Building Air Service Sustainability: Analytical Approach to Documenting Air Carrier Incentive Programs in Airport Sustainability Plans

Abstract

Airport operators occupy the complex space between managing a major economic generator for their region and operating a piece of municipal infrastructure that generates significant environmental emissions. Airport operators document airport environmental impacts and economic vitality and development, as well as study initiatives to improve in these areas in airport sustainability plans. However, neither airport sustainability planning guidance nor plans in practice document the economic or environmental impacts of air carrier incentive programs, which are municipal and airport-funded programs to waive fees for airlines launching new routes. As air carrier incentive programs (or airline incentive programs) are a mechanism through which airports and cities invest in growth and economic development while contributing to the environmental impacts of their airport, these programs are a natural fit for study within the structure of airport sustainability plans. This study presents a methodology for estimating the air traffic, investment costs, and environmental emissions from new flights launched under airline incentive programs and compares these values with existing economic development and sustainability initiatives documented in airport sustainability plans. It is found that the scope of airline incentive programs is significant in terms of air traffic, costs, and emissions, providing justification for documenting airline incentive programs. How a gap in the understanding of the economic value of incentivized flights hinders a comprehensive evaluation of airline incentive programs is discussed. The lack of a planning process for airline incentive programs keeps airport operators from learning from the experiences of their peers.

Can US Metropolitan Areas Use Large Commercial Airports as Tools to Bolster Regional Economic Growth?

“…These incentives can include waived landing fees and/or facility fees, as well as marketing funding support. Between 2012 and 2015, major airports such as those of Denver, CO, and Dallas/Fort Worth, TX, provided incentives for over 15,000 flight departures while midsized airports such as St. Louis, MO, Las Vegas, NV, and San Diego, CA, provided incentives for 8,000 to 10,000 flight departures (Ryerson 2016).…”

Factors affecting environmental practice adoption at small European airports: An investigation

“…Practices which involve modifying third party operations are also not commonly implemented. While some scholars have suggested that airports have a limited jurisdiction over pollutants, others contend that airports can exert some influence over third party operators’ actions ( Hansen et al, 2013 , Ryerson, 2016 ). A limited number of respondent airports indicated that they imposed practices on airlines to address noise pollution, however, such interventions were not widespread and, as such, our findings corroborate those of Boiral et al (2017) .…”

“…This supports Upham and Mills (2005) , who suggested that exposure to best practice and success stories makes adoption more likely. Increased networking and experience showcasing opportunities would likely be the most effective approach to this, as ‘airports rely on peer group learning for their most critical decision making’ and, furthermore, the literature has suggested that the dissemination of ‘guidebook’ type materials has been ineffective ( ACRP, 2011 , ACRP, 2016 , Ryerson, 2016 ).…”

“…Furthermore, despite the availability of ‘guidebook-type’ resources for small airports in the US ( ACRP, 2008 , ACRP, 2010 , ACRP, 2011 , ACRP, 2012 , ACRP, 2015 ) best practice guidance for small airports in other world regions is limited. This is potentially problematic as the US is atypical in that the majority of its small airports remain in full public ownership ( Ryerson, 2016 ). In many other global markets, airports are increasingly privately-owned or are operated under a mixed public–private ownership structure.…”

Planners Take Flight

“…Prior to the 2000s, subsidies for airline service were mostly federally funded and targeted at the smallest of aviation markets; after air traffic dropped precipitously in the wake of three major airline mergers and the 2008 economic recession, larger airports began subsidizing airlines for new air service. Between 2012 and 2015, more than half of the top seventy-two airports by passenger traffic began subsidizing domestic (forty airports) and international (forty-one airports) service (Ryerson, forthcoming). These airline subsidy programs, funded by a mix of municipal revenue and revenue generated on the airport from non-aeronautical sources, can be a powerful tool in luring air traffic, particularly new traffic away from competing airports.…”