted an initial public offering to allow NAFIN to dispose of its 85% interest in us. Through this offering, all of our outstanding Series B shares were sold to the public in Mexico, the United StatesU.S. and elsewhere, and NAFIN ceased to be a shareholder. The net proceeds from the sale of shares were remitted entirely to the Mexican government. We received no proceeds from this offering. At the same time, we established an American Depositary Receipt facility with The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly The Bank of New York) and obtained approval to list our ADSs on the New York Stock Exchange. In addition, we registered our Series B shares with the National Securities Registry (Registro Nacional de Valores) and listed our Series B shares on the Mexican Stock Exchange.

Master Development Programs

Under the terms of our Mexican concessions, each of our Mexican subsidiary concession holders is required to present a Master Development Program for approval by the SCT every five years. Each Master Development Program includes investment commitments for the regulated part of our Mexican airports business (including capital expenditures and improvements) for the succeeding five-year period. Once approved by the SCT, these commitments become binding obligations under the terms of our Mexican concessions.

On December 19, 2014, the SCT approved our Master Development Programs for each of our Mexican airports for the 2015 to 2019 period. This five-year program took effect on January 1, 2015 and will be in effect through December 31, 2019.

The table below sets forth our historical capital expenditures.expenditures for our Mexican airports. Capital expenditures are calculated on a cash flow basis, meaning that capital expenditures are equal to those investments actually paid for by each airport during a given year and not including investments allocated for by the airport during that year but not paid for during the given year. The investments shown in the table below therefore reflect our expenditures actually paid for by our Mexican airports for the years indicated. In order to be compared with our committed investments for a given year, the investments made in the previous year but paid for in the given year need to be subtracted while the investments allocated but not paid for in the given year need to be added. For 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2014,2015, our investments

allocated but unpaid totaled Ps.163.6 million, Ps.135.4 million, Ps.86.4 million and Ps.60.5Ps.221.2 million, respectively. The substantial majority of these investments were made under the terms of our Master Development Programs.

Historical Capital Expenditures by Mexican Airport

The following table sets forth our historical capital expenditures by type of investment across all of our Mexican airports for the years indicated:

Historical Capital Expenditures by Type for our Mexican Airports