Purpose - We live in a world of constant change and competition. Many airports have specific competitiveness goals and strategies for achieving and maintaining them. The global economic recession, financial crises, and rising oil prices have resulted in an increasingly important role for facility investment and renewal and the implementation of appropriate policies in ensuring the competitive advantage for airports. It is thus important to analyze the factors that enhance efficiency and productivity for an airport. This study aims to determine the efficiency levels of 20 major airports in East Asia, Europe, and North America. Further, this study also suggests suitable policies and strategies for their development. Research design, data, and methodology - This paper employs the DEA-CCR, DEA-BCC, and DEA-Malmquist production index analysis models to determine airport efficiency. The study uses data on the efficiency and productivity of the world’s leading airports between 2006 and 2010. The input variables include the airport size, the number of runways, the size of passenger terminals, and the size of cargo terminals. The output variables include the annual number of passengers and the annual cargo volume. The study uses basic data from the 2010 World Airport Traffic Report (ACI). The world’s top 20 airports (as rated by the ACI report) are investigated. The study uses the expanded DEA Model and the Super Efficiency Model to identify the most effective airports among the top 20. The Malmquist productivity index analysis is used to measure airport effectiveness. Results - This study analyzes longitudinal and cross-sectional data on the world’s top 20 airports covering 2006 to 2010. A CCR analysis shows that the most efficient airports in 2010 were Gatwick Airport (LGW), Zurich Airport (ZRH), Vienna Airport (VIE), Leonardo da Vinci Fiumicino Airport (FCO), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Seattle-Tacoma Airport (SEA), San Francisco Airport (SFO), HongKong Airport (HKG), Beijing Capital International Airport (PEK), and Shanghai Pudong Airport (PVG). We find that changes in airport productivity are affected more by technical factors than by airport efficiency. Conclusions - Based on the study results, we offer four airport development proposals. First, a benchmark airport needs to be identified. Second, inefficiency must be reduced and high-cost factors need to be managed. Third, airport operations should be enhanced through technical innovation. Finally, scientific demand forecasting and facility preparation must become the focus of attention. This paper has some limitations. Because the Malmquist productivity index is based on the hypothesis of the, the identified production change could be over- or under-estimated. Further, as DEA estimates the relative efficiency. It also cannot generalize to include all airport conditions because the variables are limited. To measure airport productivity more accurately, other input variables and environmental variables such as financial and policy factors should be included.