financing of a GA airport

[Wolfgang K.]

hi,
i am a GA pilot in austria.
we have been discussing fees, charges etc. where applicable in the USA.
basic question: where does a local / municipal airport that is almost or
even exclusively used by GA make money to keep the airport running?
as you don't have landing fees, is it the fuel purchased by pilots, the
fbo's?
regards
wolfgang, ex loww, vie, vienna, austria

[James M. Knox]

"Wolfgang K." > wrote in
:

> i am a GA pilot in austria.
> we have been discussing fees, charges etc. where applicable in the
> USA. basic question: where does a local / municipal airport that is
> almost or even exclusively used by GA make money to keep the airport
> running? as you don't have landing fees, is it the fuel purchased by
> pilots, the fbo's?

Make money? In aviation??? What a strange concept!

Okay, seriously...

There are a number of different models used in the US. First off, let's
look at sources of income to the airport (excluding landing fees, which
VERY few airports in the US have):

o Fuel, oil sales
o Hangar rental
o Tiedown rental
o Building lease (to FBO's, maintenance facilities, etc.)
o Lease of overrun land (farming)
o Sale of pilot supplies, food, etc. (if direct)

Additionally, if the airport is open to the public, it is eligible for
public tax monies. This is the MAJOR source of support for most
airports, amounting to 90 to 95% or the total capital budget. This
money is basically a recognition of the fact that everyone in the area
benefits by having the airport, not just those who actually have an
airplane. [Similarly, everyone in the community pays school taxes, even
though they may not have children.]

These small GA airports run a substantial range of size and scope.
Comprising about 90 % of the airports in the US (airports with no
commercial airline flights), some are little more than a runway and a
tiedown area, may or may not have a self-serve fuel pump, and someone
comes by every week or so and mows the grass. Others are thriving
economic entities with tens of millions of dollars in their yearly
budget.

As you are no doubt aware, however, many US airports are under attack
for the perceived value of the land. Real Estate developers want the
land to build housing and commecial property. City governments,
strapped for cash, may want that also - since it would bring in
additional sales and property tax revenue.

For a small airport to be successful in a small to midsize town I think
it must become a PART of the community. I've talked to many people who
didn't even know their town HAD an airport. I've seen some very rundown
airports improved and revitalized by new management into something that
the town is not only aware of, but indeed proud of. To do that, the
community must be involved in the airport. Some things that help that:

o Social functions held at the airport. Such things as community
picnics and fairs. [Remember all that overrun land? Turn part of it
into a park. That's compatible use that attracts the non-flying public,
and makes the airport an asset to them.] I've even seen large hangars
where the planes were pulled out on a couple of warm Saturday nights and
community dances held.

o Put in businesses that attract both non-local pilots *and* non-pilot
locals. The most obvious of these are restaurants - where again the
airport view is turned into an asset. [An airport near where I am has
opened a WW-II styled hotel and diner on the airport grounds. The hotel
appears to be quite successful, and attracts more than just pilots.]

Those are just some ideas. To be successful I think the two biggest
factors do not so much hinge on money but rather on:

o A dedicated airport management and/or board
o A supportive city government

jmk




-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Wolfgang K.]

hi james,

i do appreciate your elaborate piece of information.
thanks a lot.

if you happen to come to austria, drop me a line, if intended, will help you
to get a glimpse of austria from above.

regards
wolfgang, loww, vie, vienna, austria

[Peter Duniho]

"James M. Knox" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Additionally, if the airport is open to the public, it is eligible for
> public tax monies. This is the MAJOR source of support for most
> airports, amounting to 90 to 95% or the total capital budget. This
> money is basically a recognition of the fact that everyone in the area
> benefits by having the airport, not just those who actually have an
> airplane.

Just to elaborate a tiny bit (but James's post left very little to elaborate
on :) ):

The "recognition" is just like the recognition that freeways and other roads
benefit everyone in the area. While many Americans lack the knowledge to
see it this way, airports are just as important an element of the public
transportation infrastructure as roadways and waterways, both of which are
readily acknowledged as worthy of public monies.

I haven't once heard of a neighborhood banding together to try to close a
public road. For some reason, those same people who would never think of
trying to close a public road think it makes perfect sense to try to close
an airport.

Pete

[lance smith]

Hi Wolfgang,

I don't have any specific numbers for you but many US city/county
governments now make their bugets available online. If you have time
search the web for the information, you should be able to find out how
much it costs to run many airports as well as how the local
governments are paying for them.

Here are some that I found:
http://www.martin.fl.us/GOVT/depts/mca/budget/01mca_budget.html
http://www.centennial-airport.com/PDF/BudgetSumm.pdf
http://www.rhinelandercityhall.org/budgetsummary.pdf (search for
airport)

-lance smith



"Wolfgang K." > wrote in message >...
> hi,
> i am a GA pilot in austria.
> we have been discussing fees, charges etc. where applicable in the USA.
> basic question: where does a local / municipal airport that is almost or
> even exclusively used by GA make money to keep the airport running?
> as you don't have landing fees, is it the fuel purchased by pilots, the
> fbo's?
> regards
> wolfgang, ex loww, vie, vienna, austria

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article >,
>> Additionally, if the airport is open to the public, it is eligible for
>> public tax monies. This is the MAJOR source of support for most
>> airports, amounting to 90 to 95% or the total capital budget. This
>> money is basically a recognition of the fact that everyone in the area
>> benefits by having the airport, not just those who actually have an
>> airplane.
>
>The "recognition" is just like the recognition that freeways and other roads
>benefit everyone in the area. While many Americans lack the knowledge to
>see it this way, airports are just as important an element of the public
>transportation infrastructure as roadways and waterways, both of which are
>readily acknowledged as worthy of public monies.
>
>I haven't once heard of a neighborhood banding together to try to close a
>public road. For some reason, those same people who would never think of
>trying to close a public road think it makes perfect sense to try to close
>an airport.

I know a few groups that want to close a few roads actually :) But the
main difference between a road and an airport is the road is used by
everyone, while 'only the rich' use the airport. It's not even a 'real'
airport (with jets and airline service) it's justs there for the wealthy
to play with their toys. etc. etc.
Most people are just not aware of how small local airports help the
area. Roads and schools (which almost everyone actually uses themselves)
have more direct benifits. To be fair, a lot of people in the USA have
trouble investing in anything that does not produce direct results...

[Peter Duniho]

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" > wrote in message
...
> I know a few groups that want to close a few roads actually :) But the
> main difference between a road and an airport is the road is used by
> everyone, while 'only the rich' use the airport. It's not even a 'real'
> airport (with jets and airline service) it's justs there for the wealthy
> to play with their toys. etc. etc.

You are speaking of perception here, of course, not reality.

Most roads in the US are roads that I do not use. But they are available to
me if I choose to use them. Likewise, just because a person does not use an
airport themselves, that does not mean the airport is unavailable to them
should they choose to use it. That's ignoring, of course, the rest of the
story, the benefits an airport provides even to people who never set foot on
the airport grounds.

> Most people are just not aware of how small local airports help the
> area. Roads and schools (which almost everyone actually uses themselves)
> have more direct benifits.

Just as the rest of the transportation infrastructure does. That's my
point.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:16:11 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>While many Americans lack the knowledge to
>see it this way, airports are just as important an element of the public
>transportation infrastructure as roadways and waterways, both of which are
>readily acknowledged as worthy of public monies.

When SATS* is eventually implemented, municipal airports will become
indispensable. But there won't be any place left to build them,
because the city governments chose to close them and build strip
malls. :-(


*
http://sats.nasa.gov/
http://www.unomaha.edu/~unoai/sats/
http://sats.larc.nasa.gov/main.html

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:42:12 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:16:11 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:
>
>>While many Americans lack the knowledge to
>>see it this way, airports are just as important an element of the public
>>transportation infrastructure as roadways and waterways, both of which are
>>readily acknowledged as worthy of public monies.
>
>When SATS* is eventually implemented, municipal airports will become
>indispensable. But there won't be any place left to build them,
>because the city governments chose to close them and build strip
>malls. :-(

If the airport's a better economic deal for the city than the mall,
it'll be eminent domain and bring on the bulldozers. Stuff gets torn
down all the time for freeways.

Don

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:31:55 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:42:12 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:16:11 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:
>>
>>>While many Americans lack the knowledge to
>>>see it this way, airports are just as important an element of the public
>>>transportation infrastructure as roadways and waterways, both of which are
>>>readily acknowledged as worthy of public monies.
>>
>>When SATS* is eventually implemented, municipal airports will become
>>indispensable. But there won't be any place left to build them,
>>because the city governments chose to close them and build strip
>>malls. :-(
>
>If the airport's a better economic deal for the city than the mall,
>it'll be eminent domain and bring on the bulldozers. Stuff gets torn
>down all the time for freeways.

We can hope.

But do you think there might be a little opposition to siting an
airport within the residential zone that has now been permitted to
surround the mall? Or would the municipality displace those residents
too. Can you imagine the EIR involved in reestablishing an airport in
an urban area today? Tomorrow? :-(

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:44:26 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:31:55 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:42:12 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:16:11 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:
>>>
>>>>While many Americans lack the knowledge to
>>>>see it this way, airports are just as important an element of the public
>>>>transportation infrastructure as roadways and waterways, both of which are
>>>>readily acknowledged as worthy of public monies.
>>>
>>>When SATS* is eventually implemented, municipal airports will become
>>>indispensable. But there won't be any place left to build them,
>>>because the city governments chose to close them and build strip
>>>malls. :-(
>>
>>If the airport's a better economic deal for the city than the mall,
>>it'll be eminent domain and bring on the bulldozers. Stuff gets torn
>>down all the time for freeways.
>
>We can hope.
>
>But do you think there might be a little opposition to siting an
>airport within the residential zone that has now been permitted to
>surround the mall? Or would the municipality displace those residents
>too. Can you imagine the EIR involved in reestablishing an airport in
>an urban area today? Tomorrow? :-(

Actually, I see them being sited as part of new industrial parks.
Bye-bye more farmland, but it's only a matter of time before American
agribusiness goes whole-hog (*especially* hog farming) for outsourcing
production overseas. (Like beef, seafood, fruits and most veggies are
not already produced largely abroad.)

Don

[James M. Knox]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> But do you think there might be a little opposition to siting an
> airport within the residential zone that has now been permitted to
> surround the mall? Or would the municipality displace those residents
> too.

Seldom will a city council tear down either housing OR business property to
build an airport. It a matter of being short sited. Those houses and
business property produce tax revenue NOW. The airport may produce even
more benefit to the community EVENTUALLY, but meanwhile the council is
going to get the hit for raising taxes to make up for the shortfall. While
his opponent, some years later, is going to get the praise for the economic
improvements to the community.

Sadly, most politicians can't see beyond their own re-election.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Ace Pilot]

"James M. Knox" > wrote in message
> There are a number of different models used in the US. First off, let's
> look at sources of income to the airport (excluding landing fees, which
> VERY few airports in the US have):
>
> o Fuel, oil sales
> o Hangar rental
> o Tiedown rental
> o Building lease (to FBO's, maintenance facilities, etc.)
> o Lease of overrun land (farming)
> o Sale of pilot supplies, food, etc. (if direct)
>
> Additionally, if the airport is open to the public, it is eligible for
> public tax monies. This is the MAJOR source of support for most
> airports, amounting to 90 to 95% or the total capital budget. This
> money is basically a recognition of the fact that everyone in the area
> benefits by having the airport, not just those who actually have an
> airplane. [Similarly, everyone in the community pays school taxes, even
> though they may not have children.]

[snip]

In addition to the capital budget typically being subsidized by both
federal and local governments, most small airports have their
operating budget subsidized by the local government (operating
expenses are not eligible for federal funds). Some GA airports are
self-sufficient on the operating side of things, but they are few and
far between. So, part of everyone's local tax dollars are going to the
local airport to support its operations.

This only applies to publicly-owned airports in the US. Private
airports, even if they are open to the public, are not eligible for
federal money and generally can't get state or local money.

[Don Tuite]

On 13 Nov 2003 13:14:12 -0800, (Ace
Pilot) wrote:
>
>This only applies to publicly-owned airports in the US. Private
>airports, even if they are open to the public, are not eligible for
>federal money and generally can't get state or local money.

Niggle: Actually, if a private airport is included in the National
Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). and if it designated by
the FAA as a reliever or if it has scheduled service and at least
2,500 annual enplanements, it is eligible for up to $150,000 per year
in federal AIP grants under the Wendall H. Ford Aviation Investment
and Reform Act for 21st Century (AIR-21). (Same deal goes for public
NPIAS airports, but without the other stipulations.)

<plug> There are a ****load of other grants available for small
airports, but public works managers out in the boonies don't always
have the bandwidth to apply for them and the grants go begging. If
you happen to be involved in airport management (especially in the
Western US) and you want to check it out go to www.airportgrants.com.
They don't work for free, but the grants include money to pay
consultants for grant-writing. </plug>

Disclaimer: I am not disinterested. Colleen and Carol are friends of
mine, and I give them PR advice from time to time.

Don

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:05:09 -0600, "James M. Knox"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
>> But do you think there might be a little opposition to siting an
>> airport within the residential zone that has now been permitted to
>> surround the mall? Or would the municipality displace those residents
>> too.
>
>Seldom will a city council tear down either housing OR business property to
>build an airport. It a matter of being short sited. Those houses and
>business property produce tax revenue NOW. The airport may produce even
>more benefit to the community EVENTUALLY, but meanwhile the council is
>going to get the hit for raising taxes to make up for the shortfall. While
>his opponent, some years later, is going to get the praise for the economic
>improvements to the community.
>
>Sadly, most politicians can't see beyond their own re-election.

So where will the future SATS municipal airports be built?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:05:09 -0600, "James M. Knox"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >Larry Dighera > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> But do you think there might be a little opposition to siting an
> >> airport within the residential zone that has now been permitted to
> >> surround the mall? Or would the municipality displace those residents
> >> too.
> >
> >Seldom will a city council tear down either housing OR business property to
> >build an airport. It a matter of being short sited. Those houses and
> >business property produce tax revenue NOW. The airport may produce even
> >more benefit to the community EVENTUALLY, but meanwhile the council is
> >going to get the hit for raising taxes to make up for the shortfall. While
> >his opponent, some years later, is going to get the praise for the economic
> >improvements to the community.
> >
> >Sadly, most politicians can't see beyond their own re-election.
>
> So where will the future SATS municipal airports be built?
>
>

They wont -- unless pilots get together and convince local entities that
closing or closed military airfields are valuable as airports -- not
housing developments.

[James M. Knox]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> So where will the future SATS municipal airports be built?

Good question. Ask me again in a few years.

When the city of Austin promised the FAA that they would purchase 3R3
and turn it into a reliever airport. They never even made an offer on
it. Both it and the main city airport closed within two weeks of each
other, leaving almost 600 planes looking for homes - the new airport
providing space for 61.

A bill was lobbied over a multi-year period to provide a GA airport "in
Central Texas." [For those who aren't familiar with Texas, that's sort
of like saying "in Central Europe" as far as distances. "Deals" were
struck, and the airport may not be in any county that doesn't want it,
nor near any city where the city council doesn't want it, nor may it use
any existing major abandoned airport facilities in any major central
Texas town whose name is Austin. [Yes, the old airport just sits there,
five years later, rusting away... grass growing up through the ditches
the council had dug across the runway.]

If there *is* a new CenTex airport ever built it most likely will be a
LONG way away from anywhere. The closest current airports are already
an hour or more away if there is traffic, and some of them are already
threatened with closure.

I'd love for my natural pessimism to be wrong, but ...

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------