The National Academies Press: Funding Industrial Aviation (2017)

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24838 SHARE

   
Funding Industrial Aviation (2017)
DETAILS
50 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-46321-8 | DOI 10.17226/24838
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Kimberly A. Kenville and James F. Smith; Airport Cooperative Research Program;
Airport Cooperative Research Program Synthesis Program; Synthesis Program;
Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017. Funding

Industrial Aviation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/24838.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Funding Industrial Aviation
ACRP
AIRPORT
COOPERATIVE
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
SYNTHESIS 79

Sponsored by
the Federal
Aviation Administration
A Synthesis of Airport Practice
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ACRP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE* TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2017 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

CHAIR OFFICERS
Kitty Freidheim CHAIR: Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento
Freidheim Consulting VICE CHAIR: Katherine F. Turnbull, Executive Associate Director and Research Scientist, Texas A&M
Transportation Institute, College Station
VICE CHAIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Neil J. Pedersen, Transportation Research Board
Kelly Johnson
Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport Authority MEMBERS
Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center; Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and
MEMBERS Professor and Director, Environmental Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC
Gloria G. Bender Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock
TransSolutions Jennifer Cohan, Secretary, Delaware DOT, Dover
Thella F. Bowens James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, TX
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Nathaniel P. Ford, Sr., Executive Director–CEO, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Jacksonville, FL
Benito de Leon A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State
Federal Aviation Administration University, Tempe
Deborah Flint John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona DOT, Phoenix
Los Angeles World Airports Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University,
Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge Worcester, MA
Lambert-St. Louis International Airport Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA
Margaret McKeough Chris T. Hendrickson, Hamerschlag Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, Power, Energy, and Infrastructure Group, BMO Capital Markets
Scott McMahon Corporation, New York
Morristown Municipal Airport S. Jack Hu, Vice President for Research and J. Reid and Polly Anderson Professor of Manufacturing,
Frank Miller University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Hollywood Burbank Airport Roger B. Huff, President, HGLC, LLC, Farmington Hills, MI
Bob Montgomery Geraldine Knatz, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of
Southwest Airlines Southern California, Los Angeles
Eric Potts Melinda McGrath, Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson
Freese and Nichols, Inc. Patrick K. McKenna, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City
Megan S. Ryerson James P. Redeker, Commissioner, Connecticut DOT, Newington
University of Pennsylvania Mark L. Rosenberg, Executive Director, The Task Force for Global Health, Inc., Decatur, GA
Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis
Sabrina Johnson Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, TX
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pat Thomas, Senior Vice President of State Government Affairs, United Parcel Service, Washington, DC
Mark Kimberling James M. Tien, Distinguished Professor and Dean Emeritus, College of Engineering, University of Miami,
National Association of State Aviation Officials Coral Gables, FL
Laura McKee Dean H. Wise, Vice President of Network Strategy, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, Fort Worth, TX
Airlines for America Charles A. Zelle, Commissioner, Minnesota DOT, Saint Paul
Christopher Oswald
Airports Council International—North America EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Neil J. Pedersen
Transportation Research Board
Alberto Ayala, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento
Melissa Sabatine Mary R. Brooks, Professor Emerita, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, and Chair,
American Association of Airport Executives TRB Marine Board
T.J. Schulz Jack Danielson, Executive Director, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Airport Consultants Council Audrey Farley, Executive Director, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. DOT
LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior,
SECRETARY Washington, DC
John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
Christopher J. Hedges Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. DOT
Transportation Research Board Daphne Y. Jefferson, Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Bevan B. Kirley, Research Associate, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center,
Chapel Hill, and Chair, TRB Young Members Council
Howard McMillan, Acting Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Wayne Nastri, Acting Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA
Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall
Air Force Base, FL
Reuben Sarkar, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy
Todd T. Semonite (Lieutenant General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and Climate Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Joel Szabat, Executive Director, Maritime Administration, U.S. DOT
Walter C. Waidelich, Jr., Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT
Patrick T. Warren, Executive Director, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. DOT
Matthew Welbes, Executive Director, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT
Richard A. White, Acting President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC
Paul F. Zukunft (Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security
* Membership as of November 2016. * Membership as of April 2017.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ACRP SYNTHESIS 79
A Synthesis of Airport Practice
Consultants
Kimberly A. Kenville
University of North Dakota
Grand Forks
and
James F. Smith
Smith-Woolwine, Inc.
Panacea, Florida
S ubscriber C ategories
Aviation • Finance • Policy
Research Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration
2017

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP SYNTHESIS 79

Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in transpor- Project A11-03, Topic S01-14
tation of people and goods and in regional, national, and international ISSN 1935-9187
commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects ISBN 978-0-309-38999-0
with other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility Library of Congress Control Number 2017932224
for managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the
role of state and local governments that own and operate most air-
ports. Research is necessary to solve common operating problems, to © 2017 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro-
duce innovations into the airport industry. The Airport Cooperative
Research Program (ACRP) serves as one of the principal means by COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
which the airport industry can develop innovative near-term solutions
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials
to meet demands placed on it.
and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who
The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Air-
own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material
port Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study
used herein.
sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). ACRP car-
Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to repro-
ries out applied research on problems that are shared by airport operat-
duce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit pur-
ing agencies and not being adequately addressed by existing federal
poses. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the
research programs. ACRP is modeled after the successful National
material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA,
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and Transit
FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technol-
Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). ACRP undertakes research
ogy, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method,
and other technical activities in various airport subject areas, includ-
or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this
ing design, construction, legal, maintenance, operations, safety, pol-
document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate
icy, planning, human resources, and administration. ACRP provides
acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material.
a forum where airport operators can cooperatively address common
For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
operational problems.
ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision
100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary partici-
NOTICE
pants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP
Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publi-
Department of Transportation with representation from airport operat- cation according to procedures established and overseen by the Trans-
ing agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations portation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of
such as the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA), Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions
the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who per-
Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for Amer- formed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
ica (A4A), and the Airport Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
the airport community; (2) TRB as program manager and secretariat Medicine; or the program sponsors.
for the governing board; and (3) the FAA as program sponsor. In Octo- The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of
ber 2005, the FAA executed a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the Airport
Sciences formally initiating the program. Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufactur-
ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport pro- ers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they
fessionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials, are considered essential to the object of the report.
equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research orga-
nizations. Each of these participants has different interests and respon-
sibilities, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort.
Research problem statements for ACRP are solicited periodically but
may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility
of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the high-
est priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products.
Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel
appointed by TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and
research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport
professionals, the intended users of the research products. The pan- Published reports of the
els prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contrac-
tors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
the project. The process for developing research problem statements
are available from:
and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing
cooperative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, Transportation Research Board
ACRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Business Office
Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the 500 Fifth Street, NW
intended users of the research: airport operating agencies, service pro- Washington, DC 20001
viders, and academic institutions. ACRP produces a series of research
reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other and can be ordered through the Internet by going to
interested parties; industry associations may arrange for workshops, http://www.national-academies.org
training aids, field visits, webinars, and other activities to ensure that and then searching for TRB
results are implemented by airport industry practitioners.
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public
understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is
objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of
whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies
including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested
in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

TOPIC PANEL S01-14

RICHARD S. CRIDER, Port of San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
MARK EARLE, Colorado Springs, Colorado
GARY MOLYNEAUX, King County International Airport/Boeing Field, Seattle, Washington
CARL E. REMUS, Tulsa Airport Authority, Tulsa, Oklahoma
LIYING GU, Airports Council International–North America (Liaison)
SYNTHESIS STUDIES STAFF

STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs
JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies
MARIELA GARCIA-COLBERG, Senior Program Officer
JO ALLEN GAUSE, Senior Program Officer
GAIL R. STABA, Senior Program Officer
TANYA M. ZWAHLEN, Consultant
DON TIPPMAN, Senior Editor
CHERYL KEITH, Senior Program Assistant
DEMISHA WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant
DEBBIE IRVIN, Program Associate
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF

CHRISTOPHER J. HEDGES, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
LORI L. SUNDSTROM, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
MICHAEL R. SALAMONE, Senior Program Officer
KAREN NEELEY, Program Associate
EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications
ACRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT 11-03
CHAIR
JOSHUA D. ABRAMSON, Easterwood Airport, College Station, Texas
MEMBERS
DEBBIE K. ALKE, Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, Montana
GLORIA G. BENDER, TransSolutions, Fort Worth, Texas
DAVID A. BYERS, Quadrex Aviation, LLC, Melbourne, Florida
DAVID N. EDWARDS, JR., Greenville–Spartanburg Airport District, Greer, South Carolina
BRENDA L. ENOS, Massachusetts Port Authority, East Boston, MA
LINDA HOWARD, Independent Aviation Consultant, Bastrop, Texas
FAA LIAISON
PATRICK W. MAGNOTTA
AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION

ADAM WILLIAMS
AIRPORTS CONSULTANTS COUNCIL

MATTHEW J. GRIFFIN
AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL–NORTH AMERICA

LIYING GU
TRB LIAISON
CHRISTINE GERENCHER
Cover figure: (left) Winglet installation at HAECO at Lake City Gateway Airport (HAECO
photo); (right) Engine inspection at HAECO at Lake City Gateway Airport (HAECO photo).

Airport administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor-
FOREWORD mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac-
tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence,
full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its
solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked,
and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating
the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the airport industry. Much
of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their
day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful
information and to make it available to the entire airport community, the Airport Coop-
erative Research Program authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a
continuing project. This project, ACRP Project 11-03, “Synthesis of Information Related
to Airport Practices,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available
sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this
endeavor constitute an ACRP report series, Synthesis of Airport Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format,
without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in
the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found
to be the most successful in resolving specific problems.
The focus of this report is on how airports fund the infrastructure to support industrial
PREFACE aviation development. For this report, industrial aviation development includes but is not
By Gail R. Staba limited to—
Senior Program Officer
Transportation • Aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO)
Research Board • Specialized aviation services such as paint and interior completion (single service
operators, SSOs)
• Aircraft manufacturing and assembly
• Aircraft fabrication and development
• Aviation warehousing
• Cold ports
• Spaceports
• Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) platform development
Information used in this study was acquired through literature review, survey results
from 53 airports, and interviews of a subset of experts on funding mechanisms for indus-
trial aviation.
Dr. Kim Kenville, Kim Kenville Consulting, and Dr. James F. Smith, Smith-Woolwine,
Inc., synthesized the information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are
acknowledged on page iv. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the
practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time
of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be
added to that now at hand.


CONTENTS
1 SUMMARY
3 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Background, 3
Framework, Definitions, and Funding Sources, 4
Scope of This Study, 7
Study Methodology, 7
10 CHAPTER TWO SURVEY RESULTS

What Is the Governance Form of Your Airport?, 10
Types of Industrial Development, 10
16 CHAPTER THREE DISCUSSION OF SURVEY RESULTS AND FLORIDA CASE EXAMPLE

Introduction, 16
Rates and Charges, 17
Industrial Aviation in Florida, 17
Industrial Aviation at 10 Florida Airports, 19
Development Funding in Florida and Other States, 22
Summary, 31
32 CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS

Lessons Learned, 32
Evaluating Alternative Funding Methods and Project Success, 33
34 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS

Road Map to Successful Aviation Industrial Development, 34
Further Research, 34
36 ACRONYMS
38 GLOSSARY
39 REFERENCES
40 APPENDIX A PARTICIPATING AIRPORTS
APPENDIX B SURVEY RESULTS (available at www.trb.org by searching for “ACRP Synthesis 97”)
Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.


FUNDING INDUSTRIAL AVIATION
SUMMARY The focus of this report is how airports fund the infrastructure to support industrial avia-
tion development. For this report, industrial aviation development includes but is not lim-
ited to the following:
• Aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) services

• Specialized aviation services, such as painting and interior completion, by single
service operators (SSOs)
• Cold ports
• Spaceports
• Unmanned aerial system (UAS) platform development.
Sixty-four airports were identified as possibly having industrial aviation facilities and
were surveyed about the nature of the development, types of infrastructure required to
support the development, nature and effectiveness of the funding mechanisms used, and
lessons learned. Fifty-three airports (83%) completed the survey. In addition, intensive
case examples were done with 10 Florida airports and the Florida Department of Transpor-
tation’s Aviation and Spaceports Office.
The literature review, survey results from 53 airports, and interviews of a subset of
experts on funding mechanisms for industrial aviation infrastructure were analyzed. The
results suggest the following strategies for success in funding industrial aviation:
1. Industrial aviation infrastructure development uses a diverse set of funding mecha-

nisms and always benefits from a team approach. Funding sources are frequently
combined. Airports that have funded industrial aviation infrastructure projects have
used the following tools for collaborative success:
–– Development of project goals and objectives

–– Documentation of current business and aviation activities and forecasts of ben-
efits from additional industrial aviation infrastructure
–– An updated airport layout plan (ALP) that reflects desired development, includ-
ing infrastructure needs
–– Development of an all-star team from each funding entity, as combining funding
methods is a complex process that creates multiple opportunities for challenges
and successes
–– Well-established working relationships with state aviation, economic develop-
ment, and FAA staff
–– Effective working relationships between the airport and jurisdictional partners
to ensure mutual understanding of all the ’options, responsibilities, challenges,
and opportunities of funding mechanisms and development schemes
–– Understanding of the needs of secured funding partners

2
–– Long-term marketing and communication plans for the duration of the project
–– Marketing, marketing, and marketing! This includes outreach to current airport
users, potential tenants, and constituents in the local community
–– Flexibility and patience
–– Detailed recordkeeping.
2. Airports that are undertaking industrial aviation development can find many diverse
funding sources and strategies through outreach to other airports in similar situations
and with similar goals. Additional research describing specific industrial aviation
developments and their funding mechanisms can provide a road map with indicators
of duration, hurdles, and multiple issues that need to be factored into funding for
industrial aviation infrastructure.
Based on the findings in this synthesis, the following questions are suggested for further
research:
• What variables and metrics can be used to define industrial aviation development at
airports?
• What are the metrics that can allow industrial aviation uses to access FAA funding for
infrastructure development?
• How have successful industrial aviation airports worked with the FAA to get funding
for infrastructure for potential industrial aviation tenants?
• How do airport-owning localities (sponsors) structure industrial development incen-
tives in accordance with FAA requirements?
• How might an airport’s role in industrial aviation development evolve during the
course of the project, from conception to completion?
• What roles do marketing and property management play in project selection and
funding?
• Which methods for determining fair market value and fair market rent are suited to
industrial aviation airports?
• What are some models of effective goal statements that can be used in master plans
and airport layout plans to facilitate industrial aviation development and infrastructure
funding?
• What is an effective model for a land management role for the airport instead of the
historical facilities development and management role?
• Which methods and criteria can be used to quantify public or common use infrastruc-
ture investment associated with industrial aviation development?
• What are the primary issues in funding non-aeronautical development at airports?
• What, if any, are the benefits of using specialized financial consultants for industrial
aviation development at airports?

3
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
From the beginning of the Airport Cooperative Research Program, innovative methods for funding airport development have
been a primary interest. In fact, airport development funding methods were defined and analyzed in the first ACRP synthesis
report, ACRP Synthesis 1: Innovative Finance and Alternative Sources of Revenue for Airports (Nichol 2007). The report’s
findings are summarized graphically in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1 Airport funding sources (Nichol 2007).
Aerospace—civilian and military—accounts for slightly more than 5% of the U.S. national economy (FAA 2014a). Civil
aviation has a very large impact on the overall U.S. economy. In 2012 the U.S. civil aviation industry supported 11.8 million
jobs, accounted for $1.5 trillion in total economic activity, and contributed 5.4% to the U.S. gross domestic product (FAA
2014a). Typically, these contributions come from airline operations, airport operations, aircraft manufacturing, and general
aviation operations, but they also include aspects of industrial aviation such as maintenance and repair, specialized aviation
services, and other activities that are the focus of this study. On the basis of 2012 FAA data, industrial aviation activities
directly accounted for at least $90.2 billion in output and 1.4 million jobs (FAA 2014a). In other words, industrial aviation
accounts for at least 12% of the total civil aviation contribution to the U.S. economy.
Although industrial aviation makes significant contributions in terms of employment, support, and sustainability to the
domestic aviation system, its importance is often overlooked or undervalued. Industrial aviation activities are often critical

4
to local economies and very important to the National Airspace System (NAS), but funding the infrastructure to support
industrial aviation development at airports is complicated. Some airports and their agency partners have developed alternative
funding strategies when projects have been found to be ineligible for FAA funding.
The importance of industrial aviation activities to the NAS is obscured by their absence as one of the criteria for defining the catego-
ries in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Current criteria include number of based aircraft, number of annual
operations, number of enplaned passengers, and proximity to other airports in the NPIAS. The criteria also permit the inclusion of air-
ports that meet special needs, such as access to remote populations. Industrial aviation development typically does meet these criteria.
The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) Industrial Aviation and Military Relations Committee makes
the following points regarding a proposed change to the NPIAS criteria and categories. The committee’s goal is to recognize
the importance of industrial aviation to the overall health and success of the NAS.
Despite the significant role industrial airports play within the complex aviation ecosystem, the metrics applied to characterize and
describe airports, and therefore the reports that define the NPIAS and the NAS, fail to quantify the significance of the industrial
aeronautical activities based at civil airports.
Industrial airports ultimately strengthen the NAS because its providers of services and suppliers feed and support the end-user
airlines and aircraft operators that require airport facilities, and that proximity of the end-users to those providers is significant.
Industrial aviation is ultimately a consumer of airport capacity, so a deeper understanding of the requirements, demand, and forecast
of industrial aviation growth is important to the health, stability, and long-term viability of our domestic NAS and systems of airports.
Greater awareness and understanding of the attributes important to the success of industrial aerospace is needed to protect and
nurture this important dimension of our domestic economy and aviation industry. (AAAE Industrial Aviation and Military Relations
Committee talking points, R. Crider, personal communication, Sept. 21, 2016)
This synthesis focuses on aviation activities, not airport classifications, and does not take a position on the proposed NPIAS
change. It uses a definition of industrial aviation activities that includes but is not limited to the following:

• Specialized aviation services, such as paint and interior completion, by single service operators (SSOs)
• Cold ports
• Spaceports
• Unmanned aerial system (UAS) platform development.
The objective of this synthesis is to identify and document alternative methods and practices for funding industrial aviation
investments that are not eligible for traditional airport funding through Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants and pas-
senger facility charges (PFCs). This study also provides lessons learned and effective practices from airports that have been
successful in funding industrial aviation activities. The audience for this synthesis includes airport operators, government
entities, economic development agencies, commercial developers, and other industry partners. The synthesis defines funding
types found at airports with industrial development, analyzes the survey results, describes an important case example, and
makes suggestions for airports that are just beginning their development.
FRAMEWORK, DEFINITIONS, AND FUNDING SOURCES
For every funding source considered by every airport in this study, the airports reported that they absolutely complied with all
requirements for each funding program. Each funding source, whether government or commercial, has compliance standards.
The airports’ absolute commitment to compliance can be seen in the airport statements in chapter two and in the aggregated
survey data in web-only Appendix B.
The survey listed potential funding sources in alphabetical order; the following are brief definitions or descriptions of
these sources. Several sources were not listed in the original survey but were introduced by one or more airports under “Other
(please specify).”

5
Agricultural Lease: The agriculture sector relies heavily on leases for land and equipment to meet the needs of farmers.
With absentee ownership of farmland growing in the United States, farmers and ranchers lease many of the acres they farm
and graze today. Both private parties and government entities may enter into leasing arrangements, so these contracts vary
substantially in complexity and scope. The most common form of lease in agriculture is a land lease; the cash rent lease and
the crop-share lease are the two most frequently used (http://nationalaglawcenter.org/overview/agleases).
Airport Capital Funds/Equity: Collected rentals, fees, and charges for the lease and use of facilities to passenger and
cargo airlines, concessionaires, and other entities that provide airport support services. Total revenues less expenses equal
net operating income (Nichol 2007).
Airport Improvement Program: The FAA, through the Aviation Trust Fund, provides grants to public agencies (and in
some cases to private owners and entities) to plan and develop public use airports that are included in the National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) (http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/overview).
Airport Improvement Trust: A public trust with a sole beneficiary. For example, the purpose of the Tulsa Airport
Improvement Trust (TAIT) is “to operate, maintain, construct, improve and/or lease airport facilities serving the City and
incur indebtedness as may be necessary to provide such facilities. Any indebtedness is payable solely from revenues of TAIT,
and has no authority to level taxes” (http://www.tulsaairports.com/about-tait/formation-of-airport-authority).
Airport Privatization: A broad range of activities that entail varying levels of private involvement. The Government
Accounting Office (GAO) stated that “the privatization spectrum can include contracting out, public-private partnerships,
vouchers, and franchising as well as the actual sale” (Nichol 2007). The FAA’s Airport Privatization Pilot Program (APPP)
(http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/privatization) allowed five airports to be transferred from public owner-
ship to private ownership; one of these airports, Airglades International Airport, is included in this study.
Airport Revenue Bond: General airport revenue bonds (ARBs) are the most commonly issued bonds for airport infra-
structure. Their credit rating is based on revenues generated at the airport from airline rates and charges, parking, rental car
operations, terminal concessions and other leases, interest, and any other revenues of the airport (Nichol 2007). The underly-
ing economic status and outlook of the entire community affects the credit rating of an ARB.
City (or County) Economic Development Income Tax (CEDIT): A local income tax that can be levied to support
approved capital improvements to promote economic development in the locality (http://iga.in.gov/static-documents/8/2/
c/0/82c08d23/TITLE6_AR3.5_ch7.pdf).
Commercial Paper: An unsecured, short-term debt instrument issued by a corporation, typically to finance accounts
receivable or inventories or to meet short-term liabilities. Maturities on commercial paper are rarely longer than 270 days.
Commercial paper is usually issued at a discount from face value and reflects prevailing market interest rates (http://www.
investopedia.com/terms/c/commercialpaper.asp).
Direct Private Investment: Direct investment refers to an investment in a business enterprise designed to acquire an inter-
est in the enterprise. Direct investment provides capital funding in exchange for an equity interest (http://www.investopedia.
com/terms/d/direct-investment.asp).
Economic Development Bonds: Through an economic development bond program, a finance authority (such as the Iowa
Finance Authority) issues tax-exempt bonds on behalf of private entities or organizations for eligible purposes. The responsi-
bility for repayment rests with the applicant, who must find an entity to purchase the bonds (adapted definition: http:// www.
iowafinanceauthority.gov).
Federal Grants and Loans, EDA: The U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) has a number of planning
grant programs that can help airports or partnerships involving airports. EDA’s Public Works program helps distressed
communities revitalize, expand, and upgrade their physical infrastructure (https://www.eda.gov/pdf/about/Public-Works-
Program-1-Pager.pdf).
Federal Grants and Loans, USDA: The U.S. Department of Agriculture offers the following kinds of grants and
loans: farm loans, housing assistance, rural development loan and grant assistance, support for beginning farmers and
ranchers, crop and livestock insurance, federal state marketing improvement programs, a specialty crop block grant pro-

6
gram, the farmers market promotion program, and an organic cost-share program (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/
usdahome?navid=GRANTS_LOANS).
Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ): An FTZ does not provide direct funding for industrial aviation development; rather, an air-
port or locality might establish an FTZ as an incentive for development at the airport (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u).
General Obligation Bonds: General obligation bonds can be issued to finance airport capital improvements, backed by
general tax revenues of the city, county, or state that owns and operates the airport (Nichol 2007).
Ground Lease: A ground lease is an agreement in which a tenant is permitted to develop a piece of property during the
lease period, after which the land and all improvements are turned over to the property owner. A ground lease indicates that
the improvements are owned by the property owner unless an exception is created; all taxes incurred during the lease period
are paid by the tenant. Because a ground lease allows the landlord to assume all improvements once the lease term expires,
the landlord can sell the property at a higher rate (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/ground-lease.asp).
Industrial Development Bonds: These are private activity bonds issued by state and local governments on behalf of
nongovernment corporations and businesses (http://www.msrb.org/Glossary/Definition/INDUSTRIAL-DEVELOPMENT-
BOND-_IDB_.aspx).
Infrastructure Bank: An infrastructure bank is typically a state agency that provides loans for infrastructure projects,
with repayments committed to additional infrastructure projects (http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/
stateline/2011/12/06/infrastructure-banks-explained-a-common-state-tool-gets-mixed-marks).
Military Airport Program (MAP): MAP is a funding program to help former military airports transition to civilian
airport uses. An airport must achieve designation in the NPIAS before it can apply for MAP. Funding is for 5 years and can
be renewed (https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/military_airport_program).
Passenger Facility Charge: The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program allows the collection of PFC fees up to $4.50
for every enplaned passenger at commercial airports controlled by public agencies. PFCs are capped at $4.50 per flight seg-
ment with a maximum of two PFCs charged on a one-way trip or four PFCs on a round trip, for a total of $18. Airports use
these fees to fund FAA-approved projects that enhance safety, security, or capacity; reduce noise; or increase air carrier com-
petition (http://www.faa.gov/airports/pfc/).
Public-Private Partnership: A public-private partnership (PPP, 3P, or P3) is a service provided by government and one
or more private sector companies. A PPP involves a contract between a public sector authority and a private party in which
the private party provides a public service or project and assumes substantial financial, technical, and operational risk in the
project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public%E2%80%93private_partnership).
Redevelopment Bonds: A qualified redevelopment bond is a tax-exempt private activity bond issue of which 95% or more
of the net proceeds are used to finance certain specified real property acquisition and redevelopment in blighted areas (http://
definitions.uslegal.com/q/qualified-redevelopment-bond).
Revolving Loan/Investment Funds: The U.S. Economic Development Administration’s Revolving Loan Fund (RLF)
Program supplies small businesses and entrepreneurs with gap financing to start or expand their business. The EDA’’s regional
offices award competitive grants to units of local government, state governments, institutions of higher education, public or
private nonprofit organizations, EDA-approved economic development district organizations, and Indian tribes. Each EDA-
funded RLF sets its own underwriting and risk management policies, and determines interest rates, loan terms, and maximum
assistance levels in accordance with its own policies and the unique characteristics of each loan. Businesses should contact
EDA-funded RLFs directly to inquire about details (https://business.usa.gov/program/revolving-loan-fund-program).
Special Facility Bonds: These bonds are issued by a single tenant and used to finance unit passenger terminals or portions
of terminals, hangar and maintenance facilities, cargo buildings, and ground equipment support facilities for the exclusive
use of an airline (Nichol 2007).
Special Tax Districts: In the United States, special tax districts are independent, special-purpose government units that
exist separately from, and with substantial administrative and fiscal independence from, general purpose local governments

7
such as county, municipal, and township governments. They are formed to perform a single function or a set of related func-
tions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_district_(United_States).
Tax Increment Financing: Tax increment financing is a financing procedure used by many local governments to pay for rede-
velopment and improvement of existing structures. The cost of the improvements is assessed to future tax revenues by each taxing
unit that levies taxes against the property. The taxing unit at the local level is responsible for determining how much of the increase
in property tax resulting from the improvements will be used to repay the construction costs. The property that is seeking to use TIF
must be located within the city’s jurisdiction. (http://www.investorwords.com/8715/tax_increment_financing.html)
Through-the-Fence (TTF) Agreements: TTF operations encompass the ground movement of aircraft back and forth between
land adjacent to but not part of airport property and the airport’s airside infrastructure (e.g., runways and taxiways). TTF operations
may include residential, commercial aeronautical, noncommercial aeronautical, non-aeronautical, and government/military activi-
ties. Raising revenues for the airport was not found to be a significant feature of TTF agreements (Ward et al. 2014).
SCOPE OF THIS STUDY
This synthesis analyzes data from airports that are geographically distributed and that represent a variety of project attributes,
including size, population, diversity of funding mechanisms, and aviation industrial mix. The following information is of
interest for collection, analysis, and concise reporting:
• Definition of the project.

• Governance framework, original property conveyance, category and size of airport, and mix of aeronautical activities.
• The classification of project land for aeronautical or non-aeronautical purposes, and further designations within the
airport master plan, airport layout plan, or other land use plans.
• The catalyst for development; for example, recruitment of a tenant, general economic development, or a request from a
third party developer.
• History of project coordination and of the process of working with the FAA and other agencies, including issues and
their resolution.
• A discussion of the airport’s project investment strategy, partners’ interest in terms of investment contribution, how
goals and objectives are met, and revenue stream once the project is completed.
• The process, if any, for engaging stakeholders for support of the project, and the outcome of that engagement.
• The initial timeframe for development and how that may have changed over the course of the project.
• The economic impact of the project, including job creation.
• Lessons learned.
• Outstanding issues for further research.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
Data for this study were collected using a literature review, an online survey, and one case example. The data were analyzed
using a mix of quantitative (online survey) and qualitative (case example) methods.
Literature Review
The literature review focused on finding reports of industrial aviation development, its funding, and general descriptions of
the funding methods. In addition to articles in popular media and trade magazines, many airports that are marketing their
facilities for industrial development feature their efforts on their websites. Several airports in the survey have laid out steps
an interested party can take to pursue development opportunities at the airport. None of the websites list the funding sources
used by the airports for industrial aviation development or infrastructure.
Survey
The survey data were gathered using an online tool provided by the Transportation Research Board. A non-random, purposive
sample of 64 airports was selected based on the AAAE Military and Industrial Airport Committee roster, combined with the
topic panel’s professional knowledge and researchers’ awareness of airports that had industrial development in progress or had

8
completed it. Of the 64 airports invited to participate, 53 responded, for a completion rate of 83%. The participating airports
are identified in Appendix A. The online survey questions and survey data are reproduced as Appendix B.
The airports that participated in this study are located all across the lower 48 states (Figure 2). The majority of airports
that responded are classified as general aviation (GA), reliever (RL), non-hub primary (NH), or commercial service (CS). A
smaller number of small-hub (SH), medium-hub (MH), and large-hub (LH) airports were surveyed. Table 1 illustrates the
distribution of airports among the NPIAS categories. The FAA does not have a formal definition for airports that regularly
engage in aviation industrial development.
FIGURE 2 Geographic representation of survey respondents (Kenville and Smith 2016 data).
TABLE 1
NPIAS CATEGORIES (2015) OF AIRPORTS PARTICIPATING IN STUDY
Category Number
General aviation GA 16
Reliever RL 7
Commercial service CS 3
Non-hub primary NP 9
Small hub SH 11
Medium hub MH 5
Large hub LH 2
Total 53
Source: Kenville and Smith data (2016).
Former military installations converted to civilian airports can be added to the National Plan of Integrated Airport Sys-
tems, after which they may apply to be part of the Military Airport Program. Being in NPIAS is an absolute prerequisite for
being considered for MAP status. According to the FAA, MAP includes the following:
Through this program, FAA awards grant funds to the civil sponsor of a military airfield for the development of aviation facilities
for the public. This program also assists new sponsors in converting former military airfields to public use to add system capacity
and reduce congestion at existing airports experiencing significant delays. In addition, the MAP provides financial assistance to the
civilian sponsors who are converting, or have already converted, military airfields to civilian or joint military/civilian use.

9
To aid in this process, MAP grants may be used for projects not generally funded by the AIP [Airport Improvement Program], such
as building or rehabilitating surface parking lots, fuel farms, hangars, utility systems, access roads, and cargo buildings. (www.faa.
gov/airports/aip/military_airport_program)
Civilian airports that were part of MAP were initially segregated and their history under various iterations of the Base
Realignment and Closure Program (BRAC) was specifically queried in the survey. Thirty-two (60%) of the 53 airports
included in this survey were former military installations that had been part of the BRAC initiatives before 1987 (27 airports)
or of the more recent rounds of closures, from 1988 through 1995 (five airports). The connection to BRAC may explain why
these airports have pursued aviation industrial development. Most of these former military airports probably have large
amounts of developable land and expansive airfields, so industrial development is a good fit. Local economic development
groups were enlisted to help the airfields develop civilian uses and jobs to replace the activities formerly supported by the
Department of Defense.
Initial survey data indicated that the BRAC and MAP funding mechanisms were not significant at any of the airports in
this study. The survey results from all 53 airports are discussed in chapter two, and the anonymized aggregated raw data are
presented in online Appendix B.
Data Analysis and Presentation
Most questions are in “check box” format, but open-ended questions allowed the airports to expand or explain answers not
appearing among the check box options. All data gathered are presented in chapter two and Appendix B. As indicated, this
analysis of the data is for all 53 responding airports. The 10 Florida airports and the 43 non-Florida airports are compared in
chapter three. The primary analytical tool was a qualitative method that examined the thematic content. The common themes
discovered are discussed in chapters two and three and summarized in chapter four. Aggregated numbers from Florida, the
other states, and the block grant states were compared side by side and criteria given for judging the significance of observed
differences or similarities. The non-random nature of the sample and the small number of airports prevented the application of
quantitative analytical methods other than determining percentages of respondents in certain categories of answers (descrip-
tive analysis).
Florida Case Example Methodology
As the airports for this survey were identified, it became clear that Florida had some striking success stories for aviation
industrial development that could be replicated in other locations. To leverage the successful programs used by the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT), the researchers decided to treat the 10 Florida airports as a separate group. They are
discussed in chapter three as a case example. The results from the 10 Florida airports are compared with those from the 43
airports in 21 other states represented in the survey. Within the Florida case example, one airport and its industrial aviation
activity are described in detail to illustrate the scope and importance of such development to the airport and its community. A
series of three group interviews with the Airport Development Section in FDOT’s Aviation and Spaceports Office provided
valuable information regarding the development of all aspects of the case example. The FDOT staff reviewed the Florida case
example in preparation for this synthesis.

10
CHAPTER TWO
SURVEY RESULTS
This study investigated airports that were assumed to have aviation industrial development on their airfields. It identified airports
with successful development(s) and sought to learn what types of projects were developed and what funding mechanisms or
combinations of mechanisms were used. The survey was sent to 64 airports; 53 responded, for a completion rate of 83%.
WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE FORM OF YOUR AIRPORT?
Twenty-four (45%) of the airports responding are governed by cities and counties, and 19 (36%) are governed by airport or
aviation authorities. The remaining airports are governed by port authorities, economic development authorities, private
corporations, and “other” (Figure 3). The airports were asked if they are a joint use military facility; 12 (23%) responded yes
and 41 (77%) responded no. When asked if their airport is a former military airfield, 32 (60%) said yes and 16 (40%) said no.
These responses indicate that many of the airports had been military installations. However, 30 airports (57%) indicated that
the transfer to public ownership occurred before the Base Realignment and Closure Commission activities began in 1987.
This is significant because BRAC-associated transitional funding mechanisms have not been available during the past 20
years, when most of the industrial aviation development has occurred at the study airports.
FIGURE 3 Governance form (Kenville and Smith data).
TYPES OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Industrial Aviation Development
Forty-five airports (85%) indicated that they had industrial aviation activity, and 40 of these (89%) reported that the activity
is related to some type of maintenance, repair, and overhaul services facility. Twenty-six airports (58%) reported special-
ized aviation service operations such as painting or interior completion; 16 airports (40%) provide aviation warehousing;
13 (33%) reported aircraft fabrication and development; and 12 (29%) reported aircraft manufacturing and assembly. The
airports were asked to “Check all that apply” and the data clearly indicate that the overwhelming type of development is

11
in support of the aircraft industry, very likely connected to aircraft and aviation maintenance activities. Several survey
respondents used the “Other–Write In” selection to list other types of industrial aviation activities (see Figure 4).
FIGURE 4 Types of industrial activity (Kenville and Kenville data).
FIGURE 5 Types of development actively seeking (Kenville and Smith data).

12
When respondents were asked about what types of development they were currently seeking, the answers mirrored the
types discussed earlier, and the results can be seen in Figure 5. Totals may exceed 100%, as airports were asked to mark all
types of development they are seeking. The three columns marked “Other–Write In” include a number of non-aviation indus-
trial development activities, some duplicates of the categories listed in the question, and other uses not pertinent to this study.
Responses were geared toward aeronautical development, which may be linked to FAA eligibility requirements.
When the airports seeking development were asked what type of infrastructure would be needed, the most common answer
was construction of new buildings (67%) followed by new utilities, new roads, and modifications of existing structures. Thir-
teen airports (25%) cited construction of new runways, aprons, taxiways, or towers, as shown in Figure 5. Totals may exceed
100%, as the airports could mark all types of development they had. The survey did not address the issue of airports leaving
a facility development and management role in favor of a property management role.
When asked if the airports had other types (i.e., non-aviation types) of industrial development, 39 (74%) indicated that
they did. Those developments were varied and included cargo facilities, government entities, land and air parks, distribution
centers, manufacturing, a community college, museums, non-aviation business parks, small business incubators, and ship-
ping/warehouse facilities. Details of the types of funding used for infrastructure for such non-aviation development are not
available in the survey data.
Types of Funding Used
The airports were asked what type(s) of funding sources they had used to pay for the infrastructure required. There were
many responses to this question, but the predominant sources were airport capital funds (58%), ground leases (42%), direct
private investment (40%), Airport Improvement Program funds (38%), state aviation and economic development grants
(38%), federal grants and loans (23%), state grants for public infrastructure (19%), public-private partnerships (17%), and
developer funding (17%) (Table 2). The airports could list more than one source; typically, airports combine several sources
of funding for their industrial development.
The airports were asked to use a scale of one to five stars to rate the desirability and effectiveness of the funding sources
used in their industrial development. Table 3 lists the top-rated funding methods.
Four funding sources not in the survey were listed by airports as both desirable and effective: line-item appropriation by
the state, local property tax millage, redevelopment bonds, and throughput and concession fees.
When the airports were asked to define the “effectiveness” of the funding methods, the prevalent themes were ease of use and
implementation, availability of funds, flexibility of use, and ability to achieve the goals of the project. Airports were asked if any
sources of available funds were not tapped because of restrictions or conditions deemed unacceptable; 21% of the respondents
said “yes.” Some negative answers were related to AIP and PFC restrictions and to the inability of some agencies and orga-
nizations to respond quickly. As discussed in chapter three, combining state and federal aviation funds was desirable in some
instances. The amount of legal documentation was viewed as negative but necessary; in addition, some airports commented that
some of the sources had conflicting conditions and requirements, which further slowed and complicated the process. Issues of
education of other agencies and organizations arise when an airport uses private funds in combination with public resources.
Airports that combined AIP funds with another source of funding indicated that as long as the airport was able to delineate
what the AIP funds were used for, the project worked out well. Another issue identified with AIP was availability; combining these
funds with other federal funds can be tricky, as they often have different deadlines, conditions, and requirements. Justification and
eligibility issues can be a problem when airports attempt to use both AIP and state funds, as the funders’ priorities may differ.
Governance and Cross-Utilization
Six airports (11%) indicated that they had to make changes in their governance structures to enable aviation industrial devel-
opment, and 48 airports (90%) said that no land swaps were required for the development. Six airports (11%) indicated that
they cross-qualified their eligibility between airports in their system of airports. Twenty airports (38%) are not part of a multi-
airport system. Of the six airports that are part of a system, four airports were successful in utilizing funds from one airport
on another airport in their system.

13
TABLE 2
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING METHODS USED
Type Percent Count
AIP 37.7 20
Agricultural lease 11.3 6
Airport capital funds/equity 58.5 31
Airport improvement trust 3.8 2
Airport privatization (partial or full) 3.8 2
Airport revenue bonds 9.4 5
Bank loan to airport 5.7 3
Commercial association 1.9 1
Commercial paper 3.8 2
Developer funded by directed cash and bank loan as lease condition 17.0 9
Direct private investment 39.6 21
Economic development bonds 9.4 5
Federal grants and loans—EDA 22.6 12
Federal grants and loans—USDA 5.7 3
Federal grants and loans—other (not FAA, EDA, or USDA) 3.8 2
Free Trade Zone (FTZ) 15.1 8
General obligation bonds 13.2 7
Ground lease 41.5 22
Industrial bonds 1.9 1
Industrial development bonds 3.8 2
Loans from airport sponsor 7.5 4
Local improvement district (LID) 1.9 1
Local income tax revenue (CEDIT—City or County Economic Devel- 7.5 4
opment Income Tax)
Mineral or petroleum royalties 1.9 1
New markets tax credit 1.9 1
Outside sponsorship 1.9 1
Passenger facility charges (PFCs) 7.5 4
Public-private partnership (PPP, P3) 17.0 9
Sale of utility or other services 5.7 3
Special facility bonds 7.5 4
Special tax district 3.8 2
State aviation grants 37.7 20
State economic development grants 37.7 20
State grants for public infrastructure 18.9 10
State infrastructure bank loans 3.8 2
State loans 3.8 2
Tax increment financing (TIF) 7.5 4
Fourteen airports (26%) indicated that “through-the-fence” (TTF) agreements had been a factor in industrial development.
Just over half of the surveyed airports were required to update their airport layout plan (ALP) to accommodate industrial
development. Twenty-six airports (49%) indicated that restrictive grant assurances were not a factor in their approach or in
the outcome of their project, while 20 airports (38%) said that the grant assurance did present issues in their projects. When
asked about these issues, airports indicated that coordination with granting agencies was the key factor and that releasing land
was usually the biggest factor. Only 13 airports (25%) have specific programs at their airports designed to attract industrial
development and start-up businesses.

14
TABLE 3
TOP-RATED FUNDING METHODS FOR DESIRABILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS
Desirability Effectiveness
Direct private investment 5 stars 4.5 stars
Ground leases 4.5 stars 4.5 stars
AIP 4.5 stars 4 stars
State grants for public infrastructure 4.5 stars 4 stars
Public-private partnership (PPP/P3) 4 stars 4 stars
Developer funded 4 stars 3.5 stars
State aviation grants 4 stars 3.5 stars
Airport capital funds 3.5 stars 4 stars
Federal grants and loans (EDA) 3.5 stars 3.5 stars
Passenger facility charge (PFC) 3.5 stars 3.5 stars
Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) 3.5 stars 3 stars
Airport revenue bonds 3 stars 4 stars
Current Projects and Indicators of Success
Twenty-three airports (43%) are currently pursuing aviation industrial projects, typically MROs, SASOs, hangars, and air-
craft manufacturing facilities. Respondents most frequently mentioned seeking MROs or some type of aircraft maintenance
facility or hangar, which parallels the most common types of existing development. When the airports were asked about
timelines for their most recent aviation industrial projects, the results were mainly in the 0–3 year range, with some projects
taking up to 5 years, as illustrated in Figure 6.
FIGURE 6 Time to completion (Kenville and Smith 2016 data).
The airports were also asked if they viewed their most recent project as a success. More than 54% viewed their project as
a success, 36% thought it was looking good but was too soon to tell, and 5% thought the project was not looking good but it
was too soon for a final answer (Figure 7). The 22 airports that responded to questions about their most recent projects were
asked, “What constitutes a success?” Their answers, in order of decreasing importance, are shown in Table 4.

15
The airports were also asked whether they had a quantitative metric or performance indicator for the measurement of suc-
cess. Fifty-nine percent did not have a metric to determine whether the project was successful, but eight airports did use a
metric. The airports that use a metric tend to use return on investment (ROI), especially job creation. For example, Kelly Field
at Port San Antonio uses number of jobs created divided by dollars invested, where the success criterion is one job created per
$10,000 invested (R. Crider, personal communication, Sept. 2, 2016).
FIGURE 7 Recent project a success (Kenville and Smith 2016 data).
Of the 22 airports that answered questions about their most recent projects, 12 airports (54%) did not use a consultant
for their project, while 10 airports (45%) did. However, the survey question did not differentiate among types of consultants
(general airport development, industrial development, or financial).
A final question for the responding airports was “Would you embark on a similar project?” The overwhelming majority
(20 airports, 91%) said they would do it again. Two airports (9%) said it was too soon to know. None of the airports said no.
TABLE 4
PROJECT SUCCESS ATTRIBUTES
Rank What Is Success? Airports
1 Jobs added 20
2 Goals and objectives achieved 18
3 Increased revenues 17
3 Enhanced reputation of airport 17
5 Enhanced visibility of airport 16
6 Good publicity 15
6 Greater political support from sponsor 15
8 Improved priority for state funding 12
9 Higher credit rating 11

16
CHAPTER THREE
DISCUSSION OF SURVEY RESULTS AND FLORIDA CASE EXAMPLE
INTRODUCTION
The 53 airports that contributed data to the study are located in 22 states (Figure 2 and Appendix A), with Florida (10 air-
ports), California (nine airports), and Texas (five airports) being the most heavily represented in the survey results. Before
distributing the survey, the researchers determined from the literature review and from the advice of the topic panel that
Florida and California were good candidates for a case example, so an effort was made to have a solid representation of all
types and sizes of airports from those two states. After consultation with the state aviation offices in Florida and California,
Florida was chosen as the case example for this synthesis. Florida was selected for the following reasons:
1. The literature review showed that Florida airports have had notable success in the recent past in landing significant new
industrial aviation projects and expanding existing operations.
2. The Florida Aviation and Spaceports Office in the Florida Department of Transportation noted that Florida airports
use a very wide range of funding mechanisms and combinations of funding methods on each project. The Aviation and
Spaceports Office takes a highly aggressive approach to state funding eligibility.
3. Each of the Florida airports has at least one of the development types included in the definition of industrial aviation,
and most of them have several.
4. Florida airports with industrial aviation activity are of all types and sizes, falling into six of the seven NPIAS categories.
5. Florida is not an FAA AIP block grant state; however, Florida’s policy of funding airports of all sizes gives the state
significant influence.
Before we present the Florida case example, two caveats are needed. These points were raised by the topic panel and
confirmed by the Florida Aviation and Spaceports Office. Florida is unusual in two aspects compared with all other states:
1. Florida’s state funding for airports per year approximately equals the total for the next five highest states combined
(R. Crider, personal communication, May 16, 2016; A. Keith, interview, Sept. 29, 2016). Table 5 illustrates the relative
amounts of state funding. During the current Florida 5-Year Work Plan, 45% of funding comes from state aviation and
Strategic Intermodal System grants, 37% from local sources, and 18% from the FAA.
2. Florida has a single transportation trust fund for all four modes of transportation (including aviation), and each mode
is guaranteed at least 15% of the total available funds per year. Nearly all state transportation-related revenues (e.g.,
gasoline tax, aviation fuel tax, fees) go into this fund; for example, 8% of aviation fuel tax revenues go into the state’s
general fund (A. Keith and J. Halley, interview, Sept. 29, 2016; J. Halley, personal communication, Nov. 18, 2016).
Preliminary discussions with the Aviation Development Section of the Aviation and Spaceports Office identified 12 air-
ports in Florida that have been actively involved in industrial aviation development and that use a variety of funding mecha-
nisms: FAA funds, state aviation funds, state economic development funds, local funds, and other types of funding.
The state agency encouraged the 12 airports to participate in this study, and 10 of them did so. Based on preliminary FAA
FY15 enplanement data and FY15 cargo and freight data, the 10 participating airports represent airports of nearly all types
and sizes. The six general aviation airports represent three of the four GA asset categories (FAA 2014b, 2016): local, regional,
and national. Table 6 shows the 10 airports and their categories.

17
TABLE 5
AVIATION FUNDING BY STATES IN 2015
State No. of Airports State Funding (self-reported)
Florida 780 $337,961,446
Maryland 140 160,274,000
Texas 772 84,340,185
Tennessee 79 30,000,000
Louisiana 585 29,775,000
New York 462 24,115,000
Remaining states 5,690 228,889,765
National total 8,508 $895,355,396
Source: National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO) data, adapted by Kenville and Smith (2016).
TABLE 6
CATEGORIES OF FLORIDA AIRPORTS IN STUDY
Airport Airport Identifier NPIAS Service Level GA Asset Classification
Airglades Airport 21S General aviation Local
Lake City Gateway Airport LCQ General aviation Regional
Lakeland Linder Regional Airport LAL Reliever National
Miami International Airport MIA Large hub N/A
Ocala International/Jim Taylor Field OCF General aviation Regional
Orlando Melbourne International Airport MLB Non-hub primary N/A
Palm Beach International Airport PBI Medium hub N/A
Pensacola International Airport PNS Small hub N/A
Treasure Coast International Airport FPR General aviation National
Vero Beach Regional Airport VRB General aviation Regional
N/A = not available.
RATES AND CHARGES
When asked how industrial development factors into the calculation of the airport’s rate and charges, some airports indicated
that it is reflected in ground leases. Overall, airport charges are not affected by industrial development; the issue of how costs
for infrastructure for industrial aviation development affect rates and charges is specific to each airport. If an airport has air-
line service, it is required to consult with its airlines on which development charges the airlines are willing to have included in
the general rates and charges, and the result of this consultation must be documented to the FAA. Several airports use profes-
sional appraisers, as the development is industrial and not specifically aviation. Some airports keep the industrial financial
piece separate from the airport’s general rates and charges calculations, while others use leases with industrial tenants to offset
the airfield rates and charges to regular aeronautical users. Overall, the responses to this question were a mixed bag. A number
of airports do not factor in their industrial development, while others use it to offset charges to the regular users of the airport.
INDUSTRIAL AVIATION IN FLORIDA
Aviation is an important segment of Florida’s economy. In 2014, the total direct and indirect economic benefits of aviation in
Florida were 1,312,431 jobs, $44.5 billion in payroll, and $144 billion total output. Aviation businesses, which include indus-
trial aviation activities, provided 76,217 jobs, $2.8 billion in payroll, and $13.6 billion total output (FDOT 2014). Industrial
aviation is not broken out as a separate category. Because of aviation’s economic importance, successive governors and leg-
islatures have made it a priority to ensure funding not just to help match FAA grants but also to help Florida airports develop
other sources of revenue so they can increase their viability and create jobs.

18
The basic reference on airport development and state funding in Florida is the Florida Aviation System Plan (FASP 2025),
which is developed and maintained by the Florida Aviation and Spaceports Office. For an airport to receive state funding
through Florida’s aviation grant program, it must be included in the FASP. Nearly all states have a similar statewide plan.
The Continuing Florida Aviation System Planning Process (CFASPP, http://www.cfaspp.com) is a voluntary, coopera-
tive planning and information-sharing system among the airports. Participation is voluntary, although FDOT encourages all
public use airports to participate. Other parties—such as the FAA’s Airports District Office (ADO), military bases or units,
regional planners, and consultants—may participate as well. The airports run the CFASPP; FDOT provides technical and
administrative assistance (J. Halley, interview, Sept. 22, 2016).
The CFASPP provides continuous stakeholder input into the FASP. CFASPP has nine regional meetings and one statewide meet-
ing every 4 months for a total of 30 meetings a year. Information on programs, funding sources, changing requirements, ongoing
statewide aviation projects and studies, and lessons learned flows in all directions, not just as input to the FASP. The FAA ADO
always attends the statewide meetings and participates in many of the regional meetings. When the FAA cannot attend a regional
meeting, it provides briefing points and learns about the discussions through meeting minutes that are posted on the CFASPP web-
site (J. Halley, interview, Sept. 22, 2016). Through the CFASPP, the state office is kept informed of emerging issues.
In addition to the knowledge shared through the CFASPP, the Aviation and Spaceports Office and the FAA ADO interact in
three other ways that benefit Florida airports. First, the state’s district aviation coordinators have annual work program develop-
ment meetings to which they invite ADO program managers and planners. Second, the ADO has representatives on all the state’s
advisory committees for projects, guidebooks, and other initiatives. Third, the state office often arranges one-on-one meetings
with ADO staff to discuss FAA considerations with regard to the state’s many projects (J. Halley, interview, Sept. 22, 2016).
The Florida Aviation and Spaceports Office is proactive in its interactions with the FAA and with airports in Florida,
particularly with regard to airport master planning and airport layout plans (ALPs) (T. Cox interview, Aug. 29, 2016). The
Aviation Development Section believes that having a great relationship with the FAA ADO has been a key factor, perhaps
the key factor, in the ability of Florida airports to successfully use AIP funding in combination with state funds for industrial
aviation projects. The Aviation and Spaceports Office attributes this success to the following factors:
1. The proactive nature of the relationship.
2. Open communication.
3. The involvement of the FAA ADO in everything—asking them to preview state program elements that will involve
FAA approval as well as those that are purely state decisions. For example, the state asked the ADO to review the update
to the Florida Master Planning Guidebook.
4. The fact that the first priority for the use of state grant funds is to maximize the allocation of federal funds.
5. The fact that Florida has one FAA ADO that serves the state and is not shared with adjoining states.
The FASP 2025 establishes seven goals for the system of airports in the state:
1. Provide efficient, safe, convenient, and secure airports.
2. Contribute to sustainable growth while remaining sensitive to the environment.
3. Enhance Florida’s leadership and prominence in the aviation industry.
4. Protect airspace and promote compatible land use planning around Florida airports.
5. Support new technologies and innovations in aviation.
6. Promote aviation to business, government, and the public.
7. Foster Florida’s reputation as a military-friendly state.

19
Running through these strategic goals are the importance of Florida’s airports for direct and indirect job creation and an
emphasis on the intermodal aspects of transportation in the state.
“Strategic plans for Florida’s airports highlight the need to regularly update long-range plans. Strategic planning initiatives
that are completed or underway for airports in the Florida system are compatible with and supportive of the FASP 2025 goal
for a well-planned airport system” (FDOT 2010).
The FASP 2025 identifies nine service roles for each airport in Florida. The four commercial service roles are tourism,
business, air cargo, and international. The five general aviation roles are flight training, corporate, tourism, recreational/
sport, and business/recreational. Although the FASP and the CFASPP discuss industrial aviation development activities and
potential activities in passing, industrial aviation is not included as a service role.
INDUSTRIAL AVIATION AT 10 FLORIDA AIRPORTS
Airglades International Airport (21S)
Airglades International Airport is part of the Airport Privatization Pilot Program (www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/
privatization) and is the only one of the five originally designated airports still in the program. It currently has no industrial
aviation facilities, but airport management wants to establish an industrial complex on 700 acres of airport property. The
most ambitious part of this plan is to become a major international air cargo facility with aviation warehousing, cold port,
and intermodal facilities. Development officials are trying to develop a P3 perishable air cargo complex. This development
envisions new construction of buildings, runways, aprons, taxiways, tower, utilities, and access roads. The development will
require major modification of existing structures other than hangars, as well as provision of services. The airport has not yet
obtained any federal, state, or local funding for these projects. Airglades has no website.
Lake City Gateway Airport (LCQ)
LCQ supports a 12-acre industrial park onsite. The airport has one very large MRO activity, which required major modification
of an existing hangar. Although LCQ has the GA asset classification of “regional,” the magnitude of its MRO activities and the
size of the aircraft serviced make the airport important on a national scale. LCQ has used airport capital funds/equity, direct pri-
vate investment, USDA grants and loans, state aviation grants, and state economic development grants to fund infrastructure to
support industrial aviation development. Airport website: http://www.lcfla.com/index.php/departments/gateway-airport-klcq.
(A detailed description of LCQ’s industrial aviation activity and its very large MRO tenant is provided at the end of this chap-
ter to illustrate the scope and importance of industrial aviation to an airport, a community, and the community’s institutions.)
Lakeland Linder Regional Airport (LAL)
LAL is a “one-stop shop” for aviation services, including MRO services, specialized aviation services, aviation warehousing,
and UAS platform development. The services required infrastructure funding for new buildings, new utilities, and new access
roads. LAL used funding from AIP, airport capital funds/equity, ground leases, loans from airport sponsor, state aviation
grants, and state economic development grants to fund infrastructure to support industrial aviation development. Airport
website: http://www.lakelandairport.com.
Miami International Airport (MIA)
MIA provides aircraft maintenance services and faces increasing demand for such facilities. The demand is driven by the
immense activity occurring on and around the airport. Its present industrial aviation activities include MRO services, spe-
cialized aviation services, aviation warehousing, cold ports, engine repair, engine test cells, and ground support equipment
(GSE) repair and leasing. Infrastructure improvements for industrial aviation development have included new buildings,
new utilities, new access roads, major modifications of existing hangars, major modifications of other types of structures,
and provision of services. MIA’s most recent major industrial aviation project was the conversion of a very large hangar to
an MRO/SASO facility for large cargo planes. The major funding sources have been airport revenue bonds, developer’s
funds directed as a lease condition, and a state aviation grant and state intermodal grant. Airport website: http://www.
miami-airport.com.

20
Ocala International Airport/Jim Taylor Field (OCF)
OCF does not currently have industrial aviation facilities but is actively seeking MRO and specialized aviation services,
aircraft manufacturing and assembly, aircraft fabrication and development, aviation warehousing, cold ports, logistics, and
distribution facilities. OCF has invested in new construction of buildings, new utilities, and new access roads using funding
from airport capital funds/equity, general obligation bonds, loans from airport sponsor, state aviation grants, and state eco-
nomic development grants. Airport website: http://www.ocalafl.org/airport.
Orlando Melbourne International Airport (MLB)
MLB’s industrial aviation development involves MRO services, aircraft manufacturing and assembly, and aircraft fabrication
and development. The airport has recently become the site of a major aircraft manufacturing and assembly facility. Infrastruc-
ture required was new construction of buildings and major modification of existing hangars. MLB used AIP, airport capital
funds/equity, EDA grants and loans, ground leases, state aviation grants, and state economic development grants for its latest
expansion of industrial aviation development. Airport website: http://www.mlbair.com.
Palm Beach International Airport (PBI)
PBI has an MRO service as its industrial aviation activity and is seeking additional MRO and SASO services. The develop-
ment required new construction of buildings, new utilities, and new access roads. PBI has used PFCs and state aviation grants
to fund industrial aviation infrastructure. Airport website: http://www.pbia.org.
Pensacola International Airport (PNS)
PNS has an MRO service that required new construction of buildings, runways, aprons, taxiways, utilities, and access roads.
The airport is in the process of acquiring through voluntary sales a 65-acre parcel adjacent to the airfield. This will become the
Airport Commerce Park and is expected to serve industrial aviation development. Airport website: http://flypensacola.com.
Treasure Coast International Airport (FPR)
FPR has nearly 3,700 acres available for development of infrastructure and aviation-related business activities. Part of the air-
port and surrounding area is a Foreign Trade Zone. FPR has MRO and SASO services, aircraft manufacturing and assembly,
aircraft fabrication and development, and aviation warehousing. Infrastructure requirements for industrial aviation develop-
ment were new construction of buildings, new construction of runways and aprons, new utilities, new access roads, and major
modification of existing hangars and other structures. FPR used AIP, airport capital funds/equity, airport privatization (par-
tial), direct private investment, economic development bonds, EDA grants and loans, ground lease, loan from airport spon-
sor, public-private partnership, special facility bonds, state aviation grants, and state economic development grants. Airport
website: http://www.stlucieco.gov/departments-services/a-z/administration/airport.
Vero Beach Regional Airport (VRB)
VRB has MRO services, SASO services such as painting and interior completion, aircraft manufacturing and assembly,
aircraft fabrication and development, avionics, and general aviation warehousing. Infrastructure requirements for industrial
aviation development were new construction of buildings, new construction of runways and aprons, new utilities, new access
roads, and major modification of existing hangars and other structures. VRB used AIP, airport capital funds/equity, direct
private investment, ground lease, mineral royalties, public-private partnership, state aviation grants, and an appropriation for
a new air traffic control tower. Airport website: http://verobeachairport.org.
Foreign Trade Zones
Many of these airports (LCQ, OCF, MLB, PBI, PNS, and FPR) are within or adjacent to FTZs (http://enforcement.
trade.gov/ftzpage/letters/ftzlist-map.html#florida). MIA is surrounded by an FTZ and working to set one up (http://
www.miamitodaynews.com/2016/04/19/miami-international-airport-works-set-foreign-trade-zone). Many airports
were early adopters of FTZs. This study did not review the direct or indirect benefit an FTZ may or may not bring to
an airport.

21
A Closer Look at Lake City Gateway Airport’s Industrial Aviation Facility
LCQ is a general aviation airport (GA asset code “regional”) in north central Florida near the intersection of Interstates 10 and
75. LCQ has two asphalt runways. The main runway is 8,003 ft long by 150 ft wide, with a double-tandem weight limitation
of 250,000 pounds. The airport’s tower (funded by HAECO, the airport’s primary industrial aviation tenant) is manned from
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. HAECO also maintains the taxiways, parking ramps, and run-up areas. Two
state agencies and a medical helicopter transport company maintain bases at LCQ.
LCQ is a former military airfield (Naval Air Station Lake City) that was transferred to Lake City in 1946. Almost immedi-
ately, Aero Corporation occupied the former military hangars and performed aircraft modification and rehabilitation, mostly
on military aircraft, continuing until the late 1980s. Aero was acquired by Timco, which specialized in maintenance and
repair of Boeing and Airbus commercial aircraft (Figure 8). Timco was acquired by HAECO Americas, which is the current
operator of the very large MRO facility.
FIGURE 8 Rows of new airliner seats awaiting installation at Lake

City Gateway Airport (HAECO photo).
HAECO has approximately 1,500 employees at LCQ, working around the clock in three shifts. Using more than 600,000
sq. ft of covered hangar space in six hangars and more than 1.3 million sq. ft of apron, the HAECO complex performs airframe
MRO services, inspections, interior modifications, airframe modification, and stripping and painting (Figure 9). As many
as 24 aircraft can be worked on at once. In July 2016, HAECO announced that it will add 400 new positions and invest $2
million at LCQ.
FIGURE 9 HAECO hangars at Lake City Gateway Airport (Source:

HAECO).

22
HAECO anticipates a major challenge in finding skilled labor to support growth and replace retirees. To address this prob-
lem, HAECO has joined with the airport, the Lake City–Columbia County Chamber of Commerce, and the three surround-
ing county school districts to form the Tri-County Aviation Academy (Figure 10). (The company and the airport previously
worked with Florida Gateway Community College on courses and training programs to support HAECO’s needs.) The first
class has been admitted to the academy, and students will receive hands-on experience at HAECO.
FIGURE 10 Opening of Tri-County Aviation Academy (Source: HAECO).
The state of Florida (FDOT 2014) has measured the direct economic impacts of LCQ as 2,189 jobs and $189,796,000. LCQ’s
total (direct, indirect, and induced) economic impact is $316,551,000. The HAECO payroll of $116,276,000 represents nearly
10% of the total Columbia County personal income; however, HAECO draws employees from at least a three-county area.
Discussions during a site visit to LCQ on September 26, 2016, identified two major concerns related to industrial aviation
development: finding sufficient skilled labor and determining fair market value for facility rents. HAECO, the airport, and
their partners are creatively addressing the labor supply issue by supporting programs at the community college and the new
aviation academy. The fair market value issue (which the Florida Aviation and Spaceports Office says is a recurring issue at
most airports in the state) is resolved by following the Guidelines for Determining Market Value and Market Rent of Airport
Property prepared by the University of South Florida’s Center for Urban Transportation Research (2012) and all state and
FAA grant assurances. One fundamental problem is the lack of local comparables. Typically (and this is true at Lake City),
the airport is its own comparable. The airport has been well served over the years by close collaboration with its city, the state,
and the FAA, and by the Continuing Florida Aviation System Planning Process. However, when it comes to fair market value,
economic development practices involving incentives can cause problems with the computation (R. Luster, interview, Sept.
26, 2016). Developing fair market rents rather than fair market value may mitigate this issue. Thus far, such conflicts at LCQ
have been successfully resolved, as evidenced by the continued investments by HAECO at the airport.
DEVELOPMENT FUNDING IN FLORIDA AND OTHER STATES
The raw data from the survey are presented in Appendix B. The data have been anonymized. The numerical data have been
aggregated. Free-form answers have been reproduced but identifiers to specific airports have been deleted. For this chapter,
numerical data have been extracted for 10 Florida airports and for 43 airports from other states. For some questions, only eight
or nine of the Florida airports responded.
Governance Form
The responding Florida airports are likelier to have a city or county as their sponsor than the 43 airports in other states (78% to 38%)
and less likely to be an authority (11% to 51%). Authorities are legal in Florida and are established by legislative action; technically,

23
in Florida an authority is a special district. A possible result of the airports in the study not being authorities may be an easier rela-
tionship between airports and other city or county departments, such as economic development departments (see Table 7).
TABLE 7
COMPARISON OF GOVERNANCE FORMS
Governance Form Florida Other States
City department 56% 25%
County department 22% 14%
Airport, aviation, or port authority 11% 44%
Economic development authority — 7%
Private corporation 11% 2%
Other (commission; special district) — 9%
Current Industrial Aviation Activity
There is little difference in the types of industrial aviation activity currently found at the Florida airports compared with activi-
ties found at the other 43 airports (Table 8). Activities that create the most jobs are favored, with MRO services leading the list.
The largest number of “Other” industrial aviation activities outside Florida involved engine remanufacturing.
TABLE 8
CURRENT INDUSTRIAL AVIATION FACILITIES
Florida Other States
Maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) 82.5% 91.7%
Specialized aviation service operations/operators (SASOs) 50.0% 61.1%
Aviation warehousing 37.5% 38.9%
Aircraft fabrication and development 37.5% 33.3%
Aircraft manufacturing and assembly 37.5% 27.8%
UAS platform development 12.5% 2.8%
None/not applicable 12.5% —
Cold ports 0% 5.6%
Spaceport 0% 5.6%
Other — 41.7%
Types of Development Being Sought
Although the types and frequencies of existing industrial aviation activities at Florida airports mostly resemble those at the
other 43 airports, striking differences appeared when the airports were asked which types of development they are now seek-
ing. Florida airports reported markedly greater efforts to attract MRO services, aviation warehousing, and cold ports (Table
9). MRO services appear to be attractive because they are major job generators, while the popularity of aviation warehousing
and cold ports may be related to Florida’s special roles associated with trade in goods, especially perishable goods, with Latin
America and the Caribbean.
In Florida, “Other” types of aviation development being sought are logistics and distribution facilities. One airport outside
Florida reported developing infrastructure of nonspecified future industrial aviation development under “Other.”
Infrastructure Required for Industrial Aviation at Airports
In general, Florida airports report higher frequencies of major infrastructure changes to attract or support industrial aviation
development (Table 10). The Florida airports are much more likely than the airports in other states to build new buildings,

24
runways, aprons, taxiways, towers, utilities, and access roads and to make major modifications to existing buildings other
than hangars.
TABLE 9
AVIATION FACILITIES BEING SOUGHT
Maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) 88.9% 55.8%
Specialized aviation service operations/operators (SASOs) 44.4% 51.2%
Aircraft manufacturing and assembly 55.6% 46.5%
Aircraft fabrication and development 44.4% 44.2%
Aviation warehousing 44.4% 30.2%
Cold ports 22.2% 7.0%
UAS platform development 0% 9.3%
Spaceport 0% 0%
Other 22.2% 1.8%
None/not applicable 11.1% 20.9%
TABLE 10
INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES TO SUPPORT INDUSTRIAL AVIATION DEVELOPMENT
No new construction or major modifications 11.1% 17.1%
New construction of buildings 88.9% 64.3%
New construction of runways, aprons, taxiways, or towers 44.4% 22.0%
New utilities 77.8% 48.8%
New access roads 77.8% 41.5%
Major modifications of existing hangars 44.4% 41.5%
Major modifications of existing structures other than hangars 33.3% 19.5%
Provision of services 11.1% 12.2%
Relocation of tenants — 2.4%
Funding Sources for Infrastructure for Industrial Aviation Development
The 2016 Florida Aviation Project Handbook is the basic reference for the multiple state funding sources available to Florida’s
airports. It describes funding sources, availability, eligibility requirements, and application procedures. Two funding catego-
ries are particularly pertinent to this study: the Strategic Airport Investment Program and Aviation Economic Development:
Program 99.
The Strategic Airport Investment Program allows FDOT to fund strategic airport investment projects up to 100% for any
publicly owned airport in the FASP if the project meets all four of these criteria: “(1) provides important access and on-airport
capacity improvements; (2) provides capital improvements to strategically position the state to maximize opportunities in
international trade, logistics, and the aviation industry; (3) achieves state goals of an integrated intermodal transportation
system; and (4) demonstrates the feasibility and availability of matching funds through federal, local, or private partners”
(FDOT 2016, pp. 16–17). Program 99 permits up to 50% state share grants for GA airports “to develop facilities that will
produce airport revenue and encourage positive community economic impact, with non-aeronautical projects being eligible”
(FDOT 2016, p. 21). In addition to Florida aviation grants, the handbook describes the Strategic Intermodal System fund, State
Infrastructure Bank, Transportation Regional Incentive Program, Economic Development Transportation Fund and Rural
Economic Development Initiative Funds.

25
TABLE 11
FUNDING SOURCES USED TO PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR INDUSTRIAL AVIATION DEVELOPMENT
Florida (%) Other States (%)
Agriculture lease 11.1 11.6
Airport capital funds/equity 77.8 55.8
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 55.5 34.9
Airport improvement trust 0 4.7
Airport privatization (complete or partial) 22.2 0
Airport revenue bonds 0 9.3
Bank loan to airport 0 7.0
Commercial paper 0 4.7
Developer funded by directed cash and bank loan as lease condition 0 18.6
Direct private investment 33.3 41.9
Economic development bonds 11.1 9.3
Federal grants and loans—EDA 22.2 23.3
Federal grants and loans—not FAA, EDA, or USDA 0 4.7
Federal grants and loans—USDA 11.1 4.7
Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) 0 18.6
General obligation bonds 11.1 14.0
Grant from sponsor 0 2.4
Ground lease 44.4 41.9
Industrial development bonds 0 4.7
Infrastructure charges to tenants 0 2.4
Line-item appropriation (ATC tower) 22.2 0
Loan from airport’s sponsor 33.3 0
Local economic development grant 11.1 2.4
Local income tax revenue (CEDIT) 0 9.3
Local sales tax for transportation 0 2.4
Mineral or petroleum leases 11.1 0
Passenger facility charges (PFCs) 11.1 7.0
Private foundation grant 0 2.4
Public-private partnership (P3, PPP) 22.2 16.3
Redevelopment bonds 0 2.4
Sale of utility or other services 0 7.0
Special facility bonds 11.1 7.0
Special tax district 0 4.7
State aviation grants 77.8 30.2
State economic development grants 66.7 32.6
State grants for public infrastructure 0 23.3
State infrastructure bank loans 0 4.7
State loans 0 4.7
Tax increment financing (TIF) 0 9.3
Note: The four funding sources with greatest difference between the 10 Florida airports and the 43 airports in other states are italicized.
Table 11 compares the funding sources used to pay for infrastructure for industrial aviation development by the Florida
airports and the 43 airports in other states. The most striking differences occur in four categories, which are highlighted in
yellow in the table:

26
• AIP (55.5% in Florida to 34.9% in other states)

• State aviation grants (77.8% to 30.2%)
• State economic development grants (66.7% to 32.6%)
• Local government grants (11.15% to 2.4%).
In addition, the Florida airports used loans from the airport sponsor (33.3%), whereas none of the 43 non-Florida airports
reported using this funding source. This may reflect relationships associated with governance.
Desirability and Effectiveness of Funding Methods
Desirability
An evaluation of funding methods in Florida and in the other states (on a 5-point scale, with 5 as most desirable), shows that
state aviation grants are a favored funding source in Florida (Table 12) and in other states as well (Table 13). Both groups
give high desirability ratings to AIP, direct private investment, state economic development grants, ground leases, and public-
private partnerships.
TABLE 12
MOST DESIRED FUNDING METHODS IN FLORIDA (SCORES ≥ 4)
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 5
Direct private investment 5
State aviation grants 5
State economic development grants 5
Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) 4.5
Ground lease 4.5
State grants for public infrastructure 4.5
Agricultural lease 4
Airport privatization (partial or full) 4
Developer funded by directed cash and bank loan as lease condition 4
Mineral or petroleum royalties 4
Public-private partnership (PPP, P3) 4
State infrastructure bank loans 4
TABLE 13
TOP-RATED FUNDING METHODS FOR DESIRABILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS
Desirability Effectiveness
Direct private investment 5 stars 4.5 stars
Ground leases 4.5 stars 4.5 stars
AIP 4.5 stars 4 stars
State grants for public infrastructure 4.5 stars 4 stars
Public-private partnership (PPP/P3) 4 stars 4 stars
Developer funded 4 stars 3.5 stars
State aviation grants 4 stars 3.5 stars
Airport capital funds 3.5 stars 4 stars
Federal grants and loans (EDA) 3.5 stars 3.5 stars
Passenger facility charge (PFC) 3.5 stars 3.5 stars
Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) 3.5 stars 3 stars
Airport revenue bonds 3 stars 4 stars

27
Comparison of the desirability ratings by the 10 Florida airports (Table 12) with the funding methods they reported hav-
ing used showed that the airports generally (50% to 70%) used the methods they rated most desirable. This includes state
aviation grants, state economic development grants, and AIP. The only exception was the use of airport capital funds/equity,
which 70% used but no airport rated as desirable or highly desirable. The same comparison among the 43 non-Florida airports
(Table 13) gives somewhat different results. Like Florida airports, the other airports rate using airport capital funds/equity as
undesirable yet use it as the most frequent funding source for infrastructure for industrial aviation development. The rest of
the most common funding methods (used by 25% to 45% of the 43 airports) are drawn from the methods rated as desirable:
direct private investment, ground leases, AIP, state economic development grants, and state grants for public infrastructure.
State aviation grants do not appear in the desirable ratings for the 43 airports and were used by only 13 airports (30%). This
is perhaps a reflection of the perceived availability of state aviation grants in states other than Florida.
Effectiveness
An evaluation of how the airports view the effectiveness of the various funding methods shows the methods rated most effec-
tive by the Florida airports (Table 14) and by airports in the other states (Table 15). Again, the data show that state aviation
grants are high on Florida’s list compared with the other states’ lists.
TABLE 14
MOST EFFECTIVE FUNDING METHODS IN FLORIDA (SCORES ≥ 4)
Direct private investment 5
State aviation grants 5
State grants for public infrastructure 4.5
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 4.5
Airport capital funds/equity 4.5
State infrastructure bank loans 4.5
Ground lease 4
Developer funded by directed cash and bank loan as lease condition 4
Airport revenue bonds 4
Economic development bonds 4
Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) 4
Special facility bonds 4
Mineral or petroleum royalties 4
State loans 4
Bank loan to airport 4
Airport privatization (partial or full) 4
TABLE 15
MOST EFFECTIVE FUNDING METHODS IN OTHER STATES (SCORES ≥ 4)
Direct private investment 4.5
Ground lease 4.5
State grants for public infrastructure 4
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 4
Airport capital funds/equity 4
Airport revenue bonds 4
Public-private partnership (PPP, P3) 4

28
Florida airports clearly favor the same methods they said they liked. Of the five top-rated funding methods, three are used
most often: state aviation grants (seven airports, 70%), state economic development grants (six airports, 60%), and AIP (five
airports, 50%). Direct private investment was used, but airport capital funds/equity was avoided. The picture for the 43 non-
Florida airports is very different. The most common funding mechanism was airport capital funds/equity (24 airports, 56%)
followed by direct private investment (18 airports, 42%), ground leases (18 airports, 42%), AIP (14 airports, 33%), state grants
for public infrastructure (10 airports, 23%), and EDA grants (10 airports, 23%).
Another way of looking at the differences in desirability and effectiveness is to look at the differential in scores. For
desirability, Florida airports significantly favored state loans, state aviation grants, FTZs, mineral or petroleum royalties,
agricultural leases, and state infrastructure bank loans (where “significantly” means a score differential of at least 1.5 on a
5-point scale). Privatization is excluded from this list, as only one airport is actively pursuing it, with the outcome far from
certain. On the other hand, the 43 airports in other states significantly favored special tax districts, local income tax revenue
(CEDIT), and local improvement districts (LIDs).
For effectiveness (again using the 1.5 differential on a 5-point scale), Florida airports found state infrastructure bank loans,
state aviation grants, state loans, FTZs, and mineral or petroleum royalties to be significantly more effective. The 43 airports
in other states did not rate any funding method significantly more effective. All other funding mechanisms—including AIP
and PFCs—were rated similarly by the two groups of states for desirability and effectiveness.
Defining Effectiveness
There were no major differences in how the airports defined “effectiveness” of funding methods. The largest number of
responses was a variation on timeliness of funding and quality of outcomes. The focus is on results-oriented development. A
number of responses focused on the level of effort required to obtain funding and the relative lack of restrictions. One Florida
response focused on the importance of using funding methods that foster teamwork among the FAA, FDOT, the state eco-
nomic development agencies (Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Enterprise Florida, and the Florida Economic
Development Council), the county, and the city. The actual definitions given by the airports are listed in Appendix B.
Sources Rejected Because of Unacceptable Restrictions or Conditions
Most airports reported that they did not reject any funding sources because of unacceptable restrictions or conditions. The
slightly lower percentage in Florida is perhaps an artifact of the small sample size.
Combining Funding Sources
Only one Florida airport reported major issues with combining funding sources, and it was the one in the Airport Privatization
Pilot Program, which is uncharted territory for funding eligibility determinations and conditions. Airports outside Florida
reported mixed experiences, with many having successfully combined funding sources but many finding it difficult because
of complex differences in requirements.
Combining AIP Funds with Other Funds
The Florida experience of combining AIP funds with other funding types when industrial aviation development is involved is
typified by this quote from a survey respondent: “For the FAA AIP projects we did our homework, we made sure the FAA was
aware of our needs and the size of the MRO facility we had. We went to the ADO office in Orlando as a team and presented
our needs to them in person. They were only very positive about helping, never negative.”
This approach—using teamwork and preparation—is facilitated by the CFASPP and the FASP and appears to account for
the large difference (55.5% to 34.9%) in how many Florida airports were able to use AIP funds for industrial aviation infra-
structure compared with airports in other states.
Governance Changes
Regarding governance changes, there was virtually no difference (11.1% in Florida, 11.6% in the other states).

29
Land Swaps
Regarding land swaps, there was virtually no difference (11.1% in Florida, 9.3% in the other states).
Attempts to Cross-Qualify Eligibility
In both Florida and the other states, about 20% of the airports in a multi-airport system reported having tried to cross-qualify
eligibility for AIP funding from one airport to another in the same system.
Through-the-Fence Agreements
TTF agreements appear to be somewhat more prevalent in Florida industrial aviation developments (33.3% yes) than in other
states (25.6%). However, these data need to be checked against the FAA’s list of TTF agreements.
Updated Airport Layout Plan Required
There appears to be a difference in how often Florida airports have updated ALPs or prepared new ones compared with the
43 airports in the other states (Table 16). The Florida Aviation and Spaceports Office (similarly to the FAA ADO) requires
airports to maintain up-to-date ALPs and master plans matched to their current and planned roles and development (T. Cox,
interview, Aug. 29, 2016). For an industrial aviation project or supporting infrastructure to be eligible for state or federal fund-
ing, the project must be depicted on the airport’s ALP (J. Halley, interview, Sept. 22, 2016).
TABLE 16
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP) AS CONSEQUENCE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AVIATION DEVELOPMENT
Florida (%) Other States (%)
New or updated ALP 77.8 48.8
No new or updated ALP 11.1 34.9
Don’t know 11.1 16.3
Table 16 appears to show that developing a new ALP or updating a current one helps. It may be that Florida’s requirements
and the collaborative benefits of the CFASPP help airports, especially smaller airports. Any airport seeking FAA funding for
development is required to have an ALP that shows the development.
Restrictive Grant Assurances
There is a clear difference between the Florida airports and airports in the other states when it comes to the influence of
restrictive grant assurances as a factor in funding approaches and outcomes. Nearly twice as many non-Florida airports
(41.9%) reported being influenced than did Florida airports (22.2%). The Florida Aviation and Spaceports Office suggested
that this is because that office works closely with the FAA ADO and the airports to design projects that will satisfy federal
and state grant assurances (A. Keith, interview, Aug. 29, 2016). This approach is reflected in the open-ended comments by
Florida airports in the survey: the airports make grant assurances part of the framework for the deal from the start, modify
plans to meet FAA and state requirements, and keep development partners informed of the requirements. Florida’s state grant
assurances are very similar to the FAA’s, which facilitates the airports’ efforts to comply.
Encouraging Industrial Aviation Start-Ups
Slightly more Florida airports than airports in other states (33.3% to 20.9%) report having programs to encourage industrial
aviation start-ups.
Most Recent Major Industrial Aviation Project
Seven Florida airports (77.8%) reported having recent major industrial aviation projects, compared with 16 airports (37.2%)
in other states. This difference probably reflects the criteria that caused the Florida Office of Aviation and Spaceports Office
to recommend the original 12 airports: they are actively seeking to expand their industrial aviation activities. This may also

30
account for a small difference in how many projects have timelines of less than 3 years: 57% in Florida and 46.7% in the
other states. Florida airports reported starting more projects more recently: 57.2% in 2014 or later, compared with 20.1% in
the other states.
Seventy-one percent of the Florida airports reported having used an aviation-based consultant for industrial aviation
development, whereas only a third of the 43 airports in other states used a consultant. This may be linked to the FASP and
the CFASPP, both of which foster and leverage continuous planning, two-way communication, project coordination, updating
master plans, and updating ALPs.
The airports’ estimates of whether their most recent projects were successful look different if only “yes” answers are included
(42.9% for Florida to 60.0% for other states). However, if “yes” and “so far, so good but too soon for final answer” are combined,
the opinions converge (100% for Florida to 86.7% for other states). This ties closely to the previously mentioned seven Florida
airports (77.8%) that reported major industrial aviation projects as being “recent,” as many of those projects might still be under
development and construction or have just recently been completed. No Florida airport said its project was unsuccessful.
The airports in Florida and those in other states had strong agreement when they ranked the factors that define the “suc-
cess” of an industrial aviation project. There was absolute agreement on the two most important factors: jobs added and goals
and objectives achieved. For Florida, the next three factors—enhanced visibility for the airport, enhanced reputation of the
airport, and increased revenue—were tightly grouped. For the other states, increased revenue was in a close third place after
goals and objectives achieved. Reputation and visibility of the airport followed. In other words, both groups included the same
five factors in their top five. Given the caveats about the size of Florida’s state grants for airports, it is notable that improved
priority ranked low (eighth out of nine factors) for airports in Florida and in the other states.
Both groups—the Florida airports and the 43 airports in other states—would embark on a similar project in the future, but
two of the non-Florida airports said it is too soon to know.
Lessons Learned and Other Advice
The following lessons learned are taken directly from the Florida airports’ survey responses:
• Satisfy all state and federal grant assurances.

• Approach industrial aviation development as a team.
• Use a multidisciplinary team: airport, consultant, airport attorney, airport facility planners, including federal and state
planners.
• Examine your current business mix, especially the types of planes using your airport, to see what services they may need.
• Keep the focus on project goals, especially on job creation.
• Make agreements as specific as possible—ambiguity leads to longer project times.
• Optimize use of existing infrastructure. Potential tenants want to move quickly, so infrastructure needs to be in place.
• The biggest problem is determining fair market value or rent for the property.
• Develop a funding package that will be acceptable to the new tenant but that the airport can live with; this is especially
important if incentives are involved.
• Negotiate win-win but never win-lose.
• Manage everyone’s expectations, which can be a difficult process.
• Sell the benefits of the project to the community and to elected officials. Local community support is imperative.
• Manage fair market value computations to stay within guidelines.
• Manage costs rigorously.
• Keep the design process as simple as possible.
• Present project parameters in terms that conform to FAA and state standards.
• You can never start soon enough.
• You can never move fast enough.
• Be prepared for the unexpected.
Estimates or Firm Data on Economic Impacts
Both groups of airports share the same top four economic impacts for which they have estimates: direct employment impacts, indi-
rect employment impacts, direct economic impacts, and indirect economic impacts. Florida differs by having a substantial percent-

31
age of airports that track the employment and economic benefits of industrial aviation at each airport—this is a priority in the state
aviation planning process. On the other hand, Florida airports reported fewer estimates of tax impacts of the airports overall and of
industrial aviation development. Neither group estimated direct or indirect local tax revenues from industrial aviation.
Florida Airports Versus Airports in Block Grant States
The apparent strong impact of collaborative long-range planning on the success of Florida airports using AIP funding for
industrial aviation development is similar to the results in AIP block grant states that have stringent FAA requirements for
planning and prioritization (http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/state_block).
Ten states with surveyed airports are in the block grant program—Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin—and only nonprimary commercial service airports, reliever
airports, and general aviation airports are included. Only three of the states—Michigan, New Hampshire, and Texas—are
represented in the survey, with five airports. Although the small sample of block grant airports limits the ability to generalize,
a comparison of the block grant state airport results with the results from Florida indicates considerable similarity.
For example, 60% of the block grant state airports reported using AIP funds for industrial aviation development, compared
with 56% of Florida airports. However, considerably more Florida airports (78%) than block grant state airports (40%) use
state aviation grants. Reported use of state economic development grants in Florida is similar to their use in block grant states
(67% to 60%). The implication is that coordinated statewide planning enhances the possibility of approval for using AIP
funds for industrial aviation development. The data also suggest that Florida’s very well-funded state aviation grants program
has a significant effect on promoting collaborative long-range planning. (Note that the Florida figures include all NPIAS cat-
egories, not just the three categories eligible in the state block grant programs.)
SUMMARY
The biggest difference between the Florida airports and those in other states is the much higher use of AIP grants, state
aviation grants, and state economic development grants in Florida. This appears to result from the greater amount of state
transportation funding in Florida and from the strongly collaborative planning approach taken by the state, the airports, and
the FAA ADO. It also appears to result from long-standing personal relationships that have been formed between the state and
the FAA. This collaboration may be facilitated by Florida’s unique situation of having one ADO that serves all the airports in
the state and is not shared by neighboring states.
Florida’s approach appears to result in funding outcomes that converge with those in FAA block grant states. These results
may also reflect a strong state role in collaborative planning.

32
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
LESSONS LEARNED
The positive and negative lessons the 53 airports shared can be categorized into three major areas: collaboration, communica-
tion and marketing, and patience.
Collaboration: Many surveyed airports cited the need for ongoing collaboration with their funding partners, regulatory
agencies, sponsor, and customer. The following are some comments from the survey respondents:
• Work closely with the FAA for airport layout plan approval.
• Work with city economic development agencies to attract new business.
• Work closely with city planning departments to smooth the approval and permitting process.
• Try to prepare for the unexpected.
• Spell out agreements, so there are no surprises—ambiguity can lead to longer project times.
• Work with all entities: city, county, chamber of commerce, business and educational leaders. Teamwork makes a project
come together.
• When using multiple funding sources, try to get an agreement with the agency that is in the lead.
• Include the FAA to ensure compliance with its guidance.
• Create a partnership with the FAA ADO from project concept to implementation.
• Coordinate with the local permitting jurisdiction.
• Engage the right subject matter experts, as projects are unique and complex and require time and effort.
• Develop strong partnerships at the outset, as the development may be time-consuming.
• Plan with all possible entities up front to save time and effort over the long run.
• Get consensus.
Communication and marketing: Surveyed airports cited the need to maintain open lines of communication with all the
entities involved and to develop ongoing marketing initiatives and plans, as the project may take a considerable amount of
time. The following are some comments from the survey respondents:
• Sell the benefits of the project to the community and elected officials.
• The market to attract industrial aviation activities is highly competitive, and developers bring significant economic
impact, so a strong marketing presence is needed.
• Must be ready when a customer needs to commence, cannot wait to build until they come, so marketing is important.
• Constant communication with the groups indicated earlier in the collaboration section.
Patience: One of the most often cited lessons learned by the surveyed airports was the virtue of patience, as development
projects and funding schemes take a long time. Many projects take 1 to 3 years from initiation to implementation even under
the most ideal circumstances. The following are some comments from the survey respondents:
• Industrial development is a slow process—only construct when you have an inked deal. This speaks to the need for
planning and proactivity.
• It takes a long time and more funds than you think.
• It takes too much time.
• You can never begin soon enough.
• You can never move fast enough.
• It is difficult to manage everyone’s expectations.
• Political pressure can be stressful and overwhelming.

33
• Consideration of all the right variables requires an enormous amount of time and effort.
• Process is cumbersome with long lead time.
• It takes a long time to develop leads into actionable deals.
• The infrastructure is never needed as fast as clients say they need it.
In addition to the lessons learned in the three categories of collaboration, communication and marketing, and patience,
five cross-cutting concepts emerged in the airports’ answers to the open-ended question seeking advice for another airport
considering industrial aviation development:
• The project should stand on its own without negatively impacting the airport or its users.
• Industrial aviation development requires an appetite for moderate to high risk/reward.
• Job creation for the community is the most important goal. It is more lucrative than return on investment.
• Strict cost control is essential.
• Local community support is imperative.
EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE FUNDING METHODS AND PROJECT SUCCESS
When the 53 surveyed airports rated the various funding methods for desirability and effectiveness, they gave highly indi-
vidualistic, airport-specific reasons for their rankings. This clearly reflects the reality that each airport development deal is
its own deal. However, one theme recurred consistently: the success of an industrial aviation project is judged first by the
number of jobs it creates. This may be in the form of an ROI computed as number of jobs divided by dollars invested or it
may be in a more qualitative form: Did the development fulfill the goals of the airport and its community? The focus on job
creation and the necessity of controlling costs make using a quantitative measure such as ROI more feasible than for other
airport investments.

34
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS
ROAD MAP TO SUCCESSFUL AVIATION INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
The literature review, survey results from 53 airports, and interviews of a subset of experts on funding mechanisms for indus-
trial aviation infrastructure suggest the following strategies for success:
1. Industrial aviation infrastructure development uses a diverse set of funding mechanisms and always benefits from a
team approach. Funding sources are frequently combined. Airports that have funded industrial aviation infrastructure
projects have used the following tools for collaborative success:
• Development of project goals and objectives

• Documentation of current business and aviation activities and forecasts of benefits from additional industrial avia-
tion infrastructure
• An updated airport layout plan (ALP) that reflects desired development, including infrastructure needs
• Development of an all-star team from each funding entity, as combining funding methods is a complex process that
creates multiple opportunities for challenges and successes
• Well-established working relationships with state aviation, economic development, and FAA staff
• Essential working relationships between the airport and jurisdictional partners to ensure mutual understanding of
all the options, responsibilities, challenges, and opportunities of funding mechanisms and development schemes
• Understanding of the needs of secured funding partners
• Long-term marketing and communication plans for the duration of the project
• Marketing, marketing, and marketing! This includes outreach to current airport users, potential tenants, and con-
stituents in the local community
• Flexibility and patience
• Detailed recordkeeping.
2. Airports that are undertaking industrial aviation development can find many diverse funding sources and strategies
through outreach to other airports in similar situations and with similar goals. Additional research describing specific
industrial aviation developments and their funding mechanisms can provide a road map with indicators of duration,
hurdles, and multiple issues that need to be factored into funding for industrial aviation infrastructure.
FURTHER RESEARCH
Based on the findings in this synthesis, the following topics are suggested for further research:
• What variables and metrics can be used to define industrial aviation development at airports?
• What are the metrics that can allow industrial aviation uses to access FAA funding for infrastructure development?
• How have successful industrial aviation airports worked with the FAA to get funding for infrastructure for potential
industrial aviation tenants? Does it always have to involve airport operations area improvements used by both industry
and traditionally eligible users?
• How do airport-owning localities (sponsors) structure industrial development incentives in accordance with FAA
requirements?
• What are the conflicting requirements and grant assurances for various major funding sources, particularly aviation and
economic development sources?
• How might an airport’s role in industrial aviation development evolve during the course of the project, from conception
to completion?

35
• What roles do marketing and property management play in project selection and funding?
• Which methods for determining fair market value and fair market rent are suited to industrial aviation airports?
• What are some models of effective goal statements that can be used in master plans and airport layout plans to facilitate
industrial aviation development and infrastructure funding?
• What is an effective model for a land management role for the airport instead of the historical facilities development
and management role?
• Which methods and criteria can be used to quantify public or common use infrastructure investment associated with
industrial aviation development?
• What are the primary issues in funding non-aeronautical development at airports?
• What, if any, are the benefits of using specialized financial consultants for industrial aviation development at airports?

36
ACRONYMS
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
ADO Airports District Office (FAA)
AIP Airport Improvement Program (FAA)
ALP airport layout plan
APPP Airport Privatization Pilot Program (FAA)
ARB airport revenue bond
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
CFASPP Continuing Florida Aviation System Planning Process
CS commercial service (airport)
EDA Economic Development Administration (U.S.)
FASP Florida Aviation System Plan
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
FTZ Foreign Trade Zone
GA general aviation (airport)
GSE ground support equipment
LH large hub (airport)
LID local improvement district
MAP Military Airport Program
MH medium hub (airport)
MRO maintenance, repair, and overhaul
NAS National Airspace System
NP non-hub primary (airport)
NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
PFC passenger facility charge
RL reliever (airport)
ROI return on investment

37
SASO specialized aviation service operation/operator
SH small hub (airport)
SSO single service operator
TTF through the fence
UAS unmanned aerial system

38
GLOSSARY
Airport Improvement Program Grant program for the planning and development of public use airports that are included in the
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
airport layout plan A depiction of both existing facilities and planned development for an airport
Airport Privatization Pilot Project Congressionally authorized FAA program to allow up to five U.S. airports to be privatized to
explore privatization as a means of generating access to various sources of private capital for
airport improvement and development
Base Realignment and Closure A congressionally authorized process the Department of Defense has used to reorganize its
base structure to more efficiently and effectively support the armed forces
cold port Refrigerated warehousing facility
commercial service airport Nonprimary, non-hub airport serving at least 2,500 enplanements but not more than 10,000
enplanements An enplanement is one revenue passenger boarding an aircraft at an airport.
general aviation All civil aviation operations other than scheduled air services and nonscheduled air transport
operations for remuneration or hire. General aviation airports are public-use airports that do
not have scheduled service or have fewer than 2,500 passenger enplanements each year.
industrial aviation activity An industrial activity directly related to aviation but not part of airline, air cargo, air courier,
or ground support activities. In this study, industrial aviation includes the following:
• Specialized aviation services such as painting and interior completion (single service
operators, SSOs)
• Cold ports
• Spaceports
• UAS platform development
(There appears to be no official definition for industrial aviation.)
large-hub airport An airport with 1% or more of total U.S. enplanements
maintenance, repair, and overhaul Aircraft maintenance activity, typically of the whole aircraft (as opposed to specialized avia-
tion service operation, which deals with a single system)
master plan An airport master plan represents the airport’s blueprint for long-term development.
medium-hub airport An airport with at least 0.25% but less than 1% of total U.S. enplanements
Military Airport Program A grant set-aside from the Airport Improvement Program to develop civilian facilities at for-
mer military airfields
National Airspace System The airspace, navigation facilities, and airports of the United States, along with their associ-
ated information, services, rules, regulations, policies, procedures, personnel, and equipment
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems Program to identify existing and proposed airports that are significant to national air transpor-
tation and thus eligible to receive federal grants under the Airport Improvement Program
non-hub primary airport An airport with more than 10,000 enplanements, but less than 0.05% of total U.S.
enplanements
nonprimary airport Not a primary airport or a nonprimary commercial service airport; applies to general aviation
and reliever airports
primary airport An airport that has more than 10,000 passenger enplanements each year
reliever airport An airport designated by the FAA to relieve congestion at commercial service airports and to
provide improved general aviation access to the overall community
return on investment A measure of the gain or loss generated on an investment relative to the amount of money
invested
small-hub airport An airport with at least 0.05% but less than 0.25% of total U.S. enplanements
spaceport A base at which spacecraft are tested, launched, sheltered, maintained, or landed
specialized aviation service operator/operation (SASO) A single-service provider or special fixed-based operator performing less than full services;
for example, avionic services or engine rebuilding
unmanned aerial vehicle An aircraft with no human pilot aboard

39
REFERENCES
19 U.S. Code Chapter 1A – Foreign Trade Zones [Online]. Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/chapter-1A.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy, FAA, Washington,
D.C., 2014a [Online]. Available: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/2014-economic-impact-report.pdf.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Airport Privatization Pilot Program, FAA, Washington, D.C., 2014b [Online]. Avail-
able: http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/privatization/.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 2017–2021- NPIAS 2017–2021 Report,
FAA, Washington, D.C., 2016 [Online]. Available: https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/npias/reports/.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Aviation and Spaceports Office, The Continuing Florida Aviation System
Planning Process (CFASPP), FDOT, Tallahassee, 2010 [Online]. Available: http://www.cfaspp.com/.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Aviation and Spaceports Office, Florida Statewide Economic Impact Study
Technical Report, FDOT, Tallahassee, 2014 [Online]. Available: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/aviation/economicimpact.
shtm.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Aviation and Spaceports Office, 2016 Florida Aviation Project Handbook,
FDOT, Tallahassee, 2016.
Nichol, C., ACRP Synthesis 1: Innovative Finance and Alternative Sources of Revenue for Airports, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007 [Online]. Available: https://www.nap.edu/download/14041#.
University of South Florida, The Center for Urban Transportation Research, Guidelines for Determining Market Value &
Market Rent of Airport Property, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, 2012.
Ward, S.A.D., et al., ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-the-Fence Operations, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014 [Online]. Available: https://www.nap.edu/download/22360.

40
APPENDIX A
Participating Airports
Code Airport NPIAS Governance State FAA Airport Website

(2014) Region
21S Airglades Airport–Clewiston GA County FL SO None
Airport–Hendry County
79J South Alabama Regional Air- GA Authority AL SO http://www.cityofandalusia.com/
port at Bill Benton Field government/south-alabama-regional-
airport-authority.html
ABE Lehigh Valley International NP Authority PA EA http://www.flylvia.com/
Airport
ABI Abilene Regional Airport NP City TX SW http://www.abilenetx.com/Airport/
AFW Fort Worth Alliance Airport RL P3 (City, FAA, Hill- TX SW http://www.allianceairport.com/
wood Development Co.)
AMA Rick Husband Amarillo Interna- SH City TX SW http://airport.amarillo.gov/
tional Airport
APA Centennial Airport RL Authority CO NM http://www.centennialairport.com/index.
php/about-us/business-directory
BFI King County International Air- NP County WA NM http://www.kingcounty.gov/
port/ Boeing Field transportation/kcdot/Airport.aspx
BVU Boulder City Municipal Airport NP City NV WP http://www.flybouldercity.com/
Facilities?clear=False
CHS Charleston Air Force Base/ SH Authority SC SO http://www.chs-airport.com/
International Airport
CID Eastern Iowa Airport SH City IA CE http://www.eiairport.org/about-the-
airport/wright-brothers-business-park/
CLT Charlotte/Douglas International LH City NC SO http://www.cltairport.com/Pages/default.
Airport aspx
CMH John Glenn Columbus Interna- MH Authority OH GL http://flycolumbus.com/
tional Airport
COE Coeur d’Alene GA County ID NM http://www.cdaairport.com/masterplan.
asp
CWF Chennault International Airport GA Authority LA SW chennault.org/opportunities/
DHN Dothan Regional Airport NP Authority AL SO http://www.flydothan.com/airfield_ten-
ants.html
FAT Fresno Yosemite International SH City CA WP http://www.flyfresno.com/
Airport
FPR Treasure Coast International GA County FL SO http://co.st-lucie.fl.us/departments-
Airport services/a-z/planning-and-development-
services/airport/property-available
FWA Fort Wayne International NP Authority IN GL https://www.fwairport.com/airport-
Airport business/properties-development/
GEG Spokane International Airport SH County & city WA NM http://business.spokaneairports.net/
aero-dev
GUS Grissom Aeroplex/Air Reserve GA Economic Development IN GL http://www.miamicountyeda.com/
Base Authority grissom-aeroplex/examples-of-savings-
with-unique-incentives.php
HWD Hayward Executive Airport RL City CA WP http://www.hayward-ca.gov/airport
ICT Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower SH City KS CE http://www.flywichita.com/
National Airport airport-business/
LAL Lakeland Linder Regional RL City FL SO http://www.lakelandairport.com/
Airport
LCK Rickenbacker International CS Authority OH GL http://rickenbackerinlandport.com/en/
Airport rickenbacker-global-logistics-park/

41
Code Airport NPIAS Governance State FAA Airport Website

(2014) Region
LCQ Lake City Gateway Airport GA City FL SO http://www.lcfla.com/index.php/
departments/gateway-airport-klcq
LGB Long Beach Airport SH City CA WP http://www.lgb.org/
LMT Crater Lake—Klamath Regional CS City OR NM http://www.flykfalls.com/
Airport business-directory
MEM Memphis International Airport MH Authority TN SO http://www.mscaa.com/
properties-and-cargo
MHV Mojave Air and Space Port GA Airport district CA WP http://www.mojaveairport.com/business-
-leasing.html
MIA Miami International Airport LH County FL SO http://www.miami-airport.com/
MLB Orlando Melbourne Interna- NP City FL SO http://www.mlbair.com/
tional Airport EconomicOpportunities.aspx/
RelocationExpansionBenefits.aspx
MWH Grant County International GA Authority WA NM http://www.portofmoseslake.com/
Airport incentives-and-financing/
MYV Yuba County Airport GA County CA WP http://www.yubacoairport.com/airport/
maryswork/Facilities/facilities.htm
OAK Oakland International Airport MH Port authority CA WP http://www.oaklandairport.com/
OCF Ocala International–Jim Taylor GA City FL SO http://www.ocalafl.org/airport/
Field
ONT Ontario International Airport MH Authority CA WP http://www.lawa.org/welcomeont.aspx
OSC Oscoda–Wurtsmith Airport GA Authority MI GL http://oscairport.com/
PAE Snohomish County Airport RL County WA NM https://www.painefield.com/135/
(Paine Field) Businesses-and-Tenants
PBI Palm Beach International MH County FL SO http://www.pbia.org
Airport
PNS Pensacola International Airport SH City FL SO flypensacola.com/
PSM Portsmouth International Air- GA Economic Development NH NE http://www.peasedev.org/pease-
port at Pease Authority tradeport.html
PUB Pueblo Memorial Airport CS City CO NM http://www.flypueblo.com/airport-
information/
airport-development-opportunities
RNO Reno/Tahoe International SH Authority NV WP http://www.renoairport.com/airport-
Airport authority/airport-economic-development
RTS Reno–Stead Airport GA Authority NV WP http://www.renoairport.com/airport-
authority/airport-economic-development
SAV Savannah–Hilton Head Interna- SH Authority GA SO http://savannahairport.com/business
tional Airport
SCK Stockton Metropolitan Airport NP County CA WP http://www.flystockton.com/
SEE Gillespie Field RL County CA WP http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/
sdc/dpw/airports/gillespie/businessparks.
html
SKF Kelly Field at Port San Antonio GA Authority TX SW http://www.portsanantonio.us/
Webpages.asp?wpid=418
TUL Tulsa International Airport SH Airport trust OK SW http://www.tulsaairports.com/
wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Action-
Plan-2016.pdf
VLD Valdosta Regional Airport NP Authority GA SO http://www.flyvaldosta.com; http://www.
buildlowndes.com/contact_us
VRB Vero Beach Municipal Airport GA City FL SO http://verobeachairport.org/
YIP Willow Run Airport RL Authority MI GL http://www.willowrunairport.com/
Development.aspx

Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED


The National Academies Press: Funding Industrial Aviation (2017)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Academies Press: Funding Industrial Aviation (2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24838 SHARE

Funding Industrial Aviation (2017)

50 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017. Funding

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Funding Industrial Aviation

A Synthesis of Airport Practice

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ACRP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE* TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2017 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

* Membership as of November 2016. * Membership as of April 2017.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

A Synthesis of Airport Practice

Research Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP SYNTHESIS 79

Printed in the United States of America

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TOPIC PANEL S01-14

SYNTHESIS STUDIES STAFF

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF

ACRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT 11-03

AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION

AIRPORTS CONSULTANTS COUNCIL

AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL–NORTH AMERICA

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

3 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

10 CHAPTER TWO SURVEY RESULTS

16 CHAPTER THREE DISCUSSION OF SURVEY RESULTS AND FLORIDA CASE EXAMPLE

32 CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS

34 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS

40 APPENDIX A PARTICIPATING AIRPORTS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

FUNDING INDUSTRIAL AVIATION

• Aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) services

1. Industrial aviation infrastructure development uses a diverse set of funding mecha-

–– Development of project goals and objectives

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

FIGURE 1 Airport funding sources (Nichol 2007).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

• Aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) services

FRAMEWORK, DEFINITIONS, AND FUNDING SOURCES

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

SCOPE OF THIS STUDY

• Definition of the project.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Analysis and Presentation

Florida Case Example Methodology

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE FORM OF YOUR AIRPORT?

FIGURE 3 Governance form (Kenville and Smith data).

TYPES OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Industrial Aviation Development