airport master plan update - appendices

900 S. Broadway, Suite 350Denver, CO 80209

p. 303.524.3030f. 303.524.3031

www.jviat ion.com

YA M PA VA L L E YR E G I O N A L A I R P O R T

AIRPORT MASTERPLAN UPDATE - APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

A-1

AVIATION GLOSSARY OF TERMSAbove Ground Level (AGL). An altitude that is measured with respect to the underlying ground.

Accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA). The runway plus stopway length declared available and suitable for the acceleration and deceleration of an airplane aborting a takeoff.

Administrator. Federal Aviation Administrator or any person to whom he has delegated his authority in the matter concerned.

Advisory Circular (AC). External communications or publications issued by the FAA to provide non-regulatory guidelines for the recommendations relative to a policy, and guidance and information relative to a specific aviation subject matter.

Air Carrier. A person or company who undertakes directly by lease, or other arrangement, to engage in air transportation.

Aircraft. A device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

Airplane. An engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.

Large Airplane. An airplane of more than 12,500 pounds maximum certified takeoff weight.

Small Airplane. An airplane of 12,500 pounds or less maximum certified takeoff weight.

Balloon. A lighter-than-air aircraft that is not engine-driven, and that sustains flight through the use of either gas buoyancy or an airborne heater.

Glider. A heavier-than-air aircraft that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces and whose

free flight does not depend principally on an engine.

Heavy Aircraft. Aircraft capable of takeoff weight of more than 255,000 pounds whether or not they are operating at this weight during particular phase of flight.

Helicopter. A rotorcraft that, for horizontal motion, depends principally on its engine-driven rotors.

Large Aircraft. Aircraft of more than 41,000 pounds maximum certified takeoff weight, up to 255,000 pounds

Regional Jet (RJ). There is no regulatory definition for an RJ; however, for FAA use, an RJ is a commercial jet airplane that carries fewer than 100 passengers.

Rocket. An aircraft propelled by ejected expanding gases generate in engine from self-contained propellants and not dependants on the intake of outside substances.

Rotorcraft. A heavier-than-air aircraft that depends principally for it support in flight on the lift generated by one or more rotors.

Small Aircraft. Aircraft of 41,000 pounds or less maximum certified takeoff weight.

Aircraft Accident Safety Zone. This zone represents data clusters of historical aircraft accidents. The data is collected from the NTSB and analyzed in several studies to first determine the shape of the zone based on the greatest cluster of accident sites per acre and second on the ratio of accidents per acre changes.

Aircraft Approach Category. An alphabetical classification of an aircraft based upon 1.3 times the stall speed in a landing configuration at their maximum certified landing weight. The categories are as follows:

Category A: Speed less than 91 knots.

Category B: Speed 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/communication.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/publication.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/guideline.html

A-2

Category C: Speed 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots.

Category D: Speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots.

Category E: Speed 166 knots or more.

Aircraft Deicing Pad. See Deicing Pad.

Aircraft Operation. See Operation.

Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF). A special category of fire fighting that involves the response, hazard mitigation, evacuation and possible rescue of passengers and crew of an aircraft involved in (typically) an airport ground emergency.

ARFF Building. A facility located at an airport that provides emergency vehicles, extinguishing agents, and personnel responsible for minimizing the impacts of an aircraft accident or incident.

Airplane. See Aircraft

Airplane Design Group (ADG). A numerical classification aircraft based on wingspan or tail height. Where an airplane is in two categories, the most demanding category should be used. The groups are as follows:

Group I: Up to but not including 49 feet wingspan or tail height up to but not including 20 feet. (e.g. Cessna 172)

Group II: 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet wingspan or tail height from 20 up to not including 30 feet. (e.g. Cessna Citation Business jet).

Group III: 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet wingspan or tail height from 30 up to but not including 45 feet. (e.g. Boeing 737)

Group IV: 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet wingspan or tail height from 60 up to but not including 66 feet. (e.g. Boeing 767)

Group V: 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet wingspan or tail height from 60 up to but not including 66 feet. (e.g. Boeing 747)

Group VI: 214 feet up to but not including 262 feet wingspan or tail height from 66 up to but not including 80 feet. (e.g. Airbus A380)

Table: Airplane Design Groups (ADG) Group # Tail Height (ft.) Wingspan (ft.)

I <20 <49 II 20 ≤30 49 ≤79 III 30 ≤45 79 ≤118 IV 45 ≤60 118≤171 V 60 ≤66 171≤214 VI 66 ≤80 214 ≤262

Airport. An area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any.

Cargo Service Airport. An airport served by aircraft providing air transportation of property only, including mail, with an annual aggregate landed weight of at least 100 million pounds.

Certificated Airport. An airport that has been issued an Airport Operating Certificate by the FAA under the authority of FAR Part 139, Certification and Operation.

Commercial Service Airport. A public airport providing scheduled passenger service that enplanes at least 2,500 annual passengers.

General Aviation Airport. An airport that provides air service to only general aviation.

Hub Airport. An airport that an airline uses as a transfer point to get passengers to their intended destination. It is part of a hub and spoke model, where travelers moving between airports not served by direct flights change planes en route to their destinations.

Large Hub Airport. An airport that handles over 1% of the country’s annual enplanements.

A-3

Medium Hub Airport. An airport that handles 0.25% ≥ 1% of the country’s annual enplanements.

Small Hub Airport. An airport that handles 0.05% ≥ 0.25% of the country’s annual enplanements.

Non-Hub Airport. An airport that handles over 10,000 enplanements, but less than 0.05% of the country’s annual enplanements.

Incursions. See Runway Incursion.

International Airport. Relating to international flight, it means:

• An airport of entry which has been designated by the Secretary of Treasury or Commissioner of Customs as an international airport for customs service.

• A landing rights airport at which specific permission to land must be obtained from customs authorities in advance of contemplated use.

• Airports designated under the Convention on ICAO as an airport for use by international commercial air transport and/or international general aviation.

Primary Airport. A commercial service airport that enplanes at least 10,000 annual passengers.

Reliever Airport. General aviation airports in a major metropolitan area that provides pilots with attractive alternatives to using congested hub airports.

Uncontrolled Airport. An airport without an air traffic control tower at which the control of VFR traffic is not exercised. Pilots “see and avoid” other traffic without the aid of air traffic control.

Airport Authority. A quasi-government public organization responsible for setting the policies governing the management and operation of an airport or system of airports under its jurisdiction.

Airport Capital Improvement Plan. The planning program used by the FAA to identify, prioritize, and distribute funds for airport development and the needs of National Airspace System (NAS) to meet specified national goals and objectives.

Airport Elevation. The highest point of an airport’s usable runway(s) expressed in feet above mean sea level (MSL).

Airport Facility Directory. A publication with information on all airports, seaplane bases, and heliports open to the public. This publication is issued in seven volumes according to geographical area, and includes communications data, navigational facilities, and certain special notices and procedures.

Airport Improvement Program (AIP). A program authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 that provides funding for the airport planning and development.

Airport Influence Area. The area defined by overlaying the FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces, Aircraft Accident Safety Zone data, and Noise Contour data over the top of an existing land use map, critical areas map or other base map.

Airport Layout Plan (ALP). A scaled drawing of the airport showing the layout of existing and proposed facilities necessary for current and future operation and development of the airport.

Airport Layout Plan Drawing Set. A set of planning drawings that depicts existing airport facilities and proposed development as determined from the planners’ review of the aviation activity forecasts, facility requirements, and alternative analysis. Minimum components of the set are:

• Cover Sheet • Airport Layout Plan (ALP) • Data Sheet

A-4

• Facilities Layout Plan • Terminal Area Plan(s) • Airspace Drawing • Inner Approach Surface Drawing(s) • Departure Surface Drawing(s) • On-Airport Land Use Drawing • Off-Airport Land Use Drawing • Airport Property (also known as the Exhibit A) • Utility Drawing(s)

Airport Lighting. Various lighting aids that may be installed on an airport. Types of airport lighting include:

ALS. See Approach Light System.

Boundary Lights. Lights defining the perimeter of an airport or landing area.

Runway Centerline Lighting. Flush centerline lights spaced at 50-foot intervals beginning 75 feet from the landing threshold and extending to within 75 feet of the opposite end of the runway. Only used on Category II/III ILS Runways.

Runway Edge Lights. Lights used to outline the edges of the runways during periods of darkness or restricted visibility conditions. They are usually uniformly spaced at intervals of approximately 200 feet, and intensity may be controlled or preset. These light systems are classified according to the intensity they are capable of producing:

• High Intensity Runway Lights (HIRLs).

• Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRLs).

• Low Intensity Runway Lights (LIRLs).

Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL).Provides rapid and positive identification of the approach end of particular runway. The system consists of a pair of synchronized flashing lights, one on each side of the runway threshold.

Threshold Lights. Fixed lights arranged symmetrically left and right of the runway centerline, identifying the runway threshold. Lights are green for arriving aircraft and red for departing aircraft.

Touchdown Zone Lighting. Two rows of transverse light bars located symmetrically about the runway centerline normally at 100 foot intervals. Only used on Category II/III ILS Runways.

Airport Markings. Markings used on runway and taxiway surfaces to identify a specific runway, a runway threshold, a centerline, a hold line, etc. A runway should be marked in accordance with its present usage such as: 1) Visual, 2) Nonprecision instrument, 3) Precision Instrument.

Airport Master Plan. A comprehensive study of an airport that focuses on the short-, medium-, and long-term development plan to meet future aviation demand of the airport.

Airport Obstruction Chart. A scaled drawing depicting the FAR Part 77 imaginary airspace surfaces, a representation of objects that penetrate these surfaces, runway, taxiway, and ramp areas, navigational aids, buildings, roads, and other detail in the vicinity of the airport.

Airport Operations Area (AOA). An area of an airport used or intended to be used for landing, takeoff, or surface maneuvering of aircraft. An AOA includes such paved areas or unpaved areas that are used or intended to be used for the unobstructed movement of aircraft in addition to its associated runway, taxiways, or apron.

Airport Operator. The operator (private or public) or sponsor of a public-use airport.

Airport Reference Code (ARC). A coding system used to relate the airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the

A-5

airplanes intended to use the airport or the critical aircraft. It is a two character code consisting of the Aircraft Approach Category and the Airplane Design Group.

Airport Reference Point (ARP). The latitude and longitude of the approximate center of the runway(s) at an airport.

Airport Signs. Signs used to identify items and locations on the airport.

Boundary Sign. These signs are used to identify the location of the boundary of the RSA/ROFZ or ILS critical areas for a pilot, or an existing the runway. These signs have a black inscription on a yellow background.

Destination Sign. These signs indicate the general direction to a remote location. They have black inscriptions on a yellow background and ALWAYS contain an arrow.

Direction Sign. These signs indicate directions of taxiways leading out of an intersection. They may also be used to indicate a taxiway exit from a runway. These signs have black inscriptions on a yellow background and ALWAYS contain arrows.

Information Sign. These signs are installed on the airside of an airport and are considered to be signs other than

mandatory signs. They have black inscriptions on a yellow background.

Location Sign. These signs identify the taxiway or runway upon which the aircraft is located. The sign has a yellow inscriptions on a black background with a yellow border and does NOT use arrows.

Mandatory Instruction Sign. They denote taxiway/runway intersections, runway/runway intersections, ILS critical areas, OFZ boundaries, runway approach areas, CAT II/II operations areas, military landing zones, and no entry areas. These signs have white inscriptions with a black outline on a red background.

Roadway Sign. These signs are located on the airfield and are solely intended for vehicle operators. They should conform to the categorical color codes established by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Runway Distance Remaining Signs. These signs are used to provide distance remaining information to pilots during takeoff and landing operations. These signs have a white numeral inscription on a black background.

A-6

Airport Sponsor. The entity that is legally responsible for the management and operation of an airport including the fulfillment of the requirements of laws and regulations related thereto.

Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR). A radar system used at airports to detect and display the position of aircraft in the terminal area.

Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ATRCC). A facility responsible for en route control of aircraft operating under IFR in a particular volume of airspace (within its area of jurisdiction) at high altitudes between airport approaches and departures. Approximately 26 such centers cover the United States.

Airside. The portion of an airport that contains the facilities necessary for the operations of aircraft.

Air Taxi. An aircraft operating under an air taxi operating certificate for the purpose of carrying passengers, mail, cargo for revenue in accordance with FAR 121 or FAR Part 135.

Air Traffic. Any aircraft operating in the air or on an airport surface, exclusive of loading ramps and parking areas.

Air Traffic Control (ATC). A service provided by ground-based controllers who direct aircraft on the ground and in the air. The primary purpose of ATC systems is to separate aircraft to prevent collisions, to organize and expedite the flow of traffic, and to provide information and other support for pilots when able.

Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT). A facility in the terminal air traffic control system located at an airport which consists of a tower cab structure and an associated instrument flight rules rooms, if radar equipped, that uses ground-to-air and air-

to-ground communications and radar, visual, signaling, and other devices to provide for the safe and expeditious movement of terminal area air traffic in the airspace and airports within its jurisdiction.

Annual Service Volume (ASV). The number of annual operations that can reasonably be expected to occur at the airport based on a given level of delay.

Anti-Icing. Following aircraft deicing, anti-icing chemicals can applied to protect against the accumulation of ice or snow for a limited period of time, known as the holdover time.

Approach (or Departure) Airspace. The airspace, within five statue miles of an airport, through which aircraft more during landing and takeoff.

Approach Surface. See Imaginary Surfaces.

Approach Light System (ALS). An airport lighting facility aids in runway identification during the transition from instrument flight to visual flight for landing.

Approach Light System with Sequenced Flashing (ALFS).

Lead-in-light System (LDIN). Consists of one or more series of flashing lights installed at or near ground level that provides positive visual guidance along an approach path, either curving or straight, where special problems exist with hazardous terrain, obstructions, or noise abatement procedures.

Medium-Intensity Approach Light System with Runway Alignment Indicator (MALSR). A lighting system installed on the approach end of a runway and consists of a series of lightbars, strobe lights, or a combination that extends outward from the runway end. It usually serves a runway that has an instrument approach procedure

A-7

associated with it and allows the pilot to visually identify and align self with the runway environment once the pilot has arrived at a prescribed point on the approach.

Omnidirectional Approach Lighting System (ODALS). Consist of seven omnidirectional flashing lights located in the approach area of a non-precision runway. Five lights are located on the runway centerline extended with the first light located 300 feet from the threshold and extending at equal intervals up to 1,500 feet from the threshold. The other two lights are located on each side of the runway, with a lateral distance of 40 feet from the runway edge, or 75v feet from the runway edge when installed on a runway equipped with VASI.

Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (RAILS). Sequenced Flashing Lights which are installed only in combination with other lighting systems.

Apron. A specific portion of the airfield used for passenger, cargo or freight loading and unloading, aircraft parking, and the refueling, maintenance and servicing of aircraft. Also referred to as ramp or tarmac.

Approach (or Departure) Airspace. The airspace, within five statue miles of an airport, through which aircraft more during landing and takeoff.

Approach Surface. See Imaginary Surfaces.

Arrival Time. The time an aircraft touches down on arrival.

Automated Flight Service Station (AFSS). An automated air traffic facility that provides information and services to aircraft pilots before, during, and after flights, but it is not responsible for giving instructions or clearances or providing separation.

Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS). Similar data reporting as an AWOS, but usually owned and maintained by the National Weather Service.

Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS). An automated sensor suite which is voice synthesized to provide a weather report that can be transmitted via VHF radio, NDB, or VOR ensuring that pilots on approach have up-to-date airport weather for safe and efficient aviation operations. Most AWOS observe and record temperature and dew point in degrees Celsius, wind speed and direction in knots, visibility, cloud coverage and ceiling up to 12,000 feet, freezing rain, thunderstorm (lightning), and altimeter setting.

Avigation Easement. A contractual right or a property interest in land over which a right of unobstructed flight in the airspace can occur.

Balloon. See Aircraft.

Baggage Claim. An area where passengers obtain luggage that was previously checked at an airline ticket counter at the departing airport.

Based Aircraft. The general aviation aircraft that use a specific airport as a home base.

Base Leg. See Traffic Pattern.

Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA). An analysis of the cost, benefit, and the uncertainty associated with a project or action. A formal BCA is required for capacity projects of $5 million or more AIP discretionary funds.

Birds Balls. High-density plastic floating balls that can be used to cover ponds and prevent birds from using the sites.

Blast Fence. A barrier used to divert or dissipate jet blast or propeller wash.

Boundary Lights. See Airport Lighting.

Boundary Sign. See Airport Signs.

A-8

Building Restriction Line (BRL). A line that identifies suitable building area locations on airports to limit building proximity to aircraft movement areas. Typically base on the FAR Part 77 Airport Imaginary Surfaces.

Capacity (Throughput Capacity). A measure of the maximum number of aircraft operations or their airport components which can be accommodated on the airport.

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The planning program used by the FAA to indentify, prioritize, and distribute AIP funds for airport development and the needs of the NAS to meet specified national goals and objectives.

Cargo Service Airport. See Airport.

Ceiling. The height above the earth's surface of the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomena that is reported as broken, overcast or obscured.

Certificated Airport. See Airport.

Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC). A group of individuals that weight recommendations against community goals, values, and needs, typically during a Master Plan.

Clear Zone. Former term for Runway Protection Zone.

Clearway (CWY). A defined rectangular area beyond the end of the runway cleared or suitable for use in lieu of runway to satisfy take off distance requirements.

Commercial Service Airport. See Airport.

Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF). The VHF radio frequency used for air-to-air communication at uncontrolled airports or where no control tower is currently active. Pilots use the common frequency to coordinate their arrivals and departures safely, give position reports, and acknowledge other aircraft in the airfield traffic pattern.

Compass Rose. A circle, graduated in degrees, printed on some charts or marked on the ground at an airport. It is used as a reference to either true or magnetic direction. When marked on the ground it is used to calibrate an aircraft’s compass.

Conical Surface. See Imaginary Surfaces.

Consultant. A firm, individual, partnership, corporation, or joint venture that performs architectural, engineering or planning service as defined in AC150/5100-14D, employed to undertake work funded under an FAA airport grant assistance program.

Controlled Airspace. Airspace of defined dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided to IFR flight and to VFR flights in accordance with the airspace classification. Controlled airspace is a generic term that covers Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, and Class E Airspace.

Critical (Design) Aircraft. The most demanding aircraft with at least 500 annual operations that operates, or is expected to operate, at the airport.

Crosswind. A wind that is not parallel to a runway centerline or to the intended flight path of an aircraft.

Crosswind Component. The component of wind that is at a right angle to the runway centerline or the intended flight path of an aircraft.

Crosswind Leg. See Traffic Pattern.

Decision Height (DH). This is associated with precision approaches and the aircraft is continually descending on final approach. When the aircraft reaches the DH, the pilot must make a decision to land or execute the missed approach procedure.

Deicing. The removal, though application of a max of heated water and propylene or ethylene glycol, of frost, ice, slush, or snow from the aircraft in order to provide clean surfaces.

A-9

Deicing Pad. A facility where an aircraft received deicing or anti-icing.

Delay. The difference between constrained and unconstrained operating time.

Demand. The number of aircraft operations, passengers, or other factors that are required in a specific period of time.

Department of Transportation (DOT). The United States federal department that institutes and coordinates national transportation programs; created in 1966. The FAA is an organization within the DOT.

Departure Airspace. See Approach Airspace.

Destination Sign. See Airport Signs.

Detention Ponds. Storm water management ponds that hold storm water for short periods of time, a few hours to a few days.

Direction Sign. See Airport Signs.

Discretionary Grant Funds. Annual Federal grant funds that may be appropriate to an airport based upon designation by the Secretary of Transportation or Congress to meet a specified national priority such as enhancing capacity, safety, and security or mitigating noise.

Displaced Threshold. See Threshold.

Distance Measuring Equipment (DME). See Navigation Aid.

Downwind Leg. See Traffic Pattern.

Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT). A radio transmitter attached to the aircraft structure that aids in locating downed aircraft by radiating a audio tone on 121.5 MHz or 243 MHz.

Enplanement. The boarding of a passenger, cargo, freight or mail on an aircraft at an airport.

Entitlement Grant Funds. Annual federal funds for which all airports in the NPIAS are eligible for.

Environmental Assessment (EA). An environmental analysis performed pursuant to the Nation Environmental Policy Act to determine whether an action would significantly affect the environment and thus require a more detailed environment al impact statement.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A document required of federal agencies by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for major projects or legislative proposals affecting the environment. It is a tool for decision-making describing the positive. If no significant impact is found a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is issued.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). An agency of the United States Department of Transportation with authority to regulate and oversee all aspects of civil aviation in the United States.

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The general and permanent rules established by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal government for aviation which are published in the Federal Register. These are the aviation subset of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Federal Grant Agreement. A Federal agreement that represents an agreement made between the FAA (on the behalf of the United States) and an airport sponsor for the grant of Federal Funding.

Federal Grant Assurance. A provision within a Federal grant agreement to which the recipient of Federal airport development assistance has agreed to comply in consideration of the assistance provided.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). A public document prepared by a Federal agency that presents the rationale why a proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment and for which an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.

Fixed Base Operator (FBO). A business enterprise located on the airport property that

A-10

provides services to pilots including aircraft rental, training, fueling, maintenance, parking, and the sale of pilot supplies.

Flight Service Station (FSS). An air traffic facility that provides information and services to aircraft pilots before, during, and after flights, but unlike ATC, is not responsible for giving instructions, clearances, or providing separation.

Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). An FAA field office serving an assigned geographical area and staffed with Flight Standard personnel who serve the aviation industry and the general public on matters relating to the certification and operation of air carrier and general aviation aircraft. Activities include general surveillance of operation safety, certification of airmen and aircraft, accident prevention, investigation, enforcement, etc.

Foreign Object Debris (FOD). Any object found on an airport that does not belong in or near airplanes, and as a result can injure personnel and damage aircraft.

Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alternation. Federal law requires filing a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460) for all structures over 200 feet AGL or lower if closer than 20,000 feet to a public use airport with a runway over 3,200 feet in length.

Form 7480-1, Notice of Landing Area Proposal. Submitted to the FAA Airport Regional Division Office or ADO as formal written notification for project involving the construction of a new airport; the construction, realigning, altering, activating, or abandoning of a runway, landing strip, or associated taxiway; or the deactivation or abandoning of an entire airport.

Fuel Flowage Fee. A tax assessed on the user, which is paid at the pump. Fuel flowage fee revenues are sent to the airport governing body, usually the board or authority and are then used for airport improvements or other expenses.

Gap Analysis. See Safety Management System.

Gate. An aircraft parking position used by a single aircraft loading or unloading passengers, mail, or cargo, etc.

General Aviation (GA). The segment of aviation that encompasses all aspects of civil aviation except certified air carriers and other commercial operators, such as airfreight carriers.

General Aviation Airport. See Airport.

Geographic Information System (GIS). A technology that manages, analyzes, and disseminates geographic data.

Glider. See Aircraft.

Glideslope. See Instrument Landing System.

Global Positioning System (GPS). A satellite based navigational system that provides signals in the cockpit of aircraft defining aircraft position in terms of latitude, longitude, and altitude.

GPS Runway. See Runway.

Grant Agreement. See Federal Grant Agreement.

Ground Access. The transportation system on and around the airport that provides access to and from the airport by ground transportation vehicle for passengers, employees, cargo, freight, and airport services.

Hazard. See Safety Management System.

Hazardous Wildlife. Species of wildlife (birds, mammals, reptiles) including feral animals and domesticated animals not under control, that are associated with aircraft strike problems, are capable of causing structural damage to airport facilities, or act as attractants to other wildlife that pose a strike hazard.

Heavy Aircraft. See Aircraft.

Helicopter. See Aircraft.

A-11

Helipad. A small, designated area, usually with prepared surface, on a heliport, airport, landing/takeoff area, apron/ramp, movement area used for takeoff, landing, or parking of helicopters.

Heliport. An area of land, water, or structure used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters.

High Intensity Runway Lighting (HIRL). See Airport Lighting.

Holdover Time. The estimated time the application of anti-icing fluid will prevent the formation of frozen contamination on the protected surfaces of an aircraft. With a one-step deicing/anti-icing operation, the holdover beings at the start of the operations; with a two-step operations, the holdover beings at the start of the final anti-icing application.

Horizontal Surface. See Imaginary Surfaces.

Hub Airport. See Airport.

Imaginary Surfaces. Are surfaces defined in FAR Part 77, and are in relation to the airport and each runway. The size of these imaginary surfaces is based on the category of each runway for current and future airport operations. Any objects which penetrate these surfaces are considered an obstruction and affects navigable airspace.

Approach Surface. An imaginary obstruction limiting surface defined in FAR Part 77 which is longitudinally centered on an extended runway centerline and extends outward and upward from the primary surface at each end of a runway at a designated slope and distance upon the type of available or planned approach by aircraft to a runway.

Conical Surface. An imaginary obstruction-limiting surface defined in FAR Part 77 that extends from the edge of the horizontal surface outward and

upward at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.

Horizontal Surface. An imagery obstruction-limiting surface defined in FAR Part 77 that is specified as a portion of a horizontal plane surrounding a runway located 150 feet above the established airport elevation. The specific horizontal dimension of this surface is a function of the types of approaches existing or planned for the runway.

Primary Surface. An imaginary obstruction-limiting surface defined in FAR Part 77 that is specified as a rectangular surface longitudinally centered about a runway. The specific dimensions of this surface are function of types of approaches existing or planned for the runway.

Transitional Surface. An imaginary obstruction-limiting surface defined in FAR Part 77 that extends outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of 7 to 1 from the slides of the primary surface.

Incursion. The unauthorized entry by an aircraft, vehicle, or obstacle into the defined protected area surrounding an active runway, taxiway, or apron.

Information Sign. See Airport Signs.

Inner Marker (IM). See Instrument Landing System.

Instrument Approach. A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing or to a point from which a landing may be made visually.

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Procedures for the conduct of flight in weather conditions below Visual Flight Rules (VFR) weather minimums.

A-12

The term IFR is often also used to define weather conditions and type of flight plan under which an aircraft is operating. IFR is defined as the weather condition that occurs whenever the cloud ceiling is at least 500 feet above ground level, but less than 1,000 feet and/or visibility is at least one statue mile, but less than 3 statute miles.

Instrument Landing System (ILS). A precise ground based navigation system for aircraft that provides precision guidance to an aircraft approaching a runway. It uses a combination of radio signals and, in many cases, high-intensity lighting arrays to enable a safe landing during instrument meteorological conditions. Normally consists of the following components and visual aids:

Localizer. The component of an ILS which provides horizontal guidance to the runway.

Glideslope. An independent ILS subsystem that provides vertical guidance to aircraft approaching a runway. It is an antenna array that is usually located on one side of the runway touchdown zone.

Outer Marker (OM). A marker beacon at or near the glideslope intercept altitude of an ILS approach and it keyed to transmit two dashes per second.

Middle Marker (MM). A marker beacon that defines a point along the glideslope of an ILS normally located at or near the point of DH (CAT I). It is keyed to transmit alternate dots and dashes.

Inner Marker (IM). A marker beacon use with an ILS (CAT II & CAT III) precision approach located between the middle marker and the end of the ILS runway, transmitting a radiation pattern keyed at six dots per second, and indicating that the pilot, both aurally and visually, is at the DH

Approach Lights. See Approach Lighting Systems.

ILS Categories:

Precision Approach Category I (CAT I). An instrument approach procedure which provides for an approach to a DH of not less than 200 feet and visibility of not less than ½ mile or RVR 2,400 (RVR 1,800 with operative touchdown zone and runway centerline lights).

Precision Approach Category II (CAT II). An instrument approach procedure which provides for an approach to a minima less than CAT I to as low as a DH of not less than 200 feet and visibility of not less than 100 feet and RVR of not less than RVR 1,200.

Precision Approach Category III (CAT III An instrument approach procedure which provides for an approach to minima less than CAT II.

Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of specific visibility and ceiling conditions that are less than the minimums specified for visual meteorological conditions. IMC are defined as period when cloud ceiling are less than 1,000 feet above ground and/or visibility less than three miles

Instrument Runway. See Runway.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). An agency of the United Nations which codifies the principles and techniques of the international air navigation, and fosters the planning and development of international air transport to ensure safe and orderly growth. The ICAO Council adopts standards and recommended practices concerning air navigation, prevention of unlawful interference, and facilitation of border-crossing procedure for international civil aviation.

A-13

Itinerant Operations. See Operation.

Knot. A unit of speed equal to one nautical mile per hour, or 1.15 statue mile per hour.

Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO). To increase airport capacity, efficiency, and safety, LAHSO clearances usually instruct an aircraft to land, and then hold short of an intersecting runway, taxiway, or predetermined point.

Large Hub Airport. See Airport.

Landside. The portion of an airport that provides the facilities necessary for the processing of passengers, cargo, freight, and ground transportation vehicles.

Large Airplane. See Aircraft.

Lead-In-Light System (LDIN). See Approach Light System.

Localizer. See Instrument Landing System.

Local Operations. See Operation.

Location Sign. See Airport Signs.

Low Intensity Airport Lighting. See Airport Lighting.

Magnetic (Compass) Heading. The heading relative to the magnetic poles of the Earth. Is the heading indicated by a magnetic compass.

Mandatory Instruction Sign. See Airport Signs.

Maximum Certified Takeoff Weight (MTOW). The Maximum certificated weight for the airplane at takeoff, i.e. the airplane’s weight at the start of the takeoff run.

Mean Sea Level (MSL). The average or mean height of the sea, with reference to a suitable reference surface.

Medium Hub Airport. See Airport.

Medium Intensity Approach Light System with Runway Alignment Indicator (MASLR). See Approach Light System.

Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL). See Airport Lighting.

Middle Marker (MM). See Instrument Landing System.

Military Operations. See Operation.

Minimum Descent Altitude. This is associated with non-precision approaches and is the lowest altitude an aircraft can fly until the pilot sees the airport environment. If the pilot has not found the airport environment by the Missed Approach Point (MAP) a missed approach is initiated.

Missed Approach Point (MAP). The point prescribed in an instrument approach at which a missed approach procedure shall be executed if visual reference of the runway environment is not in sight or the pilot decides it is unsafe to continue. The MAP is similar in principle to the Decision Height.

Movement Area. The runway, taxiways, and other area of an airport an airport/heliport which are utilized for taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps and parking areas. At those airports with a tower, specific approval for entry onto the movement area must be obtained from ATC.

National Airspace System (NAS). The network of air traffic control facilities, air traffic control areas, and navigational facilities throughout the U.S.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Federal legislation that established environmental policy for the nation. It requires an interdisciplinary framework for federal agencies to evaluate environmental impacts and contains action-forcing procedures to ensure that federal agency decision makers take environmental factors into account.

National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The national airport system plan

A-14

developed by the Secretary of Transportation on a biannual basis for the development of public use airports to meet national air transportation needs.

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). A federal investigatory board whose mandate is to ensure safe public transportation. As part of the DOT, the NTSB investigates accidents, conducts studies, and makes recommendations to federal agencies and the transportation industry.

Navigation Aid (NAVAID). Any visual electronic device, airborne or on the surface, which provides point-to-point guidance information or position data to aircraft in flight.

Distance Measuring Equipment (DME). Equipment (airborne and ground) used to measure, in nautical miles, the slant range distance of an aircraft from the DME NAVAID.

Non-Directional Beacon (NDB). A radio transmitter at a known location used as a NAVIAD. The signal transmitted does not include inherent directional information, in contrast with other NAVIADS such as VOR and TACAN.

Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI). A path indicator that uses a single row of lights arranged to provide precision descent guidance information during approach to a runway.

Rotating Beacon. A visual NAVAID used to assist pilots in finding an airport, particularly those flying in IMC or VFR at night. The beacon provides information about the type of airport through the use of a particular set of color filter:

• Green flashed alternated with two quick white flashes: Lighted military land airport.

• Alternating White and green flashes: Lighted civilian land airport.

• Alternating white and yellow flashes: lighted water airport

• Alternating yellow, green, and white: Lighted heliport.

Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN). An ultra-high frequency electronic rho-theta NAVAID which provides suitably equipped aircraft a continuous indication of bearing and distance to the TACAN station.

Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI). A system of lights arranged to provide vertical visual approach slope guidance to aircraft during approach to landing by radiating a directional pattern of high intensity red and white focused light beam.

VOR (Very High Frequency Omni-directional Radio-range). A ground-based electronic NAVAID transmitting very high frequency navigation signals, 360 azimuth, oriented from magnetic north, used as a basis for navigation in NAS.

VORTAC. A NAVAID providing VOR azimuth, TACAN azimuth, and TACAN DME at one site.

Night. The time between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in the American Air Almanac, converted to local time.

Noise Abatement Procedures. Procedures developed by the FAA and community to reduce the level of noise generated by aircraft departing over populated areas.

Noise Contour. A continuous line on a map of the airport vicinity connecting all points of the same noise level. These contours represent noise levels generated from aircraft operations, takeoff

A-15

and landing of aircraft. They are generated based on mythology developed by the FAA and the data provides information that can be used to identify varying degrees of noise impacts on the surrounding area.

Non-Directional Beacon (NDB). See Navigation Aid.

Non-Hub Airport. See Airport.

Non-Movement Area. Taxilanes and apron areas not in the movement area and therefore no under the control of traffic control.

Nonprecision Approach Procedure. A standard instrument approach procedure in which no electronic glideslope is provided.

Nonprecision Runway. See Runway.

Notice to Airmen (NOTAM).A notice containing information concerning the establishment, condition, or change in any component (facility, service, procedure of, or hazard in the NAS) the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations.

Object. Includes, but is not limited to above ground structures, NAVAIDs, people, equipment, vehicles, natural growth, terrain, and parked aircraft.

Object Free Area (OFA). An area on the ground centered on a runway (ROFA), taxiway (TOFA), or taxilane centerline provided to enhance the safety of aircraft operations by having the area free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes.

Obstacle. An existing object which may be expected at a fixed location within prescribed area with reference to the vertical clearance that must be provided during flight operations.

Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ). The OFZ is the airspace below 150 feet above the established

airport elevation and along the runway and extended runway centerline that is required to be clear of all objects, except for frangible visual NAVAIDs that need to be located in the OFZ because of their function, in order to provide clearance protection for aircraft landing or taking off from the runway, and for missed approaches.

Obstruction. An object of greater height than any of the surfaces presented in FAR Part 77. (Obstructions to air navigation are presumed to be hazards to air navigation until an FAA study has determined otherwise.)

Omnidirectional Approach Lighting System (ODALS). See Approach Light System.

Operation. The landing, takeoff, or touch-and-go procedure by an aircraft on a runway at an airport.

Itinerant Operations. Operations by aircraft that leaves the local airspace.

Local Operations. Aircraft operations performed by aircraft that are based at the airport and that operate in the local traffic pattern or within sight of the airport, that are known to be departing for or arriving from flights in local practice areas within a prescribed distance from the airport, or that execute simulated instrument approaches at the airport.

Military Operations. Aircraft operations performed in military aircraft. May be itinerant or local operations.

Transient Operations. Operations by aircraft that are not based at a specified airport.

Outer Marker (OM). See Instrument Landing System.

Parallel Runways. See Runway.

Parallel Taxiways. See Taxiway.

A-16

Passenger Facility Charge (PFC). The collection of PFC fees for every enplaned passenger at commercial airports controlled by public agencies to be used to fund FAA-approved projects that enhance safety, security, or Capacity; reduce noise; or increase air carrier competition.

Peak Hour (PH). An estimate of the busiest hour in a day. This is also known as the design hour.

Performance-Based Navigation (PBN). It specifies that aircraft RNP and RNAV systems performance requirements be defined in terms of accuracy, integrity, availability, continuity and functionality required for the proposed operations in the context of a particular airspace, when supported by the appropriate navigation infrastructure.

Area Navigation (RNAV). A method of navigation that permits aircraft operations on any desired flight path.

Required Navigation Performance (RNP). A type of Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) that allows an aircraft to fly a specific path between two, 3 dimensionally defined points in space.

Planning Activity Level (PAL). Selected activity levels that may trigger the need for additional facilities or improvements.

Precision Approach Categories I, II, III (CAT I, CAT II, CAT III). See Instrument Landing System.

Precision Approach Procedure. A standard precision approach procedure in which an electronic glideslope is provided, such as ILS or PAR.

Primary Airport. See Airport.

Primary Surface. See Imaginary Surfaces.

Poor Visibility and Ceiling (PVC). Is a condition that exists whenever the cloud ceiling is

less than 500 feet and/or the visibility is less than one statue mile.

Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI). See Navigational Aid

Ramp. Synonymous with Apron. See Apron.

Record of Decision (ROD). A public document that reflects the FAA’s final decision of an EIS, rationale behind that decision, and commitments to enforce and monitor mitigation.

Regional Jet. See Aircraft.

Regression Analysis. A statistical technique that seeks to identify and quantify the relationships between factors associated with a forecast.

Reliever Airport. See Airport.

Retention Ponds. Storm water management ponds that hold water for several months.

Risk Assessment. See Safety Management System.

RNAV. See Performance Based Navigatio.n

RNP. See Performance Based Navigation.

Roadway Sign. See Airport Signs.

Rocket. See Aircraft.

Rotating Beacon. See Navigation Aid.

Rotorcraft. See Aircraft.

Runway (RW). Defined as rectangular surface on an airport prepared or suitable for the landing and takeoff of airplanes.

Instrument Runway. A runway equipped with electronic and visual navigation aids for which a precision or nonprecision approach procedure having straight-in landing minimums has been approved.

GPS Runway. A runway having a precision or nonprecision approach procedure using GPS navigational

A-17

guidance with or without vertical guidance.

Nonprecision Instrument Runway. A runway having an existing instrument approach procedure utilizing air navigation facilities with only horizontal guidance for which a straight-in or side-step nonprecision approach procedure has been approved.

Nonprecision Runway. A runway with only horizontal guidance available.

Parallel Runways. Two or more runways at the same airport whose centerlines are parallel. In addition to runway number, parallel runways are designated as L (left) and R (right) or, if three parallel runways exist, L (left), C (center), and R (right).

Precision Instrument Runway. A runway having an existing instrument approach procedure utilizing air navigation facilities with both horizontal and vertical guidance for which a precision approach procedure has been approved.

Utility Runway. A runway that is constructed for and intended to used by propeller driven aircraft of 12,500 pounds maximum gross weight and less.

Visual Runway. A runway without an existing or planned straight-in instrument approach procedure and no instrument approach procedure/equipment.

Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (RAILS). See Approach Light System.

Runway Blast Pad. A surface adjacent to the ends of the runways provided to reduce the erosive effect of jet blast and propeller wash.

Runway Centerline Lighting. See Airport Lighting.

Runway Distance Remaining Sign. See Airport Signs.

Runway Edge Lights. See Airport Lighting.

Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL). See Airport Lighting.

Runway Environment. The physical runway and the areas surrounding the runway out to the hold position marking.

Runway Gradient. The ratio of the change in elevation divided by the length of the runway expressed as a percentage.

Runway Heading. The magnetic direction that corresponds with the runway centerline extended.

Runway Incursion. Any occurrence at an airport involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of aircraft.

Runway Lights. See Airport Lighting.

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). A trapezoidal area off the runway end intended to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground.

Runway Safety Area (RSA). A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway.

Runway Visual Range (RVR). The distance over which a pilot of an aircraft on the centerline of the runway can see the runway surface markings delineating the runway or identifying its centerline. RVR is normally expressed in feet.

Safety Assessment. See Safety Management System.

Safety Assurance. See Safety Management System.

Safety Management System. The formal top-down business-like approach to managing safety risk. It includes systematic procedures, practices, and policies for the management of safety

A-18

(including safety risk management, safety policy, safety assurance, and safety promotion).

Gap Analysis. Identification of existing safety components, compare to SMS program requirements. Gap analysis provides an airport operator an initial SMS development plan and Safety roadmap to compliance.

Hazard. Any existing or potential condition that can lead to injury, illness, or death to people; damage to or loss of a system, equipment, or property, or damage to the environment. A hazard is a condition that is a prerequisite to an accident or incident.

Risk Assessment. Assessment of the system or component to compare the achieved risk level with the tolerable risk level.

Safety Assessment. A systematic, comprehensive evaluation of an implemented system.

Safety Assurance. SMS process management functions that systematically provides confidence that organizational products/services meet or exceed safety requirements.

Safety Policy. Defines the fundamental approach to managing safety that is to be adopted within an organization. Safety policy further defines the organization’s commitment to safety and overall safety vision.

Safety Promotion. A combination of safety culture, training, and data sharing activities that supports the implementation and operation of an SMS in an organization.

Safety Risk Control. Anything that mitigates the safety risk of a hazard. Safety risk controls necessary to mitigate an unacceptable risk should be

mandatory, measureable, and monitored for effectiveness.

Safety Risk Management (SRM). A formal process within the SMS composed of describing the system, identifying the hazards, assessing the risk, analyzing the risk, and controlling the risk. The SRM process is embedded in the operation system: is not a separate/distinct process.

Severity. The consequence or impact of a hazard in terms of degree of loss or harm.

Safety Policy. See Safety Management System.

Safety Promotion. See Safety Management System.

Safety Risk. See Safety Management System.

Safety Risk Control. See Safety Management System.

Safety Risk Management (SRM). See Safety Management System.

Scope. The document that identifies and defines the tasks emphasis, and level of effort associated with a project or study.

Self-Fueling. The fueling of an aircraft by the owner or operator of the aircraft.

Segmented Circle. A circle located on an airport where wind and runway pattern information are located. It performs two function: it aids the pilot in locating the obscure airports, and it provides a centralized location for wind and traffic pattern indicators as may be required on a particular airport.

Separation. The spacing of aircraft to achieve their safe and orderly movement in flight, and while landing and taking off.

Severity. See Safety Management System.

Shoulder. An area adjacent to the edge of paved runways, taxiways, or aprons providing a transition between the pavement and the adjacent

A-19

surface; support for aircraft running off the pavement; enhanced drainage; and blast protection.

Small Airplane. See Aircraft.

Small Hub Airport. See Airport.

Snow Removal Equipment (SRE). Equipment, such as plow trucks and brooms, to remove snow from the paved surfaces on an airport.

Sponsor. A public agency or private owner of a public-use airport that submits to the Secretary an application for financial assistance for the airport.

Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (SMGCS). Systems providing routing, guidance, surveillance and control to aircraft and affected vehicles in order to maintain movement rates under all local weather condition within the Aerodrome Visibility Operational Level (AVOL) whilst maintaining the required level of safety.

System of Airport Reporting (SOAR). The FAA Office of Airport integrated database that contains airport planning, development, and financial information.

Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN). See Navigation Aid.

Tailwind. Any wind more than 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the runway.

Takeoff Distance Available (TODA). The TORA plus the length of any remaining runway or clearway (CWY) beyond the far end of the TORA.

Takeoff Run Available (TORA). The runway length declared available and suitable for the ground run of an airplane taking off.

Taxi. The movement of an airplane under its own power on the surface of an airport.

Taxilane (TL). The portion of the aircraft parking area used for access between taxiways and aircraft parking positions.

Taxiway (TW). A defined path established for the taxiing aircraft from one part of an airport to another.

Parallel Taxiway. A taxiway whose centerline is parallel to an adjacent runway.

Taxiway Safety Area (TSA). A defined surface alongside the taxiway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to an airplane unintentionally departing the taxiway.

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). A group of individual that provide input on technical issues.

Terminal Area. A general term used to describe airspace in which approach control service or airport traffic control service is provided.

Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). The official forecast of aviation activity, both aircraft and enplanements, at FAA facilities. This includes FAA-towered airports, federally contracted towered airports, non-federal towered airports, and many non-towered airports.

Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). Published flight procedure standards for conducting instrument approaches to runways under instrument meteorological conditions. Information on TERPS is contained in FAA Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS).

Threshold (TH). The beginning of that portion of the runway available for landing. In some instances, the landing threshold may be displaced.

Displaced Threshold. A threshold that is located at a point on the runway other than the designated beginning of the runway.

Threshold Lighting. See Airport Lighting.

Through-the-Fence Operations. Those activities permitted by the airport sponsor through an agreement that permits access to the

A-20

public landing area by independent entities or operator offering an aeronautical activity or to owners of aircraft based on land adjacent to, but not a part of, the airport property. The obligation to make an airport available for the use and benefit of the public does not impose any requirement for the airport sponsor to permit ground access by aircraft from adjacent property.

Throughput Capacity. See Capacity.

Touchdown Zone Lighting. See Airport Lighting.

Traffic Pattern. The traffic flow that is prescribed for aircraft landing at, taxiing on, or taking off from an airport.

Base Leg. A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its approach end. The base leg extends from the downwind leg to the intersection of the extended runway centerline.

Crosswind Leg. A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its upwind end.

Downwind Leg. A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direction opposite to landing. The downwind leg normally extends between the crosswind leg and the base leg.

Upwind Leg. A flight path parallel to the landing runway in the direction of the landing.

Transitional Surface. See Imaginary Surfaces.

Transient Operations. See Operation.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA). An agency established in 2001 to safeguard United States transportation systems and to insure safe air travel. TSA operates under the Department of Homeland Security.

True Heading. A heading relative to the actual North and South Poles of the Earth, rather than the magnetic poles.

Uncontrolled Airport. See Airport.

Uncontrolled Airspace. Airspace where an ATC service is not deemed necessary or cannot be provided for practical reasons. Uncontrolled airspace is a generic term that covers Class F and Class G Airspace.

Universal Integrated Communications (UNICOM). An air-ground communication facility operated by a private agency to provide advisory service at uncontrolled airport. Aircraft call the ground station to make announcements of their intentions. In some cases, the ground station is not staffed. If no one is staffing the ground station, pilots broadcast their location and intentions over the UNICOM or CTAF channel. When the ground station is closed this is done without an acknowledgement.

Upwind Leg. See Traffic Pattern.

Utility Runway. See Runway.

Visibility. A measure of the horizontal opacity of the atmosphere at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night; and is expressed in terms of the horizontal distance at which a person should be able to see and identify, is measured in statute miles.

Visual Approach. An approach conducted on an IFR flight plan which authorizes the pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot, at all times, must have either the airport or the preceding aircraft in sight. Reported weather at the airport must be ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility of three miles or greater.

Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI). See Navigational Aid.

Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Procedures for the conduct of flight in weather conditions above Visual Flight Rules (VFR) weather minimums. The term VFR is often also used to define weather conditions and type of flight plan under

A-21

which an aircraft is operating. VFR is defined as the weather condition whenever the cloud ceiling is at least 1,000 feet above ground level and visibility is at least three statue miles.

Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC). Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of specific visibility and ceiling conditions which are equal to or greater than the threshold values for IMC.

Visual Runway. See Runway.

VOR. See Navigation Aid.

VORTAC. See Navigation Aid.

Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). An enhancement of the GPS that includes integrity broadcasts, differential correction, and additional ranging signals for the purpose of providing the accuracy, integrity, availability, and continuity required to support all phases of flight.

Wildlife Attractants. Any human-made structure, land-use practice, or human-made or natural geographic feature that can attract or sustain hazardous wildlife within the approach or departure airspace or the airport’s AOA. These attractants can include architectural features, landscaping, waste disposal sites, wastewater treatment facilities, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, or wetlands.

Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA).

Wind Direction. Is the opposite direction in which the windsock is pointing, and is specified in terms of magnetic heading.

Windsock (Wind Cone). A conical textile tube designed to indicate wind direction and relative wind speed.

APPENDIX B

PASSENGER SURVEY

Name

Email

Where do you currently reside?

Local

In-State

Out-of-State State:

International Country:

Is your trip for business or leisure?

Business Personal/Leisure Both

If HDN is your destination, where did you visit? (Check all that apply) Steamboat Springs Hayden Craig Other

If you are traveling from HDN, where is your final destination? (Please indicate airport)

How much more were you willing to pay to fly to/from HDN? Up to $100 $100-$200 $200-$300 Over $300

Was cost or convenience the primary consideration in choosing HDN as your origin/destination?

Cost Convenience

If convenience as your primary consideration in choosing HDN, what, if any, were other considerations when you chose to fly to/from HDN?

Convenience

Airfare

Proximity

Reliability

Other

How long was your stay? 1 Day 1-3 Days 3-5 Days 5-7 Days More than 1 week

What airline did you fly? American United Delta Alaska

How did you travel to/from the airport?

Car Rental

Taxi/Shuttle/Limo

Friend/Family

Personal

We know you have a choice when traveling to drive to an alternate airport. In the past, if you’ve chosen to drive to an alternate airport, what were the reasons?

Reliability Airfare Cost Schedule Convenience Seat Availability

Connecting Flights N/A

Other

How would you rate the following?

Excellent

Fair

Poor

N/A

Airfare Cost

Seat Availability

Convenience

Connecting Flights

Is paid parking a consideration for where you choose to fly from?

Yes No

How would you rate the following?

Excellent

Fair

Poor

N/A

Ease of access to the Airport

Directions and Signage to the Airport

Signage for parking, passenger drop-off/pick-up, rental cars

Signage inside the Terminal

1

B - 1

meinspahr

Jviation

PASSENGER SURVEY

On a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, how would you rate the following areas within the terminal? Curbside Check-In Area 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Quality

Cleanliness

Customer Service

Ticketing/Check-In Counter Area 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Quality

Cleanliness

Customer Service

Baggage Claim Area 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Quality

Cleanliness

Customer Service

Gift Shop 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Quality

Cleanliness

Customer Service

Product/Menu Choices

Way Station Bar & Grill 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Quality

Cleanliness

Customer Service


Coffee Shop 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Quality

Cleanliness

Customer Service


Gate Waiting Area 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Quality

Cleanliness

Restrooms 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Quality

Cleanliness

Terminal Overall 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Quality

Cleanliness

Wireless Internet (Wi-Fi) 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Speed

Ease of Accessibility

Would you pay for higher bandwidth? Yes No

2

B - 2

meinspahr

Jviation

PASSENGER SURVEY

Which car rental agency did you use? Avis Hertz Budget Enterprise N/A

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, how would you rate the car rental service?

Car Rental 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Vehicle Choice/Quality

Cleanliness

Customer Service Which ground transportation agency did you use? GO Alpine Storm Mountain Storm Mountain Express N/A

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, how would you rate ground transportation service?

Ground Transportation Service 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Vehicle Choice/Quality

Cleanliness

Customer Service

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, how would you rate security screening?

Security Screening 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Quality

Cleanliness

Time to Pass Through Screening

Thoroughness of Screening/Inspection

Professional Attitude of Security Staff How would you rate your overall travel experience at HDN? Excellent Fair Poor N/A

Comments:

If you have any questions, please contact:

David E. Ruppel Airport Manager

Yampa Valley Regional Airport (970) 276-5001

For more information about the Airport Master Plan, please visit http://www.co.routt.co.us/index.aspx?NID=423

3

B - 3

http://www.co.routt.co.us/index.aspx?NID=423

meinspahr

Jviation

The Yampa Valley Regional Airport is in the process of updating the Airport’s Master Plan. The Master Plan will guide the Airport through the next twenty years of development. Input is being solicited from airport tenants to determine adequacy of the facility and desired improvements.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your input will help shape the future of the Yampa Valley Regional Airport (HDN).

If you have questions regarding this survey or would like to discuss any issues regarding the airport facility, please contact Nick Scott, Deputy Project Manager at (720) 544-6504.

1. This form was completed by:

First Name: Last Name:

Title: Company Name:

Phone Number: Email Address:

2. Do you feel the space you currently rent from the Airport is adequate?

Yes No

If not, what improvements do you desire?

3. Do you feel there is a need for any additional terminal facilities?

Yes No

If so, what terminal facilities do you recommend, when would you like to see the additions, and in how many or in what scale should the facilities be added.

4. Are the TSA processing procedures adequate and efficient in your opinion?

Yes No

5. Are the current facilities and procedures for baggage handling adequate for you needs?

Yes No

6. Is the existing number of gates adequate for your current needs?

Yes No

continued on next page...

4

B - 4

meinspahr

Jviation

7. Do you envision a gate capacity problem in the future?

Yes No If yes, when do you anticipate a gate capacity problem occurring? 1-3 years 4-7 years 8-10 years

8. What is the average turnaround time of your flights?

9. Do you feel there is a need for any additional landside facilities?

Yes No

If so, what landside facilities do you recommend, when would you like to see the additions, and in how many or in what scale should the facilities be added.

10. Do you feel there is a need for any additional airside facilities?

Yes No

If so, what airside facilities do you recommend, when would you like to see the additions, and in how many or in what scale should the facilities be added.

11. Is the GSE adequately utilized? Yes No

12. Are there any airport-provided GSE services you would like to see added at the Airport?

13. Do you have plans to purchase or utilize alternative fuel or electric GSE?

Yes No

If so, what type of fueling or recharging stations would be required?

14. Have you implemented any other energy consumption reduction efforts?

Yes No

If so, what are they?


5

B - 5

meinspahr

Jviation

15. Does your airline practice any recycling programs?

Yes No

What programs are used on the aircraft? What programs are used at the station?

16. Have you implemented any paperless efforts? Yes No

If so, what are they and where are they put into practice?

17. Please provide any additional thoughts or concerns regarding the facilities at HDN here:

Thank you!

We appreciate your time. Thank you for your response. Every survey response received will greatly help our efforts on helping the Airport plan for the future.


6

B - 6

meinspahr

Jviation



If you have questions regarding this survey or would like to discuss any issues regarding the airport facility, please contact Nick Scott, Deputy Project Manager at (720)544-6504.





2. Are your existing facilities adequate for your needs?

Yes No

If no, what improvements or additions do you suggest?

3. Please rate the condition of the existing concessions facilities:

(Poor) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Excellent) Condition of Concessions Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4. Are there any other concerns or suggestions you have regarding the existing facilities at the Airport? 5. Have you implemented any energy consumption reduction efforts?

Yes No

If so, what are they?


7

B - 7

meinspahr

Jviation

6. Do you practice any recycling programs?

Yes

No What are the programs and where are they used?


Thank You!



8

B - 8

meinspahr

Jviation








2. Are the facilities meeting your operational demands?

Yes No If not, what is needed?

3. Do the maintenance facilities adequately meet your needs?

Yes No

If not, what is inadequate?

4. Is adequate parking available for Ready/Return and staging requirements?

Yes No

Please explain.

5. Are rental car Ready/Rental services offered on airport adequate for your needs?

Yes No Please explain.


9

B - 9

meinspahr

Jviation

6. Do you practice any recycling programs? Yes No What are the programs and where are they used?

7. Do you currently have or plan to purchase sustainable vehicles? Yes No If so, what types (hybrid, electric, low fuel consumption)?

8. Are “green” cleaning products used on the inside and/or outside of the vehicles? Inside Outside Both

9. Have you implemented any paperless efforts? Yes No If so, what are they?

10. Have you implemented any energy consumption reduction efforts? Yes No If so, what are they and where are they put into practice?


Thank You!



10

B - 10

meinspahr

Jviation

The Yampa Valley Regional Airport is in the process of updating the Airport’s Master Plan. The Master Plan will guide the Airport through the next twenty years of development. Input is being solicited from tenant employee to determine adequacy of the facility and desired improvements.




Employer:

Name (optional):

2. Please rate your experience on each of the following items:

(Poor) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Excellent) Transportation

Access roads to airport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Adequate public transportation service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Parking Factors Convenience/walking distance to terminal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Security in parking lots 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Space availability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Terminal Building

Condition of infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cleanliness of terminal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cleanliness of washrooms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Availability of washrooms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Directional signage in terminal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Food & Beverage Facilities

Selection of food & beverage facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quality of food & beverage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quality of service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


11

B - 11

meinspahr

Jviation

3. Please provide any suggestion or comments regarding the information on the previous page.

4. How important do you feel the Airport is to the local community and businesses?

5. Please provide any additional thoughts or concerns regarding the facilities at HDN.

Thank you!

Thank you for your response. Every survey response received will greatly help our efforts on helping the Airport plan for the future.


12

B - 12

meinspahr

Jviation

The Yampa Valley Regional Airport is in the process of updating the Airport’s Master Plan. The Master Plan will guide the Airport through the next twenty years of development. Input is being solicited from based aircraft owners to determine adequacy of the facility and desired improvements.




First Name (optional):

Last Name (optional):

Email Address (optional):

2. Based Aircraft Type 1 3. Based Aircraft Type 2 4. Based Aircraft Type 3 Single Engine Piston Single Engine Piston Single Engine Piston Multi Engine Piston Multi Engine Piston Multi Engine Piston Turbo-prop Turbo-prop Turbo-prop Jet Jet Jet Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Other Other Other

5. What are the make and model of your aircraft?

6. Approximately how many operations (takeoffs and landings) do you conduct at HDN a year?

7. Is your aircraft stored at HDN? Yes If yes, please indicated type of hangar and if you own it or lease space from the Airport or another tenant. If yes, please indicate your current lease expiration date: No If no, where is your aircraft based?


13

B - 13

meinspahr

Jviation

8. Do you desire any additional hangar space?

Yes No

9. If so, please describe the ownership arrangement, size, and type of hangar (T-Hangar, box hangar, lease rate, etc.) that you desire.

10. Is the existing runway length adequate for your requirements?

Yes No

Pleases provide any comments regarding runway length.

11. Are the FBO services provided adequate for your needs?

Yes No

12. Are there additional services that the FBO should provide to better serve you or other members of the flying community?

13. What facilities, activities, or capabilities do you consider essential for the Airport to provide?

Aircraft Fueling Services (Self-Service, FBO Fueling) Aircraft Maintenance GA Terminal Facilities Aircraft Tie-downs/Hangars Rental Cars Fire & Rescue Tourism/Entertainment Related Activities Precision Instrument Approach (e.g. ILS, GPS) Flight Instruction, aircraft rentals, aircraft Charter or Other Activities Restaurant Other (Please Specify)


14

B - 14

meinspahr

Jviation

14. Please rate the following categories based on your experience at HDN:

(Poor) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Excellent) Runway Orientation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Runway Length 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Condition of Pavements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Instrument Approaches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Visual Aids 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Navigational Aids 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Hangar Space 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Hangar/Pad Lease Rates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

FBO Services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unicom Services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Apron Space 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Air Traffic Control Services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Based on the above categories, which should get the highest priority?

15. How important do you feel the Airport is to the local community and business?

16. Please provide any additional thoughts or concerns regarding the facilities at HDN.

Thank You!

Thank you for your response. Every survey response received will greatly help our efforts on helping the Airport plan for the future.


15

B - 15

meinspahr

Jviation

APPENDIX C

C-1

C. YAMPA VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT AIR SERVICE REPORT

A critical part of any Master Plan study at an airport with airline service is the analysis of that air service, its history, current status and projected growth. This analysis must be done in the context of where the airport fits in the regional air service environment (nearby airports that constitute the Airport’s peer group and nearby hub airports that may be both an important source of the Airport’s air service and a primary catchment leakage point). Airport Air Service Master Plan analysis must also be done in the context of overall strategies and trends in the domestic airline industry.

C.1 DOMESTIC AIRLINE INDUSTRY TRENDS The domestic airline industry was deregulated in 1978. In the post-war era prior to that time (1945 – 1977) the industry had literally been born and grew up, made possible at first by war surplus aircraft and a large pool of skilled labor capable of operating them, then by rapid technological advances including turboprop and turbojet engines, all occurring amidst a period of rapid economic growth in our nation.

The Deregulation Act of 1978 removed most of the economic rules and regulations under which the domestic industry had developed. Instead of rigid rules about which carrier could fly where and which fares could be charged, basically any carrier could fly anywhere and charge what they wished. In addition, the doors of the airline “clubhouse” were removed; now anyone with enough funding could gain DOT and FAA approval, buy or lease some airplanes, and become an airline. The “special club” of two dozen or so airlines that had previously held Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) “Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity” was no longer special; anyone with a little money and a business plan could join. And many did.

The domestic airline industry grew rapidly as dozens (over the entire period of the 1980s to the 2000s, hundreds) of new airlines took to the skies to challenge the incumbent trunk airlines (United, TWA, Pan Am, etc.) and local service airlines (North Central, Frontier, Ozark, etc). Deregulation brings freedom of entry, but it also brings freedom to fail. Many airlines, both new entrants (PeopleExpress, Midway) and senior members of the pre-1978 special club (Pan Am, TWA, Braniff) went out of business or merged into other carriers.

Initially, in the period from the 1980s to today, every failure or merger simply brought forth more new entrants and there was no clear trend of consolidation. Also initially, new entrants did not fully grasp that failure to bring innovation, to differentiate their new entrant product from that of incumbent industry players, was likely going to lead to their own failure. In other words, build a better mouse trap, or at least a different mouse trap.

The period from the 1980s to today also brought huge changes to small community air service nationwide. Congress, hesitant to pass the 1978 Deregulation Act, covered that bet by creating the

C-2

Essential Air Service program, which was designed to preserve small community air service with direct subsidies to carriers against the fear that a deregulated airline industry would abandon, wholesale, rural America for the bright lights and large populations of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles. Some of this did occur, with the local service airlines of the 1980s moving to all jet fleets and taking on long haul big city routes. However, a whole new industry of regional airlines was born, flying 9- to 50-seat turboprops, and these carriers covered any and all rural cities that a Frontier or North Central may have abandoned.

Today, 35 years after deregulation, distinct trends in domestic air service are: consolidation in all sectors of the industry, segmentation of the air travel product (and business strategy) by carrier type, and an overall continuing decline in small community air service. Each of these trends has an impact on the long-term composition of Yampa Valley Regional Airport air service.

C.1.1.1 Airline Industry Consolidation In 1978, at the dawn of deregulation, there were 24 certificated U.S. airlines. While some were very small, one-route airlines, like Aspen Airways, most were either national or at least regional in network size. There were another 118 “commuter” airlines, smaller carriers operating 9- to 19-seat piston and turboprop aircraft. And there were 5 “intrastate” airlines, those operating mainline jets but only in one state, such as Southwest in Texas (at that time) or Hawaiian in Hawaii.

By 1990 new terms were in use to describe an airline by the type of product it offered and business plan strategy it pursued. Large airlines with national reach were called network carriers. Every other jet airline fell one way or the other into the term “new entrant” carrier. In 1990, after twelve years of deregulation, there were nine “network” airlines (United, Pan Am, TWA etc.), sixteen other jet airlines ranging from rapidly growing low-fare Southwest to rapidly growing first class cabin Midwest Express. The number of regional carriers had shrunk to about 50 and the term “intrastate” was obsolete. During the 1990s the relationship between network carriers and regional carriers changed. Many regional carriers became, in effect, franchise operators, flying their smaller aircraft with the brand, paint scheme and airline code of a network carrier. This allowed network carriers to extend their networks into rural American without using their larger and more expensive mainline jet aircraft. This franchising trend accelerated with the advent of 30- to 50-seat regional jets. The regional carrier industry grew very rapidly in the 1990s due to the addition of large regional jet fleets,

Table 1.1.1 A

CAB Certificated Airlines 24 Network Airlines 9 Network Airlines 8 Network Airlines 4Intrastate Airlines 5 New entrants of all types 16 New Entrants of all types 12 Value Airlines 3

Hybrid Airlines 3Ultra Low Cost ULCC 3

Commuter Airlines 118 Network Regionals 25 Network Regionals 19 Network Regionals 10Independent Regionals 25 Independent Regionals 11 Independent Regionals 7

Total 147 Total 75 Total 50 Total 30Carriers listing schedules, by type, in the OAG on July 1 of each year

CONSOLIDATION OF THE DEREGULATED DOMESTIC AIRLINE INDUSTRY1978 1990 2000 2013

C-3

with many surviving regional carriers opting to become invisible and just operate regional jets under contract for a network carrier in lieu of offering independent branded service.

Ten years later, in 2000, there were 8 what could be called network carriers, the number of other jet airlines of all types was about 12 and the number of regional carriers was down to about 30. The events of 9/11/2001, and the significant economic recession that followed, accelerated industry change and consolidation.

The incredible roller coaster that was 2008-2009 also rapidly accelerated change in the domestic airline industry. The first half of 2008 saw strong traffic and record fuel prices. Three jet carriers and three regional carriers closed their doors during this period, succumbing to staggering fuel costs. During the second half of 2008 and into early 2009, the economy went into severe recession. Airline traffic and revenue saw the largest drop in history. Fuel prices also collapsed, with fuel going from $150 a barrel in July of 2008 to $35 a barrel for a time in March of 2009. The stage was set for a rapid industry consolidation and significant shifts in carrier strategies.

In 2013 there are four remaining true network carriers. In 2014 there will be only three with the government approval of, and consummation of, the merger of American and US Airways.

The number of “other” jet airlines has shrunk to only nine. The “other” group has split into distinct types of airline product and business plan. One benefit of deregulation was carrier freedom to design and offer wide varieties of travel products and travel pricing. Thus we have “value” carriers like Southwest and bare bones ultra low cost/fare carriers like Spirit.

The number of regional carriers is down to about seventeen, ten of which entirely or primarily operate regional jet aircraft under contract to a network carrier, using the brand of that carrier. The once mighty independent regional airline industry, that had over 100 companies in the commuter carrier era (1978), is reduced today to seven small airlines, with their primary revenue source being Essential Air Service (EAS) contracts.

C.1.1.2 Airline Product Segmentation Deregulation has allowed for experimentation in carrier product offerings. This has ranged from luxury-in-the-sky business models to the barest of bones type high density seating with every conceivable aspect of air travel that can be, offered at an additional fee.

Since deregulation there have been numerous attempts at an all premium product offering, notably Air Atlanta, Midwest Express and Trump Air. Although Midwest had a 25-year run and significant stretches of profitability, neither it nor any other all premium product airline has survived.

The original low cost carrier, Southwest, is now more like a network carrier in many ways and is now labeled a value carrier. Other value carriers offering network type attributes but not conventional (high) network pricing include jetBlue and Virgin America.

C-4

In recent years the most domestic traffic growth (and industry leading profitability) has come from the ultra low cost carrier (ULCC) sector, led by Spirit Airlines and Allegiant Air. While the precise business formulas of these two carriers vary slightly, both offer extremely low basic fares that only entitle a passenger to passage on a flight. Anything else, from a seat assignment to an in-flight drink of water, involves an extra fee. Spirit generally targets daily service on routes between big cities in direct competition with major airlines while Allegiant focuses on small cities and two or three times per week flights to major leisure destinations. Both are prime examples of successful innovation in the domestic airline industry. Frontier Airlines, under new ownership, appears to be planning to become the third domestic ULCC in the near term, which may cause changes in its service and product strategies at its home airport of Denver.

Network carriers have also offered domestic service innovations. An example is lie-flat seating and all premium service on select transcontinental flights between major cities. Another network carrier innovation, actually copied from low cost carriers, is seasonal and even day-of-week schedule adjustments to allocate capacity more precisely to demand and shift capacity by season or day of week to where demand is strongest. This innovation actually benefits seasonal markets in that network carriers have more flexibility to provide service by season or by day of week.

Table 1.1.2 A

Airline Type Examples CharacteristicsBroad national and international network Focus on hub operationsParticipation in global alliancesLarge size, hundreds of aircraft, multiple hubsBroad fleet, from 300+ seats to 50 seatsCompete on brand and service, fares typically higherNetwork with focus on key major citiesMostly domestic operations, limited international serviceLarge to medium sizeStandardized fleet, typically one or two types onlyCompete on brand, service and fareLow frequency or less-than-daily serivce offeringsFormula works in both large cities and small townsPrimarily targeting leisure or cost conscious travelerStandardized fleet, typically one or two types onlyCompete on price, brand & loyalty secondary or irrelevantRegional focusCharacteristics of both network and value carriersActive in alliances and codeshares leveraging regional brandStandardized fleet, one or two types, plus regional partnersCompete on brand and price

DOMESTIC AIRLINE BUSINESS STRATEGY AND SERVICE SEGMENTATION SUMMARY

American, United, Delta & US

Airways

Southwest, jetBlue & Virgin

America

Spirit & Allegiant, Frontier pending

Alaska & HawaiianHybrids

ULCC

Value

Network

C-5

Figure 1.1.3 A

37/50 SeatCarrier Aircraft AA DL UA US

SkyWest 160 10 53 83 14ASA/ExJet 341 11 81 249 0

Air Wis 70 0 0 0 70Mesa 0 0 0 0 0

Am Eagle 225 225 0 0 0Pinnacle 141 0 141 0 0

PSA 35 0 0 0 35Republic 0 0 0 0 0

Chautauqua 70 15 40 15 0Shuttle Am 0 0 0 0 0

TSA 26 0 0 26 0Total 1,068 261 315 373 119

Unknown 125 125 Unknown? 125 125 ?

US REGIONAL AIRLINES 37 - 50 SEAT FLEET DEPLOYMENTAugust, 2013

Scope Limits 2014 - 201550 Seat Fleet 2015

Hybrid airlines are generally regional in nature, having grown to major carrier status by focusing on one region of the country. Hybrids have characteristics of both network carriers and value carriers.

C.1.1.3 Declining Small Community Air Service Domestic rural air service is in decline. Key reasons for this decline are: a decline in the operating economics of the aircraft fleet typically assigned to small community service, industry consolidation, budget challenges and eligibility rule changes in the EAS program, and the growth of low fare and value carrier services at hubs, major cities and medium-sized cities that draw traffic from large catchment areas.

Regarding operating economics contributing to the decline in rural air service, some factors are:

Increases in fuel costs ̶ in smaller planes fuel is a much higher cost per seat than in larger aircraft

Fleet age ̶ no new small airliners are being built, the existing fleet is aging and age related operating costs are climbing

New FAA regulations, especially related to pilot qualification, duty and rest

One result of the declining economics of small community air service is less network carrier interest in rural markets. This disinterest varies by carrier, with Delta appearing most determined to reduce its service footprint in rural areas and American appearing most interested in retaining or even expanding its rural footprint.

One sign of shifting network carrier rural air service strategy is the ongoing decline in 50-seat regional jet fleets. While some have pronounced this aircraft type “dead”, that is a misreading of what is happening.

A few years ago there were six network carriers, each with a large fleet of 50-seat regional jets to serve multiple hubs. Today there are four network carriers and in 2014 there will only be three as American and US Airways merge. As network carriers have merged they have also reduced the number of hubs where overlap allowed, with the best current example of this being Delta’s elimination of hub operations at Memphis. The remaining network carriers are all upgrading their larger regional jet fleets (aircraft with 65 to

C-6

90 seats). All of these actions reduce the need for 50-seat aircraft. Thus the network carrier group has found itself currently with about 1,000 50-seat jets when it will need, by the 2015-2016 timeframe, fewer than 500.

This does not mean the aircraft type is going to disappear. Rather, it means it will find a new, more focused mission for network carriers, primarily small city hub feed routes and other hub routes of between 200 and 500 statute miles. Larger regional jets, with 65 to 90 seats and dual first class/coach cabins, will assume most network carrier routes over 500 miles that had been flown with 50-seat equipment.

Regarding industry consolidation and the decline of rural air service, some factors are:

Fewer network and regional carriers means fewer air service options for small cities

Fewer network carriers means fewer hubs, with declines at formerly robust hubs at Memphis and Cincinnati as prime examples

With fewer network carrier competitors, the remaining network carriers can be much more selective about how they offer their service product in rural areas. Instead of competing with five other network carriers for traffic in a region, a network carrier today is competing with three, or perhaps only two.

The decline of smaller hubs means the remaining network carriers will focus more operations at the larger hubs, such as Chicago ORD or Atlanta ATL. The economics of hub access come into play because, for example, Delta might be able to justify a certain small community service into a low cost and uncongested Memphis hub but cannot justify retaining that same city to the much larger and more congested Atlanta hub, where gate and runway space is at a premium.

Budget issues with the EAS program are also contributing to the decline of rural air service:

EAS subsidy costs are soaring and new EAS eligibility rules are reducing the number of cities in the program.

Uncertainty about the EAS program is discouraging carriers from participating, which reduces the number of bidders for EAS routes, which drives up subsidy costs, which reinforces uncertainty about program funding, a downward spiral

As EAS subsidized services decline, larger rural airports sometimes benefit as passengers from the catchment area of the formerly EAS supported airport drive to nearby “regional” airports that might have one or two network airlines and regional jet services, or even mainline services.

The rapid and nationwide growth of value and low cost carries has contributed to rural air service declines:

Taken as a group, Southwest, jetBlue, Frontier and Spirit blanket almost the entire country with low fare air service

Generally, the network carriers match, sometimes with modest premiums, the price offerings of the low fare group

C-7

Figure 1.1.3 B

2005 2013Q1 Number PercentDomestic Traffic 20,396,660 26,095,710 5,699,050 27.9%Domestic Seats 51,998,611 60,338,998 8,340,387 16.0%

Avg Fare $145.89 $151.54 $5.65 3.9%Revenue $2,975,668,727 $3,954,543,893 $978,875,166 32.9%

2005 2013Q1 Number PercentDomestic Traffic 1,968,320 1,567,670 -400,650 -20.4%Domestic Seats 3,043,456 2,399,627 -643,829 -21.2%

Avg Fare $165.47 $179.17 $13.70 8.3%Revenue $325,698,853 $280,881,750 -$44,817,103 -13.8%

Denver Regional Airports are Colorado Springs, Cheyenne, Laramie, Pueblo, Scottsbulff

DENVER REGION AIRPORT TRAFFIC & REVENUEYear 2005 vs 12 Months Q1 2013

Denver Change

Denver Regional Airports Change

Thus airfares in many major cities, and even in larger regional population centers, have declined, at least measured against inflation

This puts intense pressure on airfare pricing at rural airports near the major cities; pricing must be competitive with the option of driving one, two or even three hours to a major city with low fares and nonstop flights

This downward pressure on airfares (revenue) at rural airports collides with the aforementioned dramatic increases in the economic cost of providing rural airport service

The situation in the Denver region is a prime example. Southwest entered the Denver market in 2006, overlapping significant nonstop service by network carrier United and low cost carrier Frontier. Since 2006 the result has been intense fare competition at Denver, to the benefit of the entire Denver metro area, and in 2012, ULCC carrier Spirit Airlines entered the Denver market with low frequency service on several major Denver routes, including Chicago, Dallas and Las Vegas.

However, for nearby airports like Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Cheyenne, Laramie and Scottsbluff, the low fare competition at Denver has increased local leakage to that airport and led to general declines in the amount of air service offered locally, resulting in less traffic and airline revenue at those airports as a group.

Comparing 2005 (the last year prior to Southwest’s entry into Denver) to the 12 months ended 3/31/13 shows the amazing growth in traffic and service at Denver and the declines in the same metrics at the group of regional airports near Denver during that period.

While Denver traffic is up 28% and service (measured by seats available) is up 16% in the period, for the regional group traffic is down 20% and seat count is down 21%. Average fare is only up 4% at Denver in the period while it is up only a modest 8% in the regional group. However, the airlines serving the regional airports are generating almost $45 million less revenue in 2013 than in 2005 (-14%) while at Denver nearly $1 billion in additional domestic passenger revenue (+33%) is being generated in 2013 vs. 2005.

In summary, all three of the major trends discussed here impact air service options for Yampa Valley Regional Airport. Industry consolidation reduces the number of airlines capable of serving the market or being recruited to serve the market.

C-8

Industry product and business plan segmentation (and accompanying innovation) does potentially introduce different types of air service as options for Yampa Valley Regional.

Declines in rural air service, especially in small or EAS cities, does not directly impact the Airport, but the decline in the number of carriers in that business sector does again reduce new air service options for the Airport.

C.2 COMPARISONS TO PEER GROUP AIRPORTS AND NEARBY HUBS (DENVER) About 700 airports have some form of scheduled air service in the United States. Exclude Alaska and there were about 500 airports with recorded airline traffic of some form in the 12 months ended 6/30/2013. Denver ranks as the fifth largest U.S. airport in terms of domestic traffic with some 26 million annual passenger trips (not counting connecting passengers using Denver as a hub). As such, Denver’s airport towers over all others in the intermountain west, Phoenix is the 12th ranked airport with just over 20 million annual local passengers, Salt Lake city ranks 28th with just under ten million annual passengers and Kansas City ranks 32nd with just over eight million annual passengers. Thus the Steamboat/Hayden area is within about a 3.5 hour drive and a one hour flight of the fifth largest airline hub airport in the nation.

C.2.1.1 Peer Group Service and Traffic Comparisons Yampa Valley Regional Airport and five other Colorado mountain airports constitute a unique subset of the 500-plus lower 48 air service airports. Yampa Valley Regional’s peer group in this case includes Aspen, Durango, Eagle, Gunnison and Montrose. With the exception of Durango, these airports have seasonal traffic demand and have significant reliance on inbound visitor traffic. Arguably, Telluride fits this characterization as well, but runway limitations restrict it to small turboprop service only, and it is thus significantly smaller in traffic than Yampa Valley or the aforementioned peer group of five airports.

The six airports have a wide variety of air services with much of that service being seasonal, either winter only or winter/summer only (two-season). The one constant at all six airports is daily year-round service to Denver. Many winter only routes are also less-than-daily or weekend only. Many winter only routes are operated by the carrier with some form of local financial support, ranging from outright subsidy to various forms of risk mitigation. The financial support is typically orchestrated by the nearby ski resort company, under different funding methods.

C-9

City Domestic Traffic Avg Fare % Local Origin

Aspen 347,730 $284.30 25.5%Durango 362,840 $197.83 40.9%

Eagle/Vail 286,090 $241.67 14.9%Gunnison 58,910 $218.87 15.5%Hayden 182,980 $213.21 16.0%

Montrose 147,990 $230.77 28.6%Group 1,386,540 $235.00 26.0%

International Traffic Aspen 31,880 $822.88 33.6%

Durango 13,700 $681.16 68.2%Eagle/Vail 32,040 $816.51 14.0%Gunnison 1,290 $741.59 30.2%Hayden 4,940 $599.34 34.2%

Montrose 8,200 $673.41 44.0%Group 92,050 $773.12 32.8%

Total Traffic Aspen 379,610 $822.88 26.2%

Durango 376,540 $681.16 41.9%Eagle/Vail 318,130 $816.51 14.8%Gunnison 60,200 $741.59 15.8%Hayden 187,920 $599.34 16.5%

Montrose 156,190 $673.41 29.4%Group 1,478,590 $268.50 26.4%

PEER AIRPORT TRAFFIC INFORMATION: 12 MONTHS 2013 Q1Figure 2.1.1 B

Source: DOT Traffic Reports

Service patterns do vary by airport market and by season. For example, Hayden got new Los Angeles winter season service the winter of 2012-2013 and will introduce Seattle service (Alaska Air) the winter of 2013 – 2014. This is the first winter season service from Seattle to any Colorado mountain airport. At the same time, occasionally seasonal services fail to achieve targeted traffic and revenue results and are discontinued. Examples of this would be Hayden – Salt Lake City service with Delta and Hayden – New York City (LGA) service, both of which ended after the 2009 – 2010 winter season.

Among the six Colorado mountain airports, Hayden ranks fourth in domestic traffic and fifth in international traffic volume for the 12 months ended 3/31/2013. Hayden’s average domestic fare of $213.12 is the fifth lowest in the group and its international average fare of $599.34 is the lowest in the group of six and measurably below the group average of $773.12. The group averages are elevated by the much higher domestic and international average fares generated at Aspen and Eagle/Vail.

The chart at the right also has a column labeled “% Local Origin”. This is the percent of total domestic or international traffic that was recorded as being local in origin, as opposed to inbound origin traffic that would typically be visiting skiers or tourists. While the six-market group has an average local origin of 26.4%, Hayden’s local origin is only 16.5% of total traffic. This is about the same as at Eagle/Vail and at Gunnison, but much lower than at Aspen, Durango and Montrose.

DL UA or F9 AA UA AA UA AA or UA AA DL G4 AA or UA US or G4 AS UA ACAirport ATL DEN DFW EWR JFK IAH LAX MIA MSP OAK ORD PHX/AZA SEA SFO YYZAspen X X X X X X X X

Durango X X XEagle X X X X X X X X X X X X

Gunnison X X X XHayden X X X X X X X X X

Montrose X X X X X X X X X

Carrier Code AA = American, AC = Air Canada, AS = Alaska, DL = Delta, F9 = Frontier, G4 = Allegiant, UA = United, US = US Airways

Figure 2.1.1 A

COLORADO MOUNTAIN AIRPORT NONSTOP SERVICE SUMMARY: 2013 - 2014

Color Code Year Round Two Season Winter Only Summer Only

C-10

Total Local Catchment Ratio

City Origin Traffic Population O&D/PopAspen 99,383 17,102 5.8

Durango 157,745 51,917 3.0Eagle/Vail 47,113 59,281 0.8Gunnison 9,521 15,408 0.6Hayden 30,966 23,239 1.3

Montrose 45,933 41,011 1.1Group 390,661 207,958 1.9

Figure 2.1.2 A

LOCAL ORIGIN PASSENGERS PER POPULATION

Total Airport Traffic to MSA or County Population

% July SeatsCity Seats Load Factor Seats Load Factor to March Seats

Aspen 83,944 79.7% 60,901 75.3% 72.5%Durango 36,145 83.4% 47,948 84.1% 132.7%

Eagle/Vail 116,561 70.8% 24,950 75.2% 21.4%Gunnison 19,116 67.6% 6,050 76.3% 31.6%

Hayden 62,264 71.5% 12,799 62.5% 20.6%Montrose 42,588 80.8% 19,709 79.7% 46.3%

Group 360,618 74.0% 172,357 77.6% 47.8%

March, 2013 July, 2013

PEER GROUP CAPACITY AND LOAD FACTOR BY SEASON Chart 2.1.3 A

C.2.1.2 Local Origin Traffic Since the six airports serve regions with different populations and at different distances from Denver, (leakage) a comparison of local O&D traffic to MSA or county population is relevant.

In the chart at the right the local origin passenger total for each airport for the year ended 3/31/2013 is compared to the micropolitian statistical area population for that airport, or the county(s) population if no MSA is designated. The ratios derived from this vary significantly with Aspen generating 5.8 passenger trips (O&D) per MSA or county resident annually. Durango generates 3 O&D per resident and the other airports are about one O&D per resident or less.

C.2.1.3 Peer Group Snapshot of Capacity and Seasonality of Capacity Chart 2.1.3A shows market capacity (measured by seats offered) for each city for the winter peak month of March 2013 in comparison to seats offered for the summer peak month of July 2013. The chart also shows market load factor for all flights in and out for each month. At the far right on the chart is a calculation of the percent of July seats to March seats in each market, illustrating the difference, by market, in capacity offered in peak summer vs. peak winter.

Hayden’s winter season seat count is 3rd largest in the group but its summer seat count is 5th largest. Hayden’s winter load factor is comparable to that at Eagle, better than at Gunnison and about ten percentage points below that of Aspen, Durango and Montrose. Hayden’s summer load factor is the lowest in the group and 15 to 20 percentage points below that of the group.

In terms of the difference between summer and winter capacity offerings, Hayden’s peak summer service level is 20.6% of its peak winter capacity, similar to the difference at Eagle/Vail. Durango actually had, in this comparison period, more summer service than winter service.

C.2.1.4 Peer Group 2010 – 2012 Traffic and Capacity Seasonality Seasonality can be measured by the standard quarters of the year: January – March, April – June, July – September, and October – December. However this standard method does not exactly match up with the real “seasons” of Colorado mountain markets and their airports. In the case of these Colorado mountain resort cities, Winter is December – March, Summer is June – August and there are two shoulder periods, the two Spring months of April and May and the three Fall months of September, October and November.

C-11

Aspen Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecBy Month 13.8% 13.1% 15.4% 5.0% 3.5% 7.2% 10.2% 9.6% 5.3% 3.3% 3.0% 10.5%By SeasonDurango Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

By Month 6.4% 6.4% 7.7% 6.8% 8.1% 9.4% 10.3% 10.5% 9.5% 8.9% 7.4% 8.5%By SeasonEagle/Vail Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecBy Month 21.0% 20.6% 23.4% 3.0% 0.7% 2.6% 4.6% 4.5% 3.2% 1.3% 1.8% 13.3%By SeasonGunnison Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecBy Month 14.6% 17.7% 19.3% 3.0% 2.5% 4.1% 7.9% 7.5% 4.3% 3.1% 2.7% 13.2%By Season

Hayden Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecBy Month 19.8% 20.8% 22.0% 3.6% 1.9% 3.0% 4.4% 4.1% 3.1% 2.6% 2.4% 12.4%By SeasonMontrose Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecBy Month 13.8% 13.1% 15.4% 5.0% 3.5% 7.2% 10.2% 9.6% 5.3% 3.3% 3.0% 10.5%By Season

Chart 2.1.4 A

DOMESTIC TRAFFIC: PEER GROUP SEASONALITY BY MONTH AND SEASON FOR 2010 - 2012

Winter Dec - Mar 52.8% Spring 8.5% Summer 27.0% Fall 11.7%






Aspen Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecBy Month 14.4% 13.2% 15.3% 5.9% 3.8% 7.7% 9.2% 8.9% 5.0% 3.2% 3.1% 10.3%By SeasonDurango Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

By Month 6.4% 6.4% 7.7% 6.8% 8.1% 9.4% 10.3% 10.5% 9.5% 8.9% 7.4% 8.5%By SeasonEagle/Vail Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecBy Month 21.0% 20.6% 23.4% 3.0% 0.7% 2.6% 4.6% 4.5% 3.2% 1.3% 1.8% 13.3%By SeasonGunnison Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecBy Month 14.6% 17.7% 19.3% 3.0% 2.5% 4.1% 7.9% 7.5% 4.3% 3.1% 2.7% 13.2%By Season

Hayden Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecBy Month 19.8% 20.8% 22.0% 3.6% 1.9% 3.0% 4.4% 4.1% 3.1% 2.6% 2.4% 12.4%By SeasonMontrose Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecBy Month 13.8% 13.1% 15.4% 5.0% 3.5% 7.2% 10.2% 9.6% 5.3% 3.3% 3.0% 10.5%By Season Winter Dec - Mar 53.4% Spring 7.8% Summer 24.2% Fall 14.6%





Chart 2.1.4 B

DOMESTIC CAPACITY: PEER GROUP SEASONALITY BY MONTH AND SEASON FOR 2010 - 2012


This measurement method creates unequal periods but it more accurately captures the market’s allocation of traffic and capacity by peak and off peak period.

At the right is a chart measuring monthly and by-season traffic demand at Hayden and its peer airports for the three-year period 2010 – 2012.

In terms of traffic seasonality, Hayden and its peer group airports, except Durango, have similar seasonality of traffic demand. Among the peer group Hayden does generate the highest percent (74.9%) of its annual traffic during the four month winter season and the lowest percent (11.5%) during summer. Hayden’s traffic distribution by peak season is nearly identical to that at Eagle/Vail.

The measurement of capacity by month and season largely mirrors the measure of traffic by month and season. The airline industry is very astute at matching capacity to demand. Furthermore, in most of the peer group cities significant portions of winter season capacity are recruited by and in some manner financially supported by the local resort community, so a parallel between winter season traffic and winter season capacity, as percentages of market annual total, is a logical outcome.

Hayden had 75.1% of its annual seat capacity operated during the four-month winter season in the 2010 – 2012 measurement period. Another 11% of capacity is operated during the three-month summer period. The shoulder months of April, May, September, October and November have between 3% and 4% of annual capacity each. This distribution pattern of seat capacity is very similar to that at Eagle/Vail. Aspen, Gunnison and Montrose have between one half and two thirds of their annual seat capacity operated during the four month winter season.

Again, Durango stands out as having a more or less even distribution of seat capacity by month, with the highest monthly allocation being in August at 10.5% of total annual seats and the lowest allocation being in January and February at 6.4% of total seats each.

C-12

C.2.1.5 Comparison of Peer Group Annual Trends in Traffic, Seat Capacity and Load Factor

The past eight years have been some of the most turbulent in the history of domestic airline industry. The years 2004 – 2007 saw the airline industry recovering from the shock of 9/11 and the economic recession that bracketed that tragic event. As was noted in the previous section of this report, the 2008 – 2009 period saw fuel prices and industry traffic and revenue soar to record levels and then collapse, with industry revenue seeing the largest drop in history between Q2 of 2008 and Q2 of 2009.

Also during this time industry consolidation, in all industry sectors, has accelerated. Airlines have become extremely careful with capacity expansion, especially in smaller cities. The airline industry’s economic drama of the past eight years is reflected in the different traffic and capacity trends at Hayden and its peer airport group during the period.

The chart below illustrates annual domestic traffic at Hayden and at each of its peer airports for the period 2004 – 2012. Traffic is measured in passengers per day each way (PDEW) which reduces six or seven figure numbers to more manageable numbers by dividing by 730 (365 days in a year multiplied by 2). This does not change graph trends or relationships.

HAYDEN AND PEER GROUP: ANNUAL DOMESTIC TRAFFIC PDEW 2004 - 2012

Three of the six airports show a downward trend starting in either 2007 or 2008; Hayden, Eagle and Gunnison. Hayden is down 18% in the period, Eagle is down 20.9% and Gunnison is down 14.6%.

451 472495 431

510

528

535

499 501

246261

288 293

339

384

421447

478

316332 337

360 349

315283 279

259

511

553562

591541

464

505

468

404

96117 122 111

97 11096 97

82

191206 216

239221

240 244230

191

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Chart 2.1.5 A

Aspen Durango Hayden Eagle Gunnison Montrose

C-13

Montrose traffic grew during the eight year period but 2012 numbers slumped and ended up the same as 2004. Aspen and Durango showed growth in the period with Aspen up 11.1% and Durango up 94%.

The chart on the next page (2.1.5 B) illustrates annual domestic capacity at Hayden and each of its peer airports for the period 2004 – 2012. Capacity is measured in total seats offered in the market per day each way (SDEW) which reduces six- or seven-figure numbers to more manageable numbers by dividing by 730 (365 days in a year multiplied by 2). This does not change graph trends or relationships.

As with domestic traffic, Aspen and Durango show significant growth in seat capacity between 2004 and 2012 with Aspen up 23.4% and Durango up 77.1%. Montrose capacity, like its traffic, grew during the eight year period but slumped in 2012 back to essentially the same level as in 2004. Hayden, Eagle and Gunnison show declines in capacity during the eight year period with Hayden down 9%, Eagle down 5.6% and Gunnison down 14.6%.

HAYDEN AND PEER GROUP: ANNUAL CAPACITY SEATS SDEW 2004 - 2012

Combining traffic demand and seat capacity allocation data will result in a measure of market load factor, or the percentage of airline flight seats that are occupied each year.

740748 758

747

934 949

941

942913

375 391438 450

577

584623

654 664

487 503478

543573

523465

429 443

826

875884 969

923

738

850

840

777

157 170197 187 165

204174 168

134

285308 297

330 328 347377 367

281

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Chart 2.1.5 B


C-14

HAYDEN AND PEER GROUP: ANNUAL MARKET LOAD FACTOR 2004 – 2012

With the exception of Durango, Gunnison and Montrose, peer group market annual load factors are relatively stable in a narrow range of 65%, plus or minus a few percentage points. Durango’s market load factor has climbed to 77.8% in 2012 and is the highest in the group for the past two years. Montrose load factors also soared into the 70% bracket between 2006 and 2010, but have since declined to the 65% bracket. Gunnison load factors have underperformed the group every year 2009 - 2012 and failed to crack 60% in each of those years.

Compared to overall network carrier load factors, either system or just for regional jet operations, all the peer group airports underperform. Network carrier annualized system load factors are typically in the 80% range and regional partner load factors are in the 75% range.

Hayden’s market load factor during the period averaged 66%, with a high of 74.8% in 2006 and a low of 62.6% in 2010. At Hayden, Eagle and Gunnison a significant portion of total annual capacity is ski season related and operated under agreements between the local ski resort and the airline. In these cases market load factors mean less than if the service delivered adequate numbers of inbound skiers to the resort.

Department of Transportation (DOT) average fare reports draw information directly from carrier traffic and revenue reports. Average fares are reported as one way and net of taxes and fees. Chart 2.1.5 D shows the reported average domestic one-way net fare for each of the peer group markets by year.

66.8%

69.4% 71.4%

65.4%

66.7% 64.9%

65.9%

63.8%

65.4%

70.8%69.5%

68.3%68.0%

62.5%

69.3% 71.6%

73.8%

77.8%

66.0%

69.9%74.8%

70.7%

67.4%

64.8%62.6%

68.6%

64.1%

62.7%65.8%

66.7%

64.9%64.6%

68.9%

67.7%

65.8%

62.7%

61.9%

69.1%67.1%

62.9%

64.2%

54.1%

56.0%

59.3% 59.7%

66.8%68.2%

77.3% 77.0%

75.0%73.6% 73.1%

68.2%

73.3%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Chart 2.1.5 C


C-15

HAYDEN AND PEER GROUP: ANNUAL DOMESTIC AVERAGE FARE 2004 – 2012

The group as a whole illustrates the roller coaster effect of airline revenue prior to, and after, the major recession of 2008 – 2009. Peer group average fares were climbing steadily from 2004 to 2007 or 2008.

Average fares paid in all markets dropped significantly in 2009 and have since begun to climb again.

Hayden reports the lowest average fare in the group in every year measured. Aspen reports the highest average domestic fare in every year measured, usually by a significant amount. In 2012 Aspen is the highest at $264 and Hayden the lowest at $202. The rest of the peer group falls in between with 2012 average fares ranging from $215 to $238.

C.2.1.6 Comparisons of the Hayden Market to Denver

As was noted earlier, Denver is the 5th largest domestic airport, measured by local traffic, with just over 26 million annual O&D trips. Denver is also a major connecting hub for United Airlines, Frontier Airlines and Southwest Airlines. Hayden is the 219th largest domestic airport, measured by local traffic, with just fewer than 200,000 annual O&D trips. Denver is an important part of Hayden’s air service. It is both the closest major airport and connecting hub and the primary leakage point for Hayden region traffic that does not use the Yampa Valley Regional Airport.

$211$217

$233

$247

$239

$204

$219

$245

$264

$179

$187

$205

$213

$204

$168

$175

$195$202

$150$154

$172$177 $178

$158

$175

$194

$202

$176$177

$198

$208

$212

$173

$193

$229 $235

$160

$169

$185$177

$190

$158

$181

$207

$215

$166$171

$199

$192

$205

$174

$193

$215

$238

$140

$160

$180

$200

$220

$240

$260

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Chart 2.1.5 D


C-16

Southwest, 31.1%

United,26.5%

Frontier,20.3%

Other,22.1%

DENVER DOMESTIC TRAFFIC, SEAT CAPACITY AND AVERAGE FARE: 2004 – 2013

The chart above shows Denver’s domestic seats, passengers and average fare by year for 2004 to 2013, with 2013 being the 12 months ended June 30, 2013. Seats and passengers are expressed in daily total each way. The impact of Southwest’s entry into the Denver market in 2006 is clear. 2013 seat capacity is up 15% from 2005 (last year prior to Southwest entry) while domestic traffic is up 29% in the same period. Market average fare has been on a roller coaster ride but the 2013 fare is only $7 higher (5%) than in 2005. Since 2006 Denver has been one of the most competitive major airports in the nation, with United, Southwest and Frontier operating the airport as a major online connecting hub.

Southwest has become the leader in market share of domestic traffic at Denver, followed now by United and Frontier. The three carriers combined have 77.9% of the Denver market for the 12 months ended 6/30/2013.

Chart 2.1.6.B DENVER DOMESTIC MARKET SHARE

Eight other airlines hold a combined 22.1% market share.

The three primary carriers have high levels of daily service. United offered an average of 365 daily departures per day at Denver in August of 2013. Southwest offered a daily average of 161 departures and Frontier offered 109 daily flights in the same period.

72,281 71,231

76,61280,560

82,885 82,438 83,897 83,644 83,361 81,909

26,822 27,94130,508

32,812 32,323 31,085 32,399 34,311 35,167 36,131

$139

$146$144

$141

$146

$130$138

$150 $151 $151

$100

$110

$120

$130

$140

$150

$160

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Aver

age

Fare

Chart 2.1.6 A

Seats SDEW Domestic PDEW Domestic Avg Fare

C-17

It is important to remember that an average Southwest flight at Denver in August of 2013 had 145 seats and an average Frontier flight has 142 seats. United operates a significant level of regional services at Denver and its average flight had 88 seats in the period.

Denver is both Yampa Valley Regional’s primary hub and also its primary leakage point, the airport most often used as an alternative to the Yampa Valley Airport. While a major reason for leakage to Denver is the above illustrated high level of nonstop flights on ten domestic airlines, another reason is the measurable disparity in average fare paid at Yampa Valley compared to at Denver.

DENVER VS HAYDEN: DOMESTIC AVERAGE FARE: 2004 – 2013

In 2004 and 2005 the average domestic fare gap between that paid at Yampa Valley and that paid at Denver was $8 to $11 one way. Since then the gap has widened considerably and in the most recent period, the 12 months ended 6/30/2013, Yampa Valley had an average fare of $214 while Denver’s as $151, a gap of $63 one way. When taxes and fees are considered and round trip travel is calculated, this gap was approximately $140 round trip in that 12-month period. The disparity grows much wider when first quarter, with all its inbound leisure ski traffic, is excluded. The gap between the Denver domestic fare and that paid at Hayden (excluding Q1 traffic) in the 12 months ended 6/30/2013 is $101.

$139

$146 $144$141

$146

$130

$138

$150 $151 $151

$150$154

$172$177 $178

$158

$175

$194

$202

$214

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

$220

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Chart 2.1.6 C

Denver Hayden

C-18

DENVER VS HAYDEN: DOMESTIC AVERAGE FARE EXCLUDING Q1: 2004 – 2013

In summary, in terms of overall market size and service, Yampa Valley Regional Airport is in the middle of the peer group of Colorado mountain airports. The Airport’s seasonality of traffic and service is similar to that at Eagle/Vail (a larger market) and at Gunnison (a smaller market). The Airport does not share a lot in common with Aspen and, especially, Durango. While Aspen is clearly a resort market airport, it has a much stronger summer, much more year-round service and much higher fares than at Yampa Valley. Durango, despite being a mountain airport, has market characteristics more like that of a year-round business market.

The data presented above on Denver illustrates the intense competition at that major airport and the impact that competition has on Yampa Valley Regional, in the form of a wide and expanding disparity between average fares paid at Denver and those paid at Yampa Valley Regional.

One of the keys to long term growth of airline traffic at Yampa Valley Regional will be the level of airline competition going forward, especially on price, at Denver. The intense focus on Denver by three airlines, United, Southwest and Frontier, makes it one of the most competitive large markets in the nation, and results in aggressive pricing on many routes. Should one of the three airlines that operate large scale hub operations at Denver reduce those operations, Denver airfare pricing will generally increase and the current wide gap between Denver average fares and Hayden average fares will narrow. A narrowing average fare gap will most likely make expanded Hayden air service economical, both winter seasonal and year round.

$139$146 $144 $141

$146

$130$138

$150 $151 $151

$168

$181

$203$199

$211

$189

$209

$233$241

$252

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

$220

$240

$260

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Chart 2.1.6 D

Denver Hayden

C-19

C.3 HISTORICAL AIRLINE ACTIVITY

The Yampa Valley Regional Airport can trace its air service history back to 1966. Airport construction began in June of 1966. The first air service, with Frontier Airlines Convair 580 turboprops (the first Frontier) began in October of 1966. In 1986 a runway extension allowed for larger aircraft and winter season mainline jet service began. A variety of commuter and regional airlines also served the airport in the 1980s and early 1990s. As detailed earlier, the evolution of the commuter airline industry into a much smaller group of airlines that mostly flew for network carriers under their brands occurred at Yampa Valley as it did nationwide. Today the Airport’s only year-round service is that of United Airlines regional partner carriers operating 50- to 76-seat aircraft to the United hub in Denver.

This study will look back at historical airline activity from 1993 to 2012, a period of twenty years. It will analyze service, capacity, traffic and average fares for each year and by each year’s winter quarter, and will examine trends for local origin traffic in comparison to that of the overall market.

C.3.1.1 HDN Airport Service by Route 1993 - 2012 A total of 16 cities have had nonstop air service to Yampa Valley Regional Airport in the 20-year period of 1993 to 2012. Seattle service, which starts in December of 2013, will make the 17th nonstop route.

All routes shown except Denver were operated winter season only. During each year’s winter season service frequency varied from once per week to daily. This happens to be a good example of industry consolidation in that former airline hubs Cincinnati, Raleigh and St. Louis all briefly had winter season service to Hayden in the late 1990s or early 2000s. All three have since lost their hub

Chart 3.1.1 A

City 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Atlanta X X X X X X X X XChicago X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Cincinnati X XCleveland X X X

Dallas X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XDenver X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Houston X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLos Angeles X X X X X X X X X XMinneapolis X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

New York LGA X X X XNew York EWR X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XNew York JFK X X

Raleigh X XSt. Louis X X X X X X

Salt Lake City X X X X X X X XSan Francisco X X

HDN NONSTOP ROUTE AIR SERVICE SUMMARY: 1993 - 2012

WinterYear round

C-20

status. Cleveland and San Francisco are still airline hubs but the 1993-1995 service efforts apparently did not work financially.

C.3.1.2 Historic Capacity Analysis

Air service at Yampa Valley Regional Airport has seen significant fluctuations in the years between 1993 and 2012. In the twenty-year period market seat capacity is up 106%.

However, inside that twenty-year measure there have been significant shifts, with capacity actually going down eight times year over year, including in four of the more recent five years.

Capacity grew 67% in the first five years 1993 to 1997, grew again by 20% in the second five years 1998 to 2002, grew again by 26% in the period 2003 to 2007 and declined in the most recent five years 2008 to 2012 by 18%.

Increases and decreases have occurred in years where industry capacity may have shifted in the opposite direction. This is a clear indication that the recruitment and financial support strategies of the Ski Company in any given year can cause capacity to move against national or even regional trends.

The middle set of columns above show the number of airline flights operated at Yampa Valley Regional Airport each year for the 20 year period. The number of flights varies significantly by year as well. This is a function of the size of aircraft operated and, by itself, is less of an indicator than total seats offered. The far right set of columns show the average seats per flight, an important indicator of the size of aircraft used for HDN service. 1993 and 1994 saw only large mainline aircraft operated. The middle 1990s saw average aircraft size (gauge) decline to as low as 51.1 seats per

Year Seats Year Flights Year Seats/Flt1993 156,782 1993 1,059 1993 148.01994 167,467 6.8% 1994 1,114 5.2% 1994 150.3 1.6%1995 206,412 23.3% 1995 2,504 124.8% 1995 82.4 -45.2%1996 271,494 31.5% 1996 5,316 112.3% 1996 51.1 -38.0%1997 262,130 -3.4% 67.2% 1997 4,325 -18.6% 308.4% 1997 60.6 18.6% -59.1%1998 235,553 -10.1% 1998 2,753 -36.3% 1998 85.6 41.3%1999 295,309 25.4% 1999 4,183 51.9% 1999 70.6 -17.5%2000 307,982 4.3% 2000 4,111 -1.7% 2000 74.9 6.1%2001 237,539 -22.9% 2001 2,483 -39.6% 2001 95.7 27.8%2002 315,588 32.9% 20.4% 2002 3,581 44.2% -17.2% 2002 88.1 -7.9% 45.4%2003 305,422 -3.2% 2003 3,398 -5.1% 2003 89.9 2.0%2004 355,603 16.4% 2004 4,374 28.7% 2004 81.3 -9.6%2005 366,974 3.2% 2005 4,753 8.7% 2005 77.2 -5.0%2006 349,198 -4.8% 2006 4,906 3.2% 2006 71.2 -7.8%2007 396,419 13.5% 25.6% 2007 5,193 5.8% 45.0% 2007 76.3 7.2% -13.4%2008 418,462 5.6% 2008 4,738 -8.8% 2008 88.3 15.7%2009 381,877 -8.7% 2009 4,048 -14.6% 2009 94.3 6.8%2010 339,180 -11.2% 2010 3,494 -13.7% 2010 97.1 3.0%2011 313,496 -7.6% 2011 3,632 3.9% 2011 86.3 -11.1%2012 323,582 3.2% -18.4% 106.4% 2012 3,570 -1.7% -31.3% 237.1% 2012 90.6 5.0% 18.7% -38.8%

SEATS PER FLIGHT 1993 TO 2012Percent Change

Chart 3.1.2 A

AIRLINE SEATS OFFERED 1993 TO 2012 AIRLINE FLIGHTS FLOWN 1993 TO 2012Percent Change Percent Change

C-21

flight. Since then aircraft gauge has fluctuated between 70 and 90 seats per flight. Denver service is operated with 50- to 70-seat aircraft and the various winter seasonal services vary between mainline jets (124 to 160 seats) and large regional jets (65 to 76 seats).

C.3.1.3 Historic Traffic Analysis

During the past 20 years Yampa Valley Regional Airport traffic has hovered in the 200,000 O&D per year range. The highest annual total traffic during the period was achieved in 2007 with 269,610 total O&D passengers reported to the DOT. The lowest annual total in the period was recorded in 1995 with 164,740 O&D. The chart below shows domestic traffic by year, international traffic by year and then total traffic by year. Domestic traffic has posted declines each of the last five years while international traffic posted declines for six consecutive years 1998 to 2003.

1993 was a very strong year for HDN traffic, with the 219,820 O&D total not matched or exceeded until 2004. If we exclude the anomaly of 1993, current traffic 2008 - 2012, even though declining each year, is still about 10% higher than for the comparable five years of 1994 to 1998.

For the period 1995 to 2000, domestic traffic showed modest growth. After a decline in 2001 traffic again showed growth until 2008 and has been in decline since that year.

International traffic is only about 2% of total market traffic. This is an unusually low percentage. Partially due to the small sample size, international traffic has seen wide variance from year to year and that variance is not always consistent with that of domestic traffic. International traffic declined to as low 4,800 passengers in 2012 but for the period 2009 – 2012 averaged about 5,300 annual O&D.

Year Traffic Year Traffic Year Total1993 215,100 1993 4,720 1993 219,8201994 171,560 -20.2% 1994 4,680 -0.8% 1994 176,240 -19.8%1995 161,320 -6.0% 1995 3,420 -26.9% 1995 164,740 -6.5%1996 178,980 10.9% 1996 4,530 32.5% 1996 183,510 11.4%1997 201,120 12.4% -6.5% 1997 6,440 42.2% 36.4% 1997 207,560 13.1% -5.6%1998 199,760 -0.7% 1998 5,430 -15.7% 1998 205,190 -1.1%1999 201,540 0.9% 1999 4,660 -14.2% 1999 206,200 0.5%2000 211,060 4.7% 2000 4,250 -8.8% 2000 215,310 4.4%2001 189,360 -10.3% 2001 3,560 -16.2% 2001 192,920 -10.4%2002 202,470 6.9% 0.7% 2002 3,030 -14.9% -53.0% 2002 205,500 6.5% -1.0%2003 197,720 -2.3% 2003 3,080 1.7% 2003 200,800 -2.3%2004 230,820 16.7% 2004 3,940 27.9% 2004 234,760 16.9%2005 242,420 5.0% 2005 5,290 34.3% 2005 247,710 5.5%2006 246,200 1.6% 2006 5,580 5.5% 2006 251,780 1.6%2007 262,730 6.7% 29.8% 2007 6,880 23.3% 127.1% 2007 269,610 7.1% 31.2%2008 254,540 -3.1% 2008 7,560 9.9% 2008 262,100 -2.8%2009 229,800 -9.7% 2009 4,760 -37.0% 2009 234,560 -10.5%2010 206,750 -10.0% 2010 6,320 32.8% 2010 213,070 -9.2%2011 203,370 -1.6% 2011 4,810 -23.9% 2011 208,180 -2.3%2012 189,910 -6.6% -27.7% -11.7% 2012 5,130 6.7% -25.4% 8.7% 2012 195,040 -6.3% -27.7% -11.3%

Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change

Chart 3.1.3 A

DOMESTIC TRAFFIC 1993 TO 2012 INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC 1993 TO 2012 TOTAL TRAFFIC 1993 TO 2012

C-22

Reasons for the modest international totals, both actual and as a percent of market, include a small resident population base and limited international connections on existing HDN schedules. For example the Denver hub has very modest international service given its overall size.

C.3.1.4 Historic Market and City Pair Load Factors Summary

Market load factors at Yampa Valley Regional Airport consistently trail industry averages. The Airport’s annualized load factor for all carriers and all routes has underperformed the aggregate system load factor of the network airlines by about 20 percentage points each year since 2009.

NETWORK SYSTEM LOAD FACTOR AND HDN LOAD FACTOR: 1993 – 2012

Hayden Airport load factors are very much a product of the level of winter season capacity that is offered and on which routes that capacity is offered. For the 20-year period shown on all routes operated, the market load factor was 67%. Recent years have been roughly consistent with that number. The peak year for load factor was 2006 at 75%. A few years have dipped as low as 62% or 63%.

The load factor performance of individual routes is a more complex data summary. During the 20-year period sixteen city pair routes were flown at least one winter season. Six routes ̶ Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Minneapolis and New York Newark (ERW) ̶ had scheduled flight operations at least seasonally all twenty years. Atlanta has had service every winter since 2003 – 2004 and Los Angeles had service each winter 1993 – 2001 but then was suspended until the winter of 2012 – 2013.

62%

64% 66%69% 70% 71% 71% 72%

70%

71%74% 76%

79%82% 83% 83% 84% 84% 85% 85%

67%

63% 62% 63%66%

72%

66% 67%

72%

70% 69%66%

70%75%

71%67% 65% 63%

68%64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Chart 3.1.4 A Network System Load Factor HDN Market Load Factor

C-23

Eight other routes have had service for some period during the twenty years but do not have it currently. Those are Cincinnati (former Delta hub), Cleveland (declining United/Continental hub), New York LGA (which had four winters of weak load factor performance 2007 – 2010), New York JFK (which had two winters of weak load factor performance 2007 – 2008), Raleigh and St. Louis (both former American hub sites), Salt Lake City (a modest Delta hub site), and San Francisco (a current United hub site).

The highest Hayden market annual load factor was in 2006 with 75%. The period from 1998 to 2007 saw annual load factors average 70%. For the five year period since 2007 the annual average was 65.4%.

C.3.1.5 Historic Domestic and International Average Net One-Way Fares

Consistent with national trends, Yampa Valley Regional Airport average fares, both domestic and international, have climbed significantly over the 20 year period 1993 to 2012.

Domestic average fare is up 36% from 1993 to 2012. The biggest single year increase was from 2005 to 2006 when the fare increased 12%. The largest decrease was from 2008 to 2009 when the average fare paid dropped from $178 to $158, a decrease of 11%. Since 2009 the average fare is up 28% ($158 to $202) and for the 12 months ended 6/30/2013 (not shown) the domestic fare is up to $214, which is a 35% increase from 2009. While these increases are consistent with national trends, they are not consistent with trends at Denver, where intense competition has held domestic average fare increases to only 16% since 2009. (see page 16).

International average fare is up 99% between 1993 and 2012. Since Hayden generates a relatively small number of international passengers per year the sampling size is small and subject to

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012City LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF

Atlanta 76% 75% 80% 81% 76% 74% 67% 65% 69% 69%Chicago 70% 68% 64% 66% 71% 85% 50% 59% 59% 67% 66% 59% 64% 69% 63% 64% 56% 53% 62% 59%

Cinninnati 44% 66% Cleveland 64% 67% 64%

Dallas 68% 68% 71% 71% 75% 76% 74% 77% 81% 78% 72% 67% 70% 78% 74% 72% 68% 68% 69% 67%Denver 62% 55% 60% 58% 63% 69% 64% 59% 63% 63% 62% 71% 73% 76% 72% 62% 63% 69% 67% 58%Houston 75% 61% 55% 56% 63% 71% 75% 74% 77% 73% 71% 67% 71% 76% 73% 74% 73% 63% 72% 60%

Los Angeles 54% 43% 54% 56% 70% 74% 46% 62% 57% 72%Minneapolis 65% 60% 60% 65% 66% 72% 62% 59% 66% 67% 73% 69% 75% 78% 75% 76% 64% 68% 71% 68%

New York LGA 59% 50% 54% 57% New York EWR 67% 70% 56% 65% 77% 67% 74% 72% 69% 67% 64% 66% 72% 78% 83% 78% 79% 81% 78% 71%New York JFK 58% 40%

Raleigh 39% 57% St. Louis 44% 52% 68% 58% 63% 74%

Salt Lake City 70% 56% 57% 62% 57% 49% 46% 54% San Francisco 43% 33%

Market 67% 63% 62% 63% 66% 72% 66% 67% 72% 70% 69% 66% 70% 75% 71% 67% 65% 63% 68% 64%

HAYDEN CITY PAIR AND MARKET LOAD FACTORS 1993 TO 2012Chart 3.1.4 B

C-24

significant variation year over year. Despite year to year variances up or down, the general trend is consistent with that of the region and the nation.

HAYDEN DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL AVERAGE FARE: 1993 – 2012

C.3.1.6 Historic Traffic Origin

The Yampa Valley Regional Airport, as a seasonal market supporting a major ski resort, sees primarily inbound traffic flows. Domestic traffic origin has climbed to 18% of total in 2012.

HAYDEN DOMESTIC TRAFFIC ORIGIN PERCENTAGES: 1993 – 2012

Since first quarter produces significant inbound visitor traffic, a review of origin percentages for each year excluding first quarter shows that local origin traffic is about one third of total outside of ski season.

$326

$417

$559 $555

$513

$455$438

$493$459

$434 $424

$490

$448

$537

$641 $627

$582$554

$617$649

$148$164 $155 $159 $155 $153 $158 $158 $161 $149 $149 $150 $154

$172 $177 $178$158

$175$194 $202

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Chart 3.1.5 AInternational Average Fare Domestic Average Fare

85%

91% 90%87% 86%

89%86% 88% 89% 88% 88%

85% 84% 85% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 82%

15%

9% 10%13% 14%

11%14% 12% 11% 12% 12%

15% 16% 15% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Chart 3.1.6.A Inbound Origin HDN Origin

C-25

HAYDEN DOMESTIC TRAFFIC ORIGIN PERCENTAGES EX FIRST QUARTER: 1993 – 2012

The Yampa Valley Regional Airport produces relatively little international traffic. The percent of international traffic that is of local origin is much higher than with domestic traffic but still less than 50%.

HAYDEN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC ORIGIN PERCENTAGES: 1993 – 2012

As with domestic traffic, the percent of total international that is of local origin has grown significantly in 20 years, from 16% or less in the 1990s to about 40% in recent years.

72%

78% 79%

73%68%

73%69% 69% 71% 70% 69% 68% 66% 67% 67% 65% 66% 67% 68% 67%

28%

22% 21%

27%32%

27%31% 31% 29% 30% 31% 32% 34% 33% 33% 35% 34% 33% 32% 33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Chart 3.1.6.B Inbound Origin HDN Origin

84%

93%89% 88% 86% 86%

80%

69% 70%

63%

74%

67%70%

62%

68%71%

67%

61% 60%64%

16%

7%11% 12% 14% 14%

20%

31% 30%

37%

26%

33%30%

38%

32%29%

33%

39% 40%36%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Chart 3.1.6.C Inbound Origin HDN Origin

C-26

C.3.1.7 Historic Winter Season (First Quarter) Traffic and Service Historically, about 75% of Yampa Valley Regional Airport annual traffic and air service capacity occurs in the four-month period of December to March each year. About 63% of annual activity occurs during calendar first quarter, January to March. Since DOT reports on airline traffic are published in quarterly form this section will look at the past twenty years of first quarter market traffic, revenue and service. This will capture the bulk of the winter season visitor traffic, excluding that which occurs in December or may occur in very early April. The following analysis, charts and graphs focus only on first quarter traffic, capacity and average fare metrics for the twenty years 1993 to 2012. First quarter air service capacity peaked at 1,438 seats per day each way in the first quarter of 2008. This translates to about 259,000 airline seats operated during that quarter in and out of the Airport. First quarter airline traffic also peaked in the first quarter of 2008 at 482 passengers per day each way. This translates into nearly 87,000 one way passenger trips that quarter in or out of the Airport. Over the twenty-year period first quarter domestic average one way net fare stayed in a narrow range between $138 and $156 until 2007 and 2008 when the fare jumped into the mid $160 range. This was followed by a dip to $141 in the great recession year of 2009 and steady increases since with the first quarter 2013 average fare reaching $197, a 40% increase in that timeframe.

FIRST QUARTER TRAFFIC, CAPACITY AND AVERAGE FARE: 1993 – 2012 Chart 3.1.7 A

Compared to the capacity peak of 2008 capacity in first quarter of 2013 was down 32%. Compared to the traffic peak of 2008, traffic in first quarter of 2013 was down 35%.

708763 749

957

1,158

893

1,126

1,254

1,0621,1391,169

1,295 1,2761,206

1,307

1,438 1,428

1,261

1,066 1,112

971

372 351 320 343395 387 377 413

375 393 381 407 420 433 460 482414

371 353 335 315

$143

$152

$147$152

$143$146 $146$142

$155

$138

$143$140 $139

$156

$166$163

$141$157

$172 $179

$197

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

$220

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Aver

age

Fare

Seat

s an

d Pa

ssen

gers

per

Day

Eac

h W

ay

Seats SDEW Domestic PDEW Domestic Avg Fare

C-27

First quarter load factor has been about 70% throughout the entire twenty year period. The highest first quarter load factor in the period was recorded in 1998 at 75% and the lowest was 61% in 2010. The 2013 first quarter load factor was 70%.

There has been much greater variance in the number of flights operated per winter quarter over the twenty year period. Offered seat capacity, number of flights operated and average seats per flight are intertwined measurements.

The number of flights operated has varied widely, from around 900 per quarter in 1993 – 1995 to a high of 2,980 operated flights in one quarter just a few years later in 1997. However, during the 1993 – 1995 period average seats per flight were around 150 while in 1997 it was only 69.

Since 2005, with the exception of 2010, the average seats per flight operated during the winter quarter has been just over 100. This suggests a winter season balance between large (65- to 76-seat) regional jets or turboprop equipment and medium sized mainline equipment with about 130 seats.

During the spring (second quarter) and fall (fourth quarter) seats per flight fall to between 50 and 60, reflecting the use of either 50- or 65-seat regional jets for the Denver service, which is the only service operating during most of that timeframe each year.

FIRST QUARTER LOAD FACTOR, SEGMENTS AND SEATS PER SEGMENT: 1993 – 2012 Chart 3.1.7.B

DOT domestic traffic data provides an estimate, based on a measurement of the origin of each reported ticket, of inbound traffic and visitors.

859 916 874

1,889

2,980

1,256

2,2112,315

1,984

1,661 1,701

2,0662,145

2,259 2,213

2,4182,315

1,960

1,783 1,846

1,608

148 150 154 91 69 128 92 97 96 123 124 113 107 96 106 107 111 116 108 108 109

69% 67%64%

67% 67%

75%

68% 68%

74% 74%70%

66%70%

76% 74%

70%64% 61%

69%64%

70%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Load

Fac

tor

Perc

ent

Segm

ents

and

Sea

ts P

er S

egm

ent

Segments Seats/Segment Load Factor Percent

C-28

Chart 3.1.7 A

Carrier Share Avg Fare Share Avg FareAmerican 33% $162 31% $163

Delta 21% $153 24% $162Frontier 8% $167 7% $183United 38% $186 38% $198Market 100% $171 100% $178

2011-Q1 2012-Q1MARKET SHARE & AVERAGE FARE DURING FRONTIER SERVICE

C.3.1.8 The Frontier Airlines Low Fare Service at Hayden

During the winter of 2010 – 2011 and during the winter of 2011 – 2012 Frontier Airlines offered single frequency per day service between Hayden and its Denver hub, generating online connections to the dozens of domestic cities that Frontier served nonstop from Denver at that time. Service was provided primarily with E-190 jets seating 99 passengers. Traffic results for Frontier were very weak with a 60% load factor in first quarter of 2011 and a 50% load factor in the first quarter of 2012. Low fare carriers like Frontier operate on a high volume/high load factor business model and load factors in that range suggest very large operating losses for the carrier during those two quarters of operation. During these two winter quarters of single frequency per day operation Frontier only gained a 7% to 8% market share. Frontier’s average fare was similar to that of American and Delta, some $21 lower than that of United in 2011-Q1, and about $20 higher than that of American and Delta and $15 lower than United in 2012-Q1. Overall, the impact of Frontier on the market in these two examples was modest.

C.4 PASSENGER ENPLANEMENT FORECAST

The Yampa Valley Regional Airport has seen total annual passenger traffic fluctuate in the past 20 years between a high of 269,610 O&D in 2007 and a low of 164,740 O&D in 1994. In the past three years traffic has averaged about 200,000 O&D annually. At the same time air service capacity, measured in seats offered in and out, has ranged from a low of 156,782 seats in 1994 to a high of 418,462 in 2008. In the past three years annual seat capacity has averaged about 324,000.

C.4.1.1 Current Air Service Routes, Carriers and Capacity

The Airport has seen modest growth in new routes, with winter Los Angeles service being re-introduced in late 2012 and Seattle winter service (the first nonstop service from any Colorado airport to Seattle) being introduced in December of 2013.

C-29

The Airport’s only year-round service is the solid gray line to Denver. Four carriers will serve the Airport the winter of 2013-2014; incumbents American (winter only), Delta (winter only), United (Denver year round, other routes winter only) and new entrant Alaska Air with winter service to Seattle. The most recent route terminations were in 2010 when winter service to Salt Lake City and New York LGA was ended.

This chart summarizes the Airport’s air service for the 12 months April 2013 to March 2014.

Chart 4.1.1 A

Period Route Carrier Aircraft Capacity Flights/Period SeatsApril Denver United Various 63 88 5,556May Denver United Q400 72 59 4,231June Denver United Q400 72 110 7,942July Denver United Q400 71 173 12,337

August Denver United Q400 72 142 10,190September Denver United Q400 71 120 8,520

October Denver United Q400 71 124 8,804November Denver United Q400 71 66 4,686Dec - Mar Denver United Q4/CR7 69 896 61,456Dec - Mar Atlanta Delta A320 & 73/8 153 188 28,848Dec - Mar Chicago American E175 76 206 15,656Feb/Mar Chicago United CR7 66 14 924Dec - Mar Dallas American 73/8 150 236 35,400Dec - Mar Houston United 73/8 & 757 153 194 29,614Dec - Mar Los Angeles United CR7 66 84 5,544Dec - Mar Minneapolis Delta E175 76 200 15,200Dec - Mar Newark United A320 138 30 4,140Dec - Mar Seattle Alaska CR7 70 60 4,200

Season All All All 95 2,108 200,98212 Months All All All 88 2,990 263,248

HAYDEN AIR SERVICE BY MONTH: APRIL 2013 TO MARCH 2014

C-30

Spring, summer and fall service to Denver the past year has been provided almost exclusively by United Express Q400 turboprop aircraft. United is in the process of reconfiguring these aircraft to a 71-seat capacity but during the summer of 2013 some of the flights were flown with 74-seat configurations. Thus the average seating per flight during the period is shown as 72. April of 2013 saw a broad mix of 50-seat regional jet, 66-seat regional jet and 71- or 74-seat Q400 equipment. United appears to have settled on the Q4 aircraft to be the primary equipment type going forward for Hayden – Denver service.

The winter season service is shown in blue with a summary of all winter season routes in gold. The winter services all start in the second half of December and end at the end of March. The two winter season services where the destination and carrier are marked in yellow are routes flown at the carrier’s own risk, without financial support from the Steamboat Ski & Resort Corporation. All Denver services operated outside the winter period are also flown at the carrier’s risk, without local financial support.

The other winter season services, Atlanta, Chicago (American Airlines only), Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York Newark and Seattle, all receive financial support from interested parties in the Steamboat Springs/Hayden area. The financial support takes the form a Minimum Revenue Guarantee (MRG) program which assures the carrier that pre-defined carrier segment revenue targets will be met for each route for the season. Should any route fall short of its revenue target the community’s MRG fund will make up the difference. The community’s MRG obligations are capped at pre-set levels for each season.

The total MRG fund size varies by season but can exceed $4,000,000 per season. The MRG fund comes from contributions made by the Local Marketing District (funding from a 2% bed tax), from a .25% local sales tax collected in the city of Steamboat Springs, and via contributions from both the Steamboat Ski & Resort Corporation and from the Steamboat Springs Chamber of Commerce. In addition, the Steamboat Ski & Resort Corporation spends over $2,000,000 annually on air service related marketing across a broad spectrum of media venues.

The contrast between the spring, summer and fall services to Denver and the broad service pattern of mid-December to March is significant. Aircraft size varies between 66-seat regional jets on several routes to 169-seat 757s deployed by United on select Houston services. Winter season average gauge (seats per average flight) is 95 while in the off-season and summer it is 71 on the Q400 flights to Denver.

C.4.1.2 Top Domestic and International Markets

For the most recent 12 months of reported DOT traffic data (period ended 6/30/2013), the Yampa Valley Regional Airport generated domestic traffic in 234 domestic city pairs with 177,470 O&D passengers at an average one way net fare of $214. The top domestic market list has been consistent for the past five years, with Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta and one of the New York City

C-31

airports holding the top five spots in some fashion in all five annual periods. Note that 2013 in this case is the 12 months ended 6/30/2013.

All of the top five cities had winter season nonstop service to Hayden during the period.

For the same 12 months of reported DOT traffic data (12 months ended 6/30/2013), Hayden generated 4,960 international passengers at a net one way fare of $568 to 84 destinations.

Top international markets during the five year period were Toronto, London, Sydney and Calgary. Note that 2013 in this case is the 12 months ended 6/30/2013. Top ten markets such as Cancun, Los Cabos and Grand Cayman are most likely outbound leisure markets, reflecting vacation travel by catchment area residents. The other top markets listed are most likely inbound leisure markets with most traffic consisting of residents of those cities coming to the Steamboat Springs area for vacation activities.

City Rank 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

1 Chicago Chicago Houston Chicago Chicago2 Houston Houston Chicago Houston Houston3 Dallas Dallas Dallas Dallas Dallas4 Atlanta Atlanta Atlanta Atlanta Atlanta5 New York LGA New York LGA New York EWR New York EWR New York LGA6 Minneapolis New York EWR New York LGA Minneapolis Minneapolis7 New York EWR Minneapolis Minneapolis New York LGA New York EWR8 Boston Boston Boston Austin Austin9 Philadelphia Orlando Tampa Boston Philadelphia10 Tampa Austin Austin Tampa Boston11 Orlando Tampa Philadelphia Orlando Tampa12 Denver Philadelphia Washington D.C. IAD Philadelphia Washington D.C. IAD13 Washington D.C. IAD Washington D.C. IAD Denver Washington D.C. IAD San Francisco14 Washington D.C. DCA New Orleans Orlando Denver New Orleans15 Austin St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis Orlando

TOP HAYDEN DOMESTIC MARKETS FOR YEARS 2009 - 2013Chart 4.1.2 A

City Rank 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

1 Toronto Toronto Toronto Toronto London2 London London Sydney London Toronto3 Sydney Sydney Calgary Calgary Calgary4 Vancouver Vancouver London Sydney Panama City5 Caracas Edmonton Edmonton Vancouver Cancun6 Munich Cancun Cancun Mexico City Sydney7 Edmonton Bermuda Lima Cancun Grand Cayman8 Bermuda Los Cabos Vancouver Buenos Aires Mexico City9 Cancun Montreal Melbourne Lima Monterrey10 Frankfurt Mexico City Mexico City Edmonton Vancouver

Chart 4.1.2 B

TOP HAYDEN INTERNATIONAL MARKETS FOR YEARS 2009 - 2013

C-32

Chart 4.1.3 A

Region Traffic Percent Avg Fare Revenue PercentCanada 1,280 26.7% $372 $476,160 17.1%

Mex/C America/Caribbean 1,290 26.9% $368 $474,720 17.1%South America 520 10.9% $910 $473,200 17.0%

Europe 1,090 22.8% $707 $770,630 27.7%Asia 510 10.6% $912 $465,120 16.7%

Middle East 100 2.1% $1,179 $117,900 4.2%Africa 0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0%Total 4,790 100.0% $580 $2,777,730 100.0%

HAYDEN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC BY REGION12 months ended 6/30/2013

Region Traffic Percent Avg Fare Revenue PercentNortheast 37,830 21.3% $229 $8,663,070 22.8%Southeast 41,990 23.7% $210 $8,817,900 23.2%

South Central 41,090 23.2% $213 $8,752,170 23.1%Midwest 36,530 20.6% $191 $6,977,230 18.4%

Mountain 4,100 2.3% $214 $877,400 2.3%Far West 15,930 9.0% $243 $3,870,990 10.2%

Total 177,470 100.0% $214 $37,958,760 100.0%

HAYDEN DOMESTIC CONNECT O&D BY REGIONChart 4.1.3 B

12 months ended 6/30/2013

C.4.1.3 International and Domestic Traffic by Region

Over three quarters of Hayden’s international traffic comes from Canada, Europe or either Mexico, Central America or the Caribbean. South American, Asia (including Australia and New Zealand) and the Middle East contribute much smaller shares while no traffic was recorded in this period with Africa.

For purposes of determining the nationwide distribution of Hayden domestic traffic, the country is broken into six regions, the Northeast, Southeast, South Central, Midwest, Intermountain and Far West. On an annual basis, Hayden domestic traffic during the 12 months ended 6/30/2013 was distributed somewhat evenly among the four regions east of Hayden. The mountain region had negligible traffic contribution and the Far West region had a modest contribution. Revenue distribution approximately tracks with traffic distribution.

REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR DOMESTIC TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Chart 4.1.3 C

C-33

C.4.1.4 Twenty Year Passenger Enplanement Forecast

The past twenty years have seen a roller coaster of annual enplanement results for the Yampa Valley Regional Airport. This is a reflection of the nature of this air service market, seasonal and highly dependent on the winter season air service strategy of the Steamboat Ski & Resort Corporation. It is also a reflection of the turbulence within the domestic airline industry during that period, as outlined earlier in this report. Indeed, the annual traffic results of a winter season ski resort market is also dependent on something no one can control or predict, the amount of snow the resort area receives in a timely manner in order to be attractive as a destination for inbound skiers.

Chart 2.1.4 A on page 10 and chart 2.1.4 B on page 11 of this report show the distribution of both domestic traffic and market capacity by season for the period 2010 – 2012. For Hayden during that period, some 75% of both traffic and capacity used the airport during the December to March period defined as winter. This three-year sample of the allocation of traffic and capacity is typical for the airport for the past twenty years. Given that the market is primarily an inbound leisure market with a primary season of winter it is likely to continue to see its annual peak during the December to March period. With 75% of activity historically occurring in that winter period and only a modest summer peak, mathematically even significant increases in summer season service or off peak service (April/May and September to November) are not going to dramatically increase overall Airport traffic, since the winter peak is currently so large and, by comparison, traffic and service during other months is currently so modest.

Chart 4.2.3 A shows the historic norm of annual traffic distribution in the gray columns. The green columns show that “normal” traffic distribution with all seasons, winter, spring, summer and fall, growing by a uniform 2.75%, the FAA’s forecast growth percentage. The gold columns show the result if winter grows by the aforementioned 2.75% while all three off-season periods grow by 10% in one year. The result is only a fractional change in percent of total traffic in each season.

The conclusion is that even if dramatic off-season air service and traffic growth were to occur, the impact on the overall market, and especially on facility and infrastructure needs, would be very modest.

Season Traffic Percent Growth Traffic Percent Growth Traffic PercentWinter 150,000 75% 2.75% 154,125 75% 2.75% 158,363 74%Spring 12,000 6% 2.75% 12,330 6% 10.00% 13,563 6%

Summer 22,000 11% 2.75% 22,605 11% 10.00% 24,866 12% Fall 16,000 8% 2.75% 16,440 8% 10.00% 18,084 8%Total 200,000 100% 2.75% 205,500 100% 4.56% 214,876 100%

Chart 4.2.3 A

Historic Norm TAF Growth Rate Dramatic Off Peak GrowthHAYDEN MARKET GROWTH SCENARIOS

C-34

There are various ways to choose a set of high, medium and low growth scenarios for an airport’s air service and traffic. Typically local and regional economic metrics are considered. Certainly an assumption can be made that the airline industry will be more stable in the next 20 years than it has been in the past 20 years. The huge surge in domestic oil production, coupled with the airline industry moving to ever more fuel efficient aircraft, should make the future impact of fuel prices far less pivotal to airline economics than past fuel spikes have been.

Because Hayden is fundamentally an inbound leisure market with a significant winter peak, local area economic metrics are not a key or significant indicator of future Hayden air traffic or service. The Steamboat Ski & Resort Corporation competes with many other ski and winter sport venues for ski related traffic each winter. The Corporation is not at liberty to share its short-range or long-range intentions regarding purchased winter air services with the public for this report.

For these reasons a modest set of high, medium and low assumptions will be used for the twenty-year traffic forecast.

Low Market Share for Colorado Airports projection of 1.85% annual growth Medium The FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) projection of 2.75% annual growth High A 4% growth rate, based on declining competition at Denver and improved off season air service

offerings at Hayden.

Chart 4.2.3 B below has four sets of columns. The first set of columns (gray) show actual reported DOT enplanement traffic for 1993 to 2012, along with percentage of change from year to year.

Percent Percent Percent Percent1993 109,910 2013 106,289 2013 106,289 2013 106,2891994 88,120 -19.8% 2014 108,255 1.85% 2014 109,212 2.75% 2014 110,541 4.00%1995 82,370 -6.5% 2015 110,258 1.85% 2015 112,215 2.75% 2015 114,962 4.00%1996 91,755 11.4% 2016 112,298 1.85% 2016 115,301 2.75% 2016 119,561 4.00%1997 103,780 13.1% 2017 114,375 1.85% 2017 118,472 2.75% 2017 124,343 4.00%1998 102,595 -1.1% 2018 116,491 1.85% 2018 121,730 2.75% 2018 129,317 4.00%1999 103,100 0.5% 2019 118,646 1.85% 2019 125,078 2.75% 2019 134,489 4.00%2000 107,655 4.4% 2020 120,841 1.85% 2020 128,517 2.75% 2020 139,869 4.00%2001 96,460 -10.4% 2021 123,077 1.85% 2021 132,051 2.75% 2021 145,464 4.00%2002 102,750 6.5% 2022 125,354 1.85% 2022 135,683 2.75% 2022 151,282 4.00%2003 100,400 -2.3% 2023 127,673 1.85% 2023 139,414 2.75% 2023 157,334 4.00%2004 117,380 16.9% 2024 130,035 1.85% 2024 143,248 2.75% 2024 163,627 4.00%2005 123,855 5.5% 2025 132,440 1.85% 2025 147,187 2.75% 2025 170,172 4.00%2006 125,890 1.6% 2026 134,891 1.85% 2026 151,235 2.75% 2026 176,979 4.00%2007 134,805 7.1% 2027 137,386 1.85% 2027 155,394 2.75% 2027 184,058 4.00%2008 131,050 -2.8% 2028 139,928 1.85% 2028 159,667 2.75% 2028 191,420 4.00%2009 117,280 -10.5% 2029 142,516 1.85% 2029 164,058 2.75% 2029 199,077 4.00%2010 106,535 -9.2% 2030 145,153 1.85% 2030 168,570 2.75% 2030 207,040 4.00%2011 104,090 -2.3% 2031 147,838 1.85% 2031 173,205 2.75% 2031 215,322 4.00%2012 97,520 -6.3% 2032 150,573 1.85% 2032 177,968 2.75% 2032 223,935 4.00%

2033 153,359 1.85% 2033 182,863 2.75% 2033 232,892 4.00%44.28% 72.04% 119.11%

Actual Low Medium High

Cumulative Growth Cumulative Growth Cumulative Growth

HAYDEN 20 YEAR ENPLANEMENT PROJECTIONS: LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH Chart 4.2.3 B

1993 - 2012 CO 20 year growth Terminal Area Forecast Expanded Winter & Off Peak

C-35

The second, third and fourth sets of columns show a projection of low growth (1.85%), medium growth (2.75%, matching the FAA TAF) and high growth (4%).

The low growth forecast (yellow) would assume no success in increasing off season air service beyond that provided today, as well as only very modest increases in the Local Marketing District winter air service MRG program. Cumulative growth over the 20 years would be 44%.

The medium growth forecast (blue) assumes the current FAA terminal forecast model. It is .9% higher than the low forecast and results in approximately 29,504 additional enplanements at the end of the 20-year period, or a cumulative growth of 72% over 20 years.

The high growth forecast (gold) assumes a 4% annual growth rate, based on an assumption of a decline in the current level of intense airfare competition at Denver, measurably improved off season air service at Hayden and consistent growth in winter seasonal service supported by the existing Local Marketing District run MRG program. Cumulative growth in the high scenario is 119% over 20 years.

The low forecast will result in 153,359 enplanements in 2033. The medium forecast will result in 182,863 enplanements in that year and the high forecast will mean 232,892 enplanements twenty years hence.

HAYDEN TWENTY YEAR ENPLANEMENT FORECAST: HIGH, LOW AND MEDIUM

90,000

110,000

130,000

150,000

170,000

190,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Chart 4.2.3 C

High Forecast 4% Medium Forecast 2.75% Low Forecast 1.85%

C-36

It is impossible to predict a month, quarter or year in which Denver competition and current ongoing aggressive airline pricing will abate. Suffice it to say that currently, and since 2006, three airlines have committed major resources to effect hub operations at Denver, on top of each other. Currently, this type of three carrier head-to-head competition exists at no other airport in the United States. By all reasonable measures none of the three carriers are making adequate return on investment for the resources they have committed to Denver. Indeed, it is likely that United does and has, since 2006, operated its Denver hub at a loss. The hub is indispensable to United’s national and global strategies, so it is highly unlikely that United will concede its position at Denver.

By the same token, Denver has become the fourth largest airport station for Southwest, measured by daily departures. The carrier’s current intermountain and West Coast service strategies are clearly built on the assumption that Denver is a large system anchor and online connect point.

Frontier has the smallest overall hub operation at Denver, in terms of flights and destinations, however, currently Denver operations constitute over 90% of total Frontier operations, making operations at Denver the very heart and soul of Frontier. The carrier has recently come to have new ownership, an ownership committed to the Ultra Low Cost Carrier concept (ULCC). This concept is typically not characterized by large hub-spoke operations so a change in Frontier service footprint at Denver would appear possible. A major reduction of Denver operations by Frontier would quickly bring about measurable average fare increases for the market as a whole.

C.5 AIR CARRIER AND COMMUTER OPERATIONS FORECAST

C.5.1.1 Airport Airline Operations

Yampa Valley Regional Airport operations by month and route are forecast in five-year increments, beginning with 2013. Traffic is contoured to fit with the medium enplanement forecast, which assumes a 2.75% annual growth rate for total traffic. At each five-year increment, average aircraft capacity is assumed to increase. Each existing route also assumes more frequency, including both winter seasonal routes and the year-round Denver service. Four new routes, marked AXX through DXX, are added, one at each five-year interval. The result is a gradual increase in the number of winter routes, frequencies, available seats and onboard load factor, with March remaining the peak month. Spring, Summer and Fall service to Denver shows increasing frequencies and slightly increased aircraft capacity. Denver load factors are also assumed to gradually increase.

C-37

The summary shows routes operated growing from nine to thirteen. Average seats per flight go from 97.3 to 105.4, an 8% increase. Annual airline segments grow from 2,801 to 4,642, a 6.6% increase. Annual market load factor grows from 69.5% to 74.8%. The base year of 2013 is shown below in detail.

The projection for 2018 adds one new route and expands frequency and capacity on several routes. Market load factor climbs to 72.6%. Spring and Fall frequency on the Denver route expand. The Minneapolis route returns to mainline equipment at 126 seats per flight.

Chart 5.1.1 A

Year Routes Seats/Flt Segments Seats Enplanements O&D Load Factor2013 9 97.3 2,801 272,398 106,289 212,578 69.5%2018 10 98.9 3,392 335,534 121,730 243,460 72.6%2023 11 99.9 3,830 382,564 139,414 278,828 72.9%2028 12 101.6 4,214 428,000 159,667 319,334 74.6%2033 13 105.4 4,642 489,094 182,863 365,726 74.8%

Annual TotalsService Assumption

SUMMARY OF 20 YEAR AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST

Chart 5.1.1 B

Segment SegmentRoute Seat/Flt Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Seats O&D Load FactorDEN 71 236 215 241 88 61 113 177 143 120 124 66 138 1,722 122,262 83,138 68.0%ATL 160 52 48 54 20 174 27,840 21,715 78.0%ORD 150 46 50 62 2 38 198 29,700 19,008 64.0%DFW 182 60 56 61 2 36 215 39,130 27,391 70.0%IAH 152 60 56 62 26 204 31,008 21,396 69.0%LAX 66 16 16 17 8 57 3,762 2,596 69.0%MSP 76 60 54 62 20 196 14,896 11,321 76.0%EWR 120 8 6 9 4 27 3,240 2,495 77.0%SEA 70 8 8 560 392 70.0%AXX BXX CXXDXX

Total/Avg 97.3 538 501 568 92 61 113 177 143 120 124 66 298 2,801 272,398 189,451 69.5%

Segments20132013 HAYDEN OPERTIONAL SUMMARY BY ROUTE BY MONTH

C-38

The projection for 2023 adds another new route and expands the Seattle route to daily operation during the winter season with a mix of 70-seat and mainline equipment. Average capacity per flight is now just under 100. The Los Angeles route sees a mix of large regional jet and mainline equipment. The Minneapolis route sees an increase in average per flight seating from 126 to 140.

Overall annual market load factor climbs to 72.9%.

In 2028 average seat capacity per flight has climbed to 101.6. A total of 4,214 annual operations are forecast, generating 428,000 seats in and out. A third new route (CXX) is added. Notable capacity increases occur on the seasonal ORD and EWR routes and the year-round Denver service. Market load factor is forecast to be 74.6%.

Chart 5.1.1 C

Segment SegmentRoute Seat/Flt Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Seats O&D Load FactorDEN 73 256 236 260 120 120 150 180 180 150 124 120 150 2,046 149,358 109,031 73.0%ATL 160 60 56 70 2 24 212 33,920 25,779 76.0%ORD 150 60 56 62 2 40 220 33,000 23,430 71.0%DFW 150 68 64 70 2 38 242 36,300 25,773 71.0%IAH 170 60 56 62 32 210 35,700 25,347 71.0%LAX 76 20 20 24 12 76 5,776 4,332 75.0%MSP 126 60 54 62 20 196 24,696 17,287 70.0%EWR 120 18 16 20 8 62 7,440 5,729 77.0%SEA 70 18 16 20 10 64 4,480 3,235 72.2%AXX 76 18 16 20 10 64 4,864 3,517 72.3%BXX CXXDXX

Total/Avg 98.9 638 590 670 126 120 150 180 180 150 124 120 344 3,392 335,534 243,460 72.6%

2018 HAYDEN OPERTIONAL SUMMARY BY ROUTE BY MONTH2018 Segments

Chart 5.1.1 D

Segment SegmentRoute Seat/Flt Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Seats O&D Load FactorDEN 74 300 278 300 120 120 150 190 180 150 124 120 150 2,182 161,468 119,486 74.0%ATL 160 60 56 70 24 210 33,600 25,536 76.0%ORD 150 60 56 62 40 218 32,700 23,217 71.0%DFW 150 68 64 70 38 240 36,000 25,560 71.0%IAH 170 60 56 62 32 210 35,700 25,347 71.0%LAX 100 68 56 62 8 194 19,400 14,162 73.0%MSP 140 60 54 62 20 196 27,440 19,482 71.0%EWR 120 18 16 20 10 64 7,680 5,914 77.0%SEA 100 62 56 62 10 190 19,000 13,300 70.0%AXX 76 18 16 20 10 64 4,864 3,512 72.2%BXX 76 18 16 20 8 62 4,712 3,312 70.3%CXXDXX

Total/Avg 99.9 792 724 810 120 120 150 190 180 150 124 120 350 3,830 382,564 278,828 72.9%


C-39

In 2033 average seat capacity per flight has climbed to 105.4. A total of 4,642 annual operations are forecast, generating 489,094 seats in and out. A fourth new route (DXX) is added. There are notable capacity increases on the seasonal DFW, LAX, MSP and EWR routes as well as on the year-round Denver service. Market load factor is forecast to be 74.8%.

C.6 FORECAST PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS

C.6.1.1 Analysis of Yampa Valley Regional Airport Peak Terminal Usage

The peak season for the Airport is winter. The peak month of the winter season is March. The peak day of air service demand during winter and during March is Saturday. No other time period during the year has traffic demand or scheduled capacity like March. Saturday is the most popular day for

Chart 5.1.1 E

Segment SegmentRoute Seat/Flt Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Seats O&D Load FactorDEN 74 300 280 310 120 120 150 200 190 150 124 120 150 2,214 163,836 123,696 75.5%ATL 160 60 56 70 2 24 212 33,920 26,288 77.5%ORD 170 60 56 62 2 40 220 37,400 27,152 72.6%DFW 150 68 64 70 2 38 242 36,300 26,862 74.0%IAH 170 60 56 62 2 32 212 36,040 26,129 72.5%LAX 100 68 56 62 2 12 200 20,000 14,700 73.5%MSP 140 60 54 62 2 20 198 27,720 20,236 73.0%EWR 140 60 56 62 10 188 26,320 20,398 77.5%SEA 100 62 56 62 20 200 20,000 14,800 74.0%AXX 100 18 16 20 10 64 6,400 4,672 73.0%BXX 76 62 56 62 20 200 15,200 10,944 72.0%CXX 76 18 16 20 10 64 4,864 3,457 71.1%DXX

Total/Avg 101.6 896 822 924 132 120 150 200 190 150 124 120 386 4,214 428,000 319,334 74.6%


Chart 5.1.1 F

Segment SegmentRoute Seat/Flt Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Seats O&D Load FactorDEN 75 300 280 310 120 120 160 210 200 150 124 120 160 2,254 169,050 128,478 76.0%ATL 160 60 56 80 30 226 36,160 28,205 78.0%ORD 170 60 56 62 40 218 37,060 27,239 73.5%DFW 160 68 64 80 38 250 40,000 30,000 75.0%IAH 170 62 56 70 34 222 37,740 27,928 74.0%LAX 120 68 56 62 20 206 24,720 18,169 73.5%MSP 150 60 54 62 20 196 29,400 21,168 72.0%EWR 150 60 56 70 20 206 30,900 24,102 78.0%SEA 120 62 56 62 20 200 24,000 17,280 72.0%AXX 110 62 56 62 20 200 22,000 16,060 73.0%BXX 90 62 56 62 20 200 18,000 12,960 72.0%CXX 76 62 56 62 20 200 15,200 10,731 70.6%DXX 76 18 16 20 10 64 4,864 3,406 70.0%

Total/Avg 105.4 1004 918 1064 120 120 160 210 200 150 124 120 452 4,642 489,094 365,726 74.8%


C-40

Chart 6.1.1 B

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thr Fri Sat TotalDepartures 10 9 8 9 9 9 11 65

Percent of Total 15.4% 13.8% 12.3% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 16.9% 100%Outbound Seats 1,069 1,003 838 1,003 1,003 1,003 1,178 7,097Percent of Total 15.1% 14.1% 11.8% 14.1% 14.1% 14.1% 16.6% 100%

HAYDEN WINTER SEASON DAY OF WEEK SERVICE AND DEMAND PATTERN Week of March 17 to 23, 2013 Example

ski visitor arrival and departure, and also happens to be the day of the week when network airlines can most easily make available capacity for seasonal services.

HAYDEN 2013 MONTHLY SEATS AND TRAFFIC

Currently, and historically, first quarter service and traffic are five times (or more) higher than during any other quarter or individual month. Inside first quarter, March available seats were 7% higher than in January (next highest month) while March passengers were 7% higher than in February (next highest month).

The week of March 17 to 23, 2013 is illustrative of the day of week pattern within the winter peak period. Saturday has almost 17% of weekly departures and weekly seats. Saturday is also typically the day of the week with the highest load factors in the Hayden market.

The late morning to early afternoon timeframe is the peak for flight and passenger activity. Chart 6.1.1 C shows Hayden arrivals and departures by hour for Saturday in March of 2013.

58,07954,384

62,264

6,2204,331

8,12412,799

10,290 8,520 8,8044,686

29,12035,515

40,64143,648

4,397 2,8824,919

7,846 7,1745,112 5,282

2,577

18,928

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Chart 6.1.1 A

Monthly Seats 2013 Monthly Traffic 2013

C-41

MARCH 2013 SATURDAY AIRLINE DEPARTURES AND ARRIVALS BY HOUR Chart 6.1.1 C

Chart 6.1.1D shows outbound seats by hour for a Saturday in March of 2013. The passenger count per hour shown is derived by assuming a 90% load factor and is therefore merely an estimate.

MARCH 2013 SATURDAY OUTBOUND SEATS AND PASSENGERS AT 90% LOAD FACTOR Chart 6.1.1 D

1

0 0 0 0

1

3 3

1

0

2

0

0 0 0 00

0 0 0

1

2

4

1

0

1

1

0

0 0

1

0

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5Departures Arrivals

64

0 0 0 0

59

305

372

137

0

123

0 0 0 0 0

71

0 0 0 0

66

339

413

152

0

137

0 0 0 0 00

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Outbound Passengers Outbound Seats

C-42

The peak use challenge for Yampa Valley Regional Airport is driven by four variables. First, there is a short winter peak season during which service and traffic far exceeds that during any other time of year. Second, the preferred inbound skier arrival and departure day is Saturday. Third, Saturday (and to a lesser extent Sunday) is the best day for network airlines to shift mainline and large regional jets from business route assignments during the week to ski resort service.

Fourth, the optimum airline schedule into HDN from major hub airports on Saturdays is one in which hub departure occurs after the hub has received inbound connecting flights from its catchment region. However, the optimum Saturday nonstop schedule also is one in which the nonstop return flight from HDN gets back to the hub in time for afternoon or evening connections beyond. Thus, there is a premium on time for Saturday only nonstop services into and out of HDN, especially from distant hubs like Atlanta or Newark. The inbound flight to HDN cannot leave the hub until it has gathered connecting flights and the return from HDN must get back to the hub in time for outbound connections.

This fourth variable is illustrated by Chart 6.1.1 E below. If every major city hub that has Saturday nonstop service to HDN (plus a few that could eventually) had that service depart the hub at 1000 the resulting mass of aircraft and passengers arriving and departing the Airport between 1100 and 1445 would be much greater than it is today. This does not happen, but it is an illustration of potential user demand conflict.

Fortunately, the Airport and the Steamboat Ski & Resort Corporation work closely together and with airlines to spread out peak day arrivals and departures. To some extent, the peak winter day

Chart 6.1.1 E Assumed Blk TimeRoute Distance Time Zone Hub Depart Inbound HDN ARR Turn Time HDN DEPDEN 141 MST 1000 :55 1055 :40 1135DFW 769 CST 1000 2:20 1120 1:00 1220MSP 774 CST 1000 2:35 1135 :45 1220IAH 985 CST 1000 2:55 1155 1:00 1255ORD 1,009 CST 1000 3:00 1200 1:00 1300ATL 1,340 EST 1000 3:35 1235 1:00 1335LAX 763 PST 1000 1:55 1255 :40 1335SEA 891 PDT 1000 2:13 1313 :40 1353EWR 1,728 EST 1000 4:45 1345 1:00 1445

PHX 553 PST 1000 1:30 1230 :40 1310IAD 1,582 EST 1000 3:50 1250 1:00 1350SLC 250 MST 1000 1:00 1100 :40 1140SFO 837 PST 1000 2:10 1310 :40 1350

HDN WINTER SCHEDULES IF EVERY HUB DEPARTURE WAS 1000

Other Hub Options

C-43

nonstop services that are community supported by MRG must be timed to gain maximum traffic and revenue. As winter season peak day MRG services grow there may be a collision between the peak period capacity of the terminal and the optimum timing of MRG supported flights. Tradeoffs may have to occur because airlines wish to avoid delay situations and because the Airport must consider the quality of the customer experience arriving and departing the Yampa Valley.

Even with de-peaking efforts, flight and traffic activity peaks between 1100 and 1400 on Saturdays and this peak occurs only on about 15 Saturdays per year. Chart 6.1.1 F shows a peak Saturday in 2023 with nineteen scheduled airline departures and a peak period from 1100 to 1400.

PEAK WINTER SATURDAY 2023 WITH 19 SCHEDULED DEPARTURES Chart 6.1.1 F

PEAK WINTER SATURDAY 2023 SEATS AND PASSENGERS AT 90% LOAD FACTOR Chart 6.1.1 G

1

0 0 0 0

2

3

5

4

0

2 2

0 0 0 00

0 0 0

2

3

5

4

0

2

2

0

0 0

1

0

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6Departures Arrivals

C-44

In this 2023 scenario, with 19 peak day departures and convergence of flights in the 1100 to 1400 time zone, the potential exists for 500+ departing passengers in one hour. This is not a forecast, simply a potential outcome if future winter de-peaking efforts of the Airport and the Ski Corporation are not successful.

The terminal facility and its functions such as check-in, baggage processing on and off, and TSA screening, must accommodate this peak. This means that outside of this peak period, the terminal facility and infrastructure are underutilized. It also means that the overall airport cost structure, predicated on handling winter Saturdays, means high airport costs for air service providers outside of winter. So it is, in a sense, counterproductive to overall year-round air service development, if winter Saturday peaking requires additional infrastructure that adds costs for all airline operations in all seasons.

This must be balanced against the need for MRG supported winter services to arrive and depart the Airport in time frames that allow for maximum traffic and revenue generation.

640 0 0 0

180

324

540

432

0

180180

0 0 0 071

0 0 0 0

200

360

600

480

0

200200

0 0 0 00

100

200

300

400

500

600

Outbound Passengers Outbound Seats

APPENDIX D

Hay

den,

CO

2015

Pro

ject

sA

1A

IP 4

1 - R

unw

ay R

ehab

ilita

tion

- 201

4 Ro

ll O

ver R

emai

ning

Fun

ds$1

2,52

3,29

5$1

,250

,000

$8,2

24,2

70$1

,260

,215

$1,7

88,8

10$0

$0A

2W

iden

ARF

F ba

y do

or (T

itan

ARF

F Ve

hicl

e Re

sale

AIP

Rec

over

y)$5

0,00

0$0

$40,

000

$0$0

$10,

000

$0Su

btot

al -

2015

Pro

ject

s$1

2,57

3,29

5$1

,250

,000

$8,2

64,2

70$1

,260

,215

$1,7

88,8

10$1

0,00

0$0

2016

Pro

ject

sA

3Pu

rcha

se S

elf C

onta

ined

Bro

om$4

10,0

00$3

69,0

00$0

$20,

500

$20,

500

$0$0

A4

Repl

ace

Stew

art S

teve

nson

Blo

wer

$700

,000

$630

,000

$0$3

5,00

0$3

5,00

0$0

$0A

5A

pron

and

Tax

iway

Fog

Sea

l$3

00,0

00$0

$0$0

$150

,000

$150

,000

$0A

6Re

loca

te a

nd R

epla

ce A

irpor

t Bea

con

$103

,500

$93,

150

$0$0

$5,1

75$5

,175

$0A

7C

ryot

ech

App

licat

or$3

0,00

0$0

$0$3

0,00

0$0

$0$0

Subt

otal

- 20

16 P

roje

cts

$1,5

43,5

00$1

,092

,150

$0$8

5,50

0$2

10,6

75$1

55,1

75$0

2017

Pro

ject

s A

8Re

plac

e O

shko

sh P

low

Tru

ck$3

60,0

00$3

24,0

00$0

$0$1

8,00

0$1

8,00

0$0

A9

Expa

nd A

RFF

bay

and

Insta

ll C

old

Stor

age

Floo

r$3

00,0

00$2

70,0

00$0

$0$1

5,00

0$1

5,00

0$0

A10

Aqu

ire G

ersta

dt b

lade

for 6

44G

load

er$5

5,00

0$4

9,50

0$0

$0$2

,750

$2,7

50$0

A11

Repl

ace

Cat

966

Loa

der

(Incl

udin

g 20

16 E

ntitl

emen

t Rol

love

r)$7

05,0

00$6

34,5

00$0

$0$3

5,25

0$3

5,25

0$0

A12

Insta

ll U

tiliti

es to

Eas

t GA

Dev

elop

men

t Are

a$1

00,0

00$0

$0$0

$50,

000

$50,

000

$0A

13Re

plac

e 2

batw

ing

mow

ers

$50,

000

$0$0

$0$0

$50,

000

$0A

14A

cqui

re p

aint

spr

ayer

$15,

000

$0$0

$0$0

$15,

000

$0Su

btot

al -

2017

Pro

ject

s$1

,585

,000

$1,2

78,0

00$0

$0$1

21,0

00$1

86,0

00$0

2018

Pro

ject

s

A15

Apr

on e

xpan

sion

and

air c

arrie

r apr

on re

habi

litat

ion

(Incl

udin

g 20

16 E

ntitl

emen

t Rol

love

r)$5

,059

,200

$593

,115

$3,9

60,1

65$0

$252

,960

$252

,960

$0

A16

Repl

ace

Runw

ay 2

8 PA

PIs

$24,

150

$21,

735

$0$0

$1,2

08$1

,208

$0A

17Pa

ve v

ehic

le s

ervi

ce ro

ad

$500

,000

$450

,000

$0$0

$25,

000

$25,

000

$0A

18C

onstr

uct R

unw

ay 2

8 Bl

ast P

ad

$350

,000

$315

,000

$0$0

$17,

500

$17,

500

$0

A19

Con

struc

t apr

on, t

axila

ne, h

anga

rs, F

BO te

rmin

al, a

nd v

ehic

le a

cces

s/pa

rkin

g in

Ea

st G

A D

evel

opm

ent A

rea

(Atla

ntic

)F

$12,

095,

700

$0$0

$0$0

$0$1

2,09

5,70

0

Subt

otal

- 20

18 P

roje

cts

$18,

029,

050

$1,3

79,8

50$3

,960

,165

$0$2

96,6

68$2

96,6

68$1

2,09

5,70

020

19 P

roje

cts

A20

Reco

nfig

ure

secu

re h

oldr

oom

, bag

gage

pro

cess

ing

& s

cree

ning

, sec

urity

ch

eckp

oint

, and

con

cess

ions

$2,6

46,0

00$1

,250

,000

$0$7

00,0

00$0

$696

,000

$0

A21

Acq

uire

add

ition

al S

RE fo

r apr

on e

xpan

sions

$600

,000

$0$0

$240

,000

$120

,000

$240

,000

$0A

22Re

plac

e In

dex

C A

RFF

Vehi

cle

(200

8 Ro

senb

auer

)$8

50,0

00$0

$0$3

40,0

00$1

70,0

00$3

40,0

00$0

A23

Repl

ace

Ford

550

$45,

000

$0$0

$0$0

$45,

000

$0A

24Re

plac

e 10

' bro

om fo

r tra

ctor

$13,

000

$0$0

$0$0

$13,

000

$0A

25Re

plac

e Lif

e Pa

ck12

AED

$15,

000

$0$0

$0$0

$15,

000

$0A

26Re

plac

e Bu

llex

Fire

Ext

. Tra

iner

$8,0

00$0

$0$0

$0$8

,000

$0A

27Re

plac

e fin

ger p

rint m

achi

ne$1

0,00

0$0

$0$0

$0$1

0,00

0$0

Subt

otal

- 20

19 P

roje

cts

$4,1

87,0

00$1

,250

,000

$0$1

,280

,000

$290

,000

$1,3

67,0

00$0

Sub

tota

l - P

hase

I$

37

,91

7,8

45

$6

,25

0,0

00

$1

2,2

24

,43

5$

2,6

25

,71

5$

2,7

07

,15

3$

2,0

14

,84

3$

12

,09

5,7

00

A) B) C)

D) E) F)

Dev

elop

men

t will

occ

ur o

n an

as-n

eede

d ba

sis, d

eter

min

ed b

y pr

ivat

e de

velo

pers

. Han

gar c

ost e

stim

ates

are

not

incl

uded

.G

)C

ost n

ot a

ssoc

iate

dH

)N

on-c

ash

trade

Spon

sor/

loca

l fun

ding

– c

urre

nt re

venu

es, c

ash

rese

rves

, bon

ds, e

tc.

PHA

SE I

(0-5

YEA

RS)

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T PL

AN

EST

IMA

TED

PRO

JECT

CO

STS

2

01

5-2

01

9Ya

mpa

Val

ley

Regi

onal

Airp

ort

Proj

ect

Des

crip

tion

Not

eTo

tal C

osts

3rd

-Pa

rty/

Priv

ate

Fu

ndin

g CD

OT

Fund

ing

Loca

l or

Spon

sor

Fund

ing

Fed

era

l AIP

En

title

men

t Fu

ndin

gPF

C Fu

ndin

gFe

der

al A

IP

Dis

cret

iona

ry

Fund

ing

Fede

ral A

viat

ion

Adm

inist

ratio

n m

atch

ing

fund

s –

Airp

ort I

mpr

ovem

ent P

rogr

am (A

IP) D

iscre

tiona

ry

Not

es:

Sour

ces:

Jvia

tion,

Inc.

; HD

N A

irpor

t Man

agem

ent

Fede

ral A

viat

ion

Adm

inist

ratio

n m

atch

ing

fund

s –

Airp

ort I

mpr

ovem

ent P

rogr

am (A

IP) E

ntitl

emen

t

Col

orad

o D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

porta

tion

(CD

OT)

Resp

onsib

ility

of R

outt

Cou

nty

Hay

den,

CO

Yam

pa V

alle

y Re

gion

al A

irpor

t

PFC

Fund

ing

B1C

onstr

uct T

axiw

ay w

ith d

e-ic

e pa

d, tr

eatm

ent f

acili

ty, a

nd a

cces

s ro

ads/

park

ing

$2,6

47,7

00$3

05,0

00$2

,077

,930

$0$1

32,3

85$1

32,3

85$0

B2Re

plac

e Vo

lvo

Plow

Tru

ck$3

60,0

00$3

24,0

00$0

$0$1

8,00

0$1

8,00

0$0

B3A

cqui

re 1

20 a

cres

for l

and

buffe

r on

the

sout

heas

t sid

e of

Run

way

10/

28$1

,450

,000

$1,3

05,0

00$0

$145

,000

$0$0

$0B4

Repl

ace

Snow

Cat

$340

,000

$0$0

$240

,000

$100

,000

$0$0

B5Re

mov

e Ta

xiw

ay A

4 pa

vem

ent a

nd c

onstr

uct r

eloc

ated

Tax

iway

A4

$1

,434

,500

$1,2

91,0

50$0

$0$7

1,72

5$7

1,72

5$0

B6Re

hab

Taxi

way

A &

con

nect

ors;

con

struc

t tax

iway

sho

ulde

rs$9

,000

,000

$1,1

00,0

00$7

,000

,000

$0$4

50,0

00$4

50,0

00$0

B7Ex

pand

long

-term

par

king

lot,

com

mer

cial

/bus

par

king

lot,

rent

al c

ar p

arki

ng lo

t; re

loca

te a

nd e

xpan

d sh

ort-t

erm

par

king

lot,

and

pave

and

reco

nfig

ure

empl

oyee

pa

rkin

g lo

t $5

,761

,800

$0$0

$0$0

$5,7

61,8

00$0

B8U

.S. H

ighw

ay 4

0 &

Cou

nty

Road

51B

inte

rsec

tion

impr

ovem

ents;

airp

ort e

ntra

nce

& C

ount

y Ro

ad 5

1B in

ters

ectio

n im

prov

emen

tsG

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0

B9Re

conf

igur

e/ex

pand

out

boun

d ba

ggag

e pr

oces

sing,

rem

odel

bag

gage

cla

im a

rea

and

rent

al c

ar a

dditi

on, e

xpan

d ho

ldro

om a

nd re

mov

e ha

ngar

$6,1

42,5

00$1

,250

,000

$4,2

78,2

50$0

$307

,125

$307

,125

$0

B10

Repl

ace

Inde

x C

ARF

F ve

hicl

e (2

014

Rose

nbau

er)

$750

,000

$675

,000

$0$0

$37,

500

$37,

500

$0B1

1Re

plac

e 20

13 O

shko

sh S

now

Blo

wer

$650

,000

$0$0

$0$4

00,0

00$2

50,0

00$0

B12

Repl

ace

1995

John

Dee

re lo

ader

$705

,000

$0$0

$0$4

00,0

00$3

05,0

00$0

B13

Repl

ace

brea

king

act

ion

vehi

cle

$30,

000

$0$0

$0$0

$30,

000

$0B1

4Re

plac

e 20

14 S

now

Bro

om$6

00,0

00$0

$0$0

$400

,000

$200

,000

$0Su

bto

tal -

Pha

se II

$2

9,8

71

,50

0$

6,2

50

,05

0$

13

,35

6,1

80

$3

85

,00

0$

2,3

16

,73

5$

7,5

63

,53

5$

0

A) B) C)

D) E) F)

Dev

elop

men

t will

occ

ur o

n an

as-n

eede

d ba

sis, d

eter

min

ed b

y pr

ivat

e de

velo

pers

. Han

gar c

ost e

stim

ates

are

not

incl

uded

.G

)C

ost n

ot a

ssoc

iate

d

Sour

ces:

Jvia

tion,

Inc.

; HD

N A

irpor

t Man

agem

ent

Spon

sor/

loca

l fun

ding

– c

urre

nt re

venu

es, c

ash

rese

rves

, bon

ds, e

tc.

Resp

onsib

ility

of R

outt

Cou

nty

Not

es:

Fede

ral A

viat

ion

Adm

inist

ratio

n m

atch

ing

fund

s –

Airp

ort I

mpr

ovem

ent P

rogr

am (A

IP) E

ntitl

emen

tFe

dera

l Avi

atio

n A

dmin

istra

tion

mat

chin

g fu

nds

– A

irpor

t Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

(AIP

) Disc

retio

nary

Col

orad

o D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

porta

tion

(CD

OT)

Fed

era

l AIP

En

title

men

t Fu

ndin

g

PHA

SE II

(6

-10

YEA

RS)

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T PL

AN

EST

IMA

TED

PRO

JECT

CO

STS

2

02

0-2

02

4

Proj

ect

Des

crip

tion

Not

e

Fed

era

l AIP

D

iscr

etio

nary

Fu

ndin

gCD

OT

Fund

ing

Loca

l or

Spon

sor

Fund

ing

3rd

-Pa

rty

/ Pr

iva

te F

und

ing

Tota

l Cos

ts

Hay

den,

CO

Yam

pa V

alle

y Re

gion

al A

irpor

t

C1

Com

mer

cial

apr

on re

habi

litat

ion

$3,5

00,0

00$1

,250

,000

$1,9

00,0

00$0

$175

,000

$175

,000

$0C

2C

onstr

uct a

pron

, tax

ilane

s, a

nd v

ehic

le a

cces

s/pa

rkin

gF

$20,

000,

000

$0$0

$0$0

$0$2

0,00

0,00

0C

3Ex

pand

ARF

F ba

y so

uth

and

3rd

floor

turre

t$5

50,0

00$5

22,5

00$4

96,3

75$0

$13,

750

$13,

750

$0C

4C

onstr

uct a

dditi

onal

col

d sto

rage

faci

lity

$500

,000

$0$0

$0$0

$500

,000

$0C

5A

cqui

re 4

6 ac

res

in la

nd a

cqui

sitio

n or

avi

gatio

n ea

sem

ent f

or R

WY

10 R

PZ$1

2,08

0$0

$0$0

$0$1

2,08

0$0

C6

Reha

b Ru

nway

10/

28 a

nd ru

nway

sho

ulde

rs$9

,000

,000

$4,5

00,0

00$4

,050

,000

$0$2

25,0

00$2

25,0

00$0

C7

Expa

nd lo

ng-te

rm p

arki

ng lo

t; ex

pand

com

mer

cial

/bus

par

king

lot;

expa

nd r

enta

l ca

r par

king

lot;

expa

nd s

hort-

term

par

king

lot,

and

reco

nfig

ure

empl

oyee

par

king

lo

t$1

7,29

2,90

0$0

$0$0

$0$1

7,29

2,90

0$0

C8

Con

struc

t cov

ered

wal

kway

, esc

alat

or/e

leva

tor/

stairs

cor

ridor

, exp

and

circ

ulat

ion

on th

e 2n

d flo

or, c

onstr

uct 2

nd fl

oor h

oldr

oom

add

ition

, con

struc

t 2nd

floo

r co

ncou

rse

with

3 je

t brid

ges

$15,

813,

250

$1,2

50,0

00$1

2,98

1,92

5$0

$790

,663

$790

,663

$0

C9

Acq

uire

new

load

er

$705

,000

$0$0

$0$4

00,0

00$3

05,0

00$0

C10

Repl

ace

Inde

x C

ARF

F Ve

hicl

es$1

,600

,000

$1,4

40,0

00$0

$0$8

0,00

0$8

0,00

0$0

Sub

tota

l - P

hase

III

$6

8,9

73

,23

0$

8,9

62

,50

0$

19

,42

8,3

00

$0

$1

,68

4,4

13

$1

9,3

94

,39

2$

20

,00

0,0

00

GRA

ND

TO

TAL

20

15

-20

35

$1

36

,76

2,5

75

$2

1,4

62

,55

0$

45

,00

8,9

15

$3

,01

0,7

15

$6

,70

8,3

00

$2

8,9

72

,77

0$

32

,09

5,7

00

A) B) C)

D) E) F)

Dev

elop

men

t will

occ

ur o

n an

as-n

eede

d ba

sis, d

eter

min

ed b

y pr

ivat

e de

velo

pers

. Han

gar c

ost e

stim

ates

are

not

incl

uded

.G

)C

ost n

ot a

ssoc

iate

d

Sour

ces:

Jvia

tion,

Inc.

; HD

N A

irpor

t Man

agem

ent

Not

es:

Fede

ral A

viat

ion

Adm

inist

ratio

n m

atch

ing

fund

s –

Airp

ort I

mpr

ovem

ent P

rogr

am (A

IP) E

ntitl

emen

t

Proj

ect

Des

crip

tion

3rd

-Pa

rty

/ Pr

iva

te F

und

ing

Not

eTo

tal C

osts

CDO

T Fu

ndin

gLo

cal o

r Sp

onso

r Fu

ndin

g

Fed

era

l AIP

D

iscr

etio

nary

Fu

ndin

g

Fed

era

l AIP

Fu

ndin

gPF

C Fu

ndin

g

Col

orad

o D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

porta

tion

(CD

OT)

Sp

onso

r/lo

cal f

undi

ng –

cur

rent

reve

nues

, cas

h re

serv

es, b

onds

, etc

.Re

spon

sibili

ty o

f Rou

tt C

ount

y

Fede

ral A

viat

ion

Adm

inist

ratio

n m

atch

ing

fund

s –

Airp

ort I

mpr

ovem

ent P

rogr

am (A

IP) D

iscre

tiona

ry

PHA

SE II

I (1

1-2

0 Y

EARS

) D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

PLA

N E

STIM

ATE

D P

ROJE

CT C

OST

S

20

25

-20

35

APPENDIX E

E-1

AIRSPACE PROTECTION The FAA requires the preparation of airport airspace drawings as well as inner portion of the approach surface drawings as part of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawing set in an airport master plan. The FAA has also published Standard Operating Procedure (ARP SOP 2.00) - Standard Procedure for FAA Review and Approval of Airport Layout Plans (ALPs), October 1, 2013, that specifies the data and format to be applied to each airspace and inner approach surface drawing. In addition, the FAA also requires that airport sponsors prepare an integrated web-based Geographic Information System (GIS) appropriately called “Airports-GIS (AGIS)”. The AGIS program defines the FAA process for the collection and maintenance of airport and aeronautical data, including obstruction data on and in the vicinity of the Airport. The need for the extensive data collection and airspace analysis is driven by two requirements:

(a) The FAA is responsible for managing the National Airspace System (NAS), including ensuring the safety of air navigation and efficient utilization of airspace;

(b) The FAA Sponsor Grant Assurances, which legally encumber airport sponsors that accept FAA grants, specifically states:

20. Hazard Removal and Mitigation. It (i.e. the airport sponsor) will take appropriate action to assure that such terminal airspace as is required to protect instrument and visual operations to the airport (including established minimum flight altitudes) will be adequately cleared and protected by removing, lowering, relocating, marking, or lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport hazards and by preventing the establishment or creation of future airport hazards.

Historically the FAA has applied measures to address the risk associated with obstacles near airports. The FAA works to protect airspace and ensure flight operational safety by limiting encroachment of obstacle penetration of surfaces defined by Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) as well as 14 CFR Part 77. Efforts to protect airspace by limiting the height of structures or vegetation often affect property development in the vicinity of airports. Section 6-3-1 of FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handing Airspace Matters, states: “The prime objective of the FAA in conducting Obstruction Evaluation (OE) studies is to ensure the safety of air navigation and the efficient utilization of navigable airspace by aircraft.” There are varied demands being placed on the use of the navigable airspace. However, when conflicts arise concerning a structure being studied, the FAA emphasizes the need for conserving the navigable airspace for aircraft, preserving the integrity of the national airspace system, and protecting air navigation facilities from either electromagnetic or physical encroachments that would preclude normal operation. However, the FAA does not have the authority to regulate or control how land (real property) may be used in regard to structures that may penetrate navigable airspace (FAA Order 7400.2E, section 5-1-2a). That responsibility is generally fulfilled by local authorities, airport sponsors, or state

E-2

legislatures. The FAA also cannot prevent local or state authorities from issuing building permits for objects that may become obstacles and hazards to air navigation, even after FAA has issued determinations to that effect. The FAA does expect airport sponsors to work with local authorities to prevent and/or control the development of such objects.

CIVILIAN AIRPORT IMAGINARY SURFACES

Sources: 14 CFR Part 77 and FAA Order JO 7400.2G

E-3

The FAA also specifically states in various federal aviation regulations (e.g. 14 CFR Part 91, Part 135, Part 121, etc.) that aircraft operators (i.e. the pilot in command) have the responsibility to consider obstacles and make the necessary adjustments to their departure procedures to ensure safe clearance for aircraft over those obstacles. One of the primary methods for determining obstacles to air navigation in the vicinity of an airport are by identifying penetrations to the imaginary surfaces prescribed in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 77 - Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of The Navigable Airspace). Subpart C—Standards for Determining Obstructions to Air Navigation or Navigational Aids or Facilities, Para. 77.15, states in part:

(a) This subpart describes standards used to determine obstructions to air navigation that

may affect the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace and the operation of planned or existing air navigation and communication facilities. Such facilities include air navigation aids, communication equipment, airports, Federal airways, instrument approach or departure procedures, and approved off-airway routes.

(b) Objects that are considered obstructions under the standards described in this subpart are presumed hazards to air navigation unless further aeronautical study concludes that the object is not a hazard. Once further aeronautical study has been initiated, the FAA will use the standards in this subpart, along with FAA policy and guidance material, to determine if the object is a hazard to air navigation.

In addition to 14 CFR Part 77, there are also imaginary surfaces defined in FAA Order 8260.3 (TERPS) that airport sponsors must protect. For example, FAA requires that penetrations to the 20:1 Visual Area Surface of instrument approach procedures be addressed by airport sponsors. The failure to remove penetrations to that particular surface could result in FAA discontinuing night and/or circle-to-land instrument approach procedures to a particular runway end. See Appendix A for an FAA email on the current policy as it pertains to airport sponsors. (Note – there is no 20:1 Visual Area Surface for runway ends with just visual approaches.) Airport sponsors are also responsible for protecting other imaginary surfaces including runway visibility zones, control tower line of sight (where appropriate), navaid critical areas, communication towers line of sight, AWOS clear areas, etc. Sources such as FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, define many of those imaginary surfaces. Once the AGIS process is completed and the airspace and inner approach surface drawings are prepared, if there are penetrations to the imaginary surfaces then the FAA expects that airport sponsors will fulfill their obligation under Grant Assurance 20 and make good faith efforts to remove the penetrations to the imaginary surfaces as soon as practical. As noted in 14 CFR Part 77 Para. 77.15, “Objects that are considered obstructions under the standards described in this subpart are presumed hazards to air navigation unless further aeronautical study concludes that the object is not a hazard.”

E-4

If sponsors intend to use FAA grants to remove penetrations to imaginary surfaces, their Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) must include those projects, as well as of the all pertinent data (i.e. timing, priority ranking, total estimated amount, funding sources, etc.) If airport sponsors want FAA to make specific determination as to which obstacles are hazards to air navigation and which ones may not be designated hazards, then the airport sponsor must prepare an aeronautical study. Aeronautical studies are described in Part 2, Chapter 6, of FAA Order JO 7400.2G, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

AERONAUTICAL STUDIES

Source: FAA Order 7400.2G, Section 2, Chapter 6, Para.

6-1-3, b.

E-5

As noted in FAA Order JO 7400.2K:

a. The purpose of an aeronautical study is to determine what effect the proposal may have on compliance with Airports Programs, the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft, and the safety of persons and property on the ground.

b. A complete study consists of an airspace analysis, a flight safety review, and a review of the proposal's potential effect on air traffic control operations and air navigation facilities.

c. Each phase of the airport aeronautical study requires complete and accurate data to enable the FAA to provide the best possible advice regarding the merits of the proposal on the NAS.

The airport sponsor prepares the aeronautical study, which includes a detailed analysis of the penetrations to the imaginary surfaces, specific recommendations for dealing with the penetrations within each imaginary surface (e.g. removal, lighting, signing, etc.), and the time frame within which those actions will be completed. FAA will review the aeronautical study and make their determination. Once their determination is issued, then the airport sponsor must implement the plan within the specified time period. Removing or lighting obstructions situated off-airport typically requires either the acquisition of property (through fee simple purchase) or easements. If FAA grants are used in that process, then in addition to the local acquisition procedures and the necessary environmental reviews and approvals, the airport sponsor must also follow the procedures in FAA AC 150/5100-17, Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Assisted Projects. FAA notes:

“This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance to sponsors of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) assisted projects to develop their land acquisition and relocation assistance procedures in conformance to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Pl 91-646, as amended). The Uniform Act provides minimum real property acquisition policies, and requires uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of a Federally assisted program or project. The provisions of the Uniform Act and 49 CFR Part 24 apply to all AIP projects with Federal funds in any phase or portion of the project, i.e., the planning, design, land acquisition, or construction phases.”

The FAA acknowledges that the property and easement acquisition process can be challenging. The process is often:

Time consuming

Expensive

Controversial The time, cost, and complexity increases as the number of individual property owners increases, and also as the number of jurisdictions where property is situated increases. If property owners choose not to negotiate to sell, then the airport sponsor and/or local authority have two choices:

E-6

to exercise the power of eminent domain

not acquire the property or easement Exercising the power of eminent domain is:

Expensive

Very controversial

Time consuming

Open to legal challenges As a result, many airport sponsors and local authorities choose not to exercise that power, and therefore not acquire the property or easement, and not remove or light the obstacle.

REQUIRED TASKS UNDER 49 CFR 24 REQUIREMENTS

Source: FAA AC 150/5100-7, Chg 6

Given the cost and complexity of off-airport property and easement acquisition and obstacle removal, particularly if federal funds are used in the process, it is important for airports to develop a strategic plan to clearly identify the short and long term costs and benefits before undertaking the program, including the likelihood (probability) of achieving the stated goals.

E-7

However, even if the airport sponsor determines that it is not feasible to undertake an extensive off-airport property acquisition and obstacle removal program due to time, financial, environmental, or legal constraints, sponsors are still obligated under the grant assurances to protect imaginary surfaces. As a result, airport sponsors must work closely with the various FAA lines of business (e.g. Airports, Air Traffic, Flight Procedures, Tech Ops, etc.) when developing their strategic plan and aeronautical study. FAA must be directly involved in the decision making process and approve the obstacle removal/lighting strategy adopted by the airport.

E-8

APPENDIX E-1

FAA POLICY ON PROTECTING THE VISUAL AREA SURFACE

E-9

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 8:41 AM Subject: Important Message on FAA's Interim Policy Guidance for Mitigation of Penetrations to the 20:1 Visual Area Surface Dear Airport Sponsor: FAA/Flight Procedures Office is tasked with updating instrument approach procedures on a regular basis. One of the inputs to their review is a review of obstructions to these approaches. FAA has stated that as of January 6, 2014, if the 20:1 visual area surface is not clear, FAA may issue NOTAMs, adjust the approach minima, or even cancel the instrument approach altogether We are reaching out in an effort to improve communications and transparency as it relates to FAA actions associated with obstacle penetrations of instrument approach surfaces as a result of FAA’s periodic review of all instrument flight procedures. We are committed to working with airport sponsors to resolve the issues together, however please be aware that certain obstacle penetrations that FAA deems to be a high risk safety hazard will require the immediate cancellation of procedures or the adjustment of visibility minima. In response to concerns by many airport sponsors, the FAA has established interim policy guidance to address penetrations of the 20:1 Visual Area Surface of instrument approach procedures using a risk-based approach. This guidance becomes effective on January 6, 2014. In the interim, action will not be taken to NOTAM procedures regarding 20:1 penetrations identified through the FAA periodic reviews unless the FAA has determined that the obstruction penetration is of sufficient concern to warrant immediate action. However, this policy does not preclude the FAA from issuing other necessary NOTAMs as a result of FAA flight inspections or construction activities. The FAA is responsible for conducting regular airspace reviews and uses the requirements under Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPs) and Advisory Circulars to evaluate the effect of existing and proposed obstructions under FAR Part 77. Likewise, airports are responsible to ensure the approach surfaces remain clear under grant assurances 20 and 21, as well as 14 CFR Part 139. The FAA highly recommends Airport Sponsors take a proactive approach by reviewing all approach surfaces in advance of any flight check schedule to ensure they are clear, including any planned approaches depicted on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Please refer to Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A , Table 3-2, “Approach/ Departure Standards Table” for guidance on assessing approaches. Please pay particular attention to the Glide Path Qualification Surface (GQS) and the 20:1 surfaces, since penetrations to these surfaces may result in more severe impacts to procedures. Airport sponsors should also review and update policies to ensure that monitoring of approach surfaces occur on a regular basis. In addition, to help you stay ahead of any near-term potential impact to approach procedures we have provided an FAA web link below. The link contains the official procedure review schedule. It will allow you to determine when your airport approaches are scheduled for FAA review. This information will allow you to prioritize efforts and resolve any obstacle issues. It’s important to note that if an airport is part of a review that uncovers obstacle penetrations, there is a limited amount of time to act before procedures are impacted.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

E-10

For example, immediate action will be taken on obstacles that are validated and deemed to be a high risk as outlined in the guidance, which could adversely impact capacity and operations at your airport due to the cancellation of procedures or adjustments to the visibility minima. So it is imperative that you are proactive and not wait until the FAA has scheduled a review of the procedures at your airport. This is the link to the Instrument Flight Procedures Gateway. Please check back regularly for schedule updates. The flight procedures scheduled for publication are available on this website. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/ Steps to follow to get to Periodic Review List on IFP Gateway: 1. Select the URL (link) to IFP Gateway 2. On the left side of the website, under Instrument Flight Procedure Information Gateway you will see 5 arrows pointing to five different links. 3. Select the first arrow: IFP Announcements & Reports. 4. Now in the center of the page under the header "IFP Announcements/Report Table" click on the link for the “Periodic Review List” and select OPEN.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/

E-11

AC 150/5300-13A 9/28/2012

Table 3-2. Approach/Departure Standards table

Runway Type DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS*

Feet (Meters)

Slope/ OCS

A B C D E

1

Approach end of runways expected to serve small airplanes with approach speeds less than 50 knots. (Visual runways only, day/night)

0 (0)

120 (37)

300 (91)

500 (152)

2,500 (762)

15:1

2

Approach end of runways expected to serve small airplanes with approach speeds of 50 knots or more. (Visual runways only, day/night)

0 (0)

250 (76)

700 (213)

2,250 (686)

2,750 (838)

20:1

3

Approach end of runways expected to serve large airplanes (Visual day/night); or instrument minimums ≥ 1 statute mile (1.6 km) (day only).

0 (0)

400 (122)

1000 (305)

1,500 (457)

8,500 (2591)

20:1

4

Approach end of runways expected to support instrument

night operations, serving approach Category A and B aircraft only. 1

200 (61)

400 (122)

3,800 (1158)

2

10,000 (3048)

0 (0)

20:1

5

Approach end of runways expected to support instrument night operations serving greater than approach Category B

aircraft. 1

200 (61)

800 (244)

3,800 (1158)

10,000 2

(3048)

0 (0)

20:1

6

Approach end of runways expected to accommodate instrument approaches having visibility minimums ≥ 3/4 but <1 statute mile (≥ 1.2 km but < 1.6 km), day or night.

200 (61)

800 (244)

3,800 (1158)

2

10,000 (3048)

0 (0)

20:1

7 Approach end of runways expected to accommodate instrument approaches having visibility minimums < 3/4 statute mile (1.2 km) or precision approach (ILS or GLS), day or night.

200 (61)

800

(244)

3,800 (1158)

2

10,000 (3048)

0

(0)

34:1

8 3,

5, 6, 7

Approach end of runways expected to accommodate approaches with vertical guidance (Glide Path Qualification Surface [GQS]).

0

(0)

Runway width +

200 (61)

1520 (463)

10,000 2

(3048)

0

(0)

30:1

9 Departure runway ends for all instrument operations.

4

0 (0)

See Figure 3-4.

40:1

* The letters are keyed to those shown in Figure 3-2.

Notes: 1. Marking and lighting of obstacle penetrations to this surface or the use of a Visual Guidance Slope Indicator (VGSI), as defined by Order 8260.3, may avoid displacing the threshold. 2. 10,000 feet (3048 m) is a nominal value for planning purposes. The actual length of these areas is dependent upon the visual descent point position for 20:1 and 34:1, and DA point for the 30:1. 3. When objects exceed the height of the GQS, an APV (ILS, PAR, LPV, LNAV/VNAV, etc.) is not authorized. Refer to Table 3-4 and its footnote 3 for further information on GQS. 4. Dimension A is measured relative to TODA (to include clearway). 5. Surface dimensions / OCS slope represent a nominal approach with 3 degree Glide Path Angle (GPA), 50 feet (15 m) TCH, < 500 feet (152 m) HATh. For specific cases, refer to Order 8260.3. The OCS slope (30:1) supports a nominal approach of 3 degrees (also known as the GPA). This assumes a TCH of 50 feet (15 m). Three degrees is commonly used for ILS systems and VGSI aiming angles. This approximates a 30:1 approach slope that is between the 34:1 and the 20:1 approach surfaces of Part 77. Surfaces cleared to 34:1 should accommodate a 30:1 approach without any obstacle clearance problems. 6. For runways with vertically guided approaches the criteria in row 8 is in addition to the basic criteria established within the table, to ensure the protection of the GQS. 7. For planning purposes, determine a tentative DA based on a 3 degree GPA and a 50-foot (15 m) TCH.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/11698

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/11698

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=fab9bfa191e740463dbdb9acc14b6e2a&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14%3A2.0.1.2.9&idno=14

E-12

APPENDIX E-2

RELEVANT SOURCE MATERIAL – BIBLIOGRAPHY

E-13

1. FAA Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)

2. FAA Standard Operating Procedure (ARP SOP 2.00) - Standard Procedure for FAA Review and Approval of Airport Layout Plans (ALPs), October 1, 2013

3. FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handing Airspace Matters

4. 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of The Navigable Airspace

5. FAA AC 150/5100-17, Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Assisted Projects

6. FAA, A Guide to Airport Surveys, AC 150/5300-16, AC 150/5300-17, AC 150/5300-18, and Airports-GIS (AGIS), May 15, 2009

7. FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, 9/28/2012, incl. Change 1

8. FAA AC 70/7460-1K, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, 02/01/07

9. FAA Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA) Web Site - http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/airspace_analysis/

10. FAA Airport Sponsor Grant Assurances, 3/2014

http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/airspace_analysis/

APPENDIX F

COLORADO AIRPORTSECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY2 0 1 3

FOR

COVER: A Gulfstream IV business jet departs Centennial Airport. Photo by Shahn Sederberg

12013 Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports

Introduction

The 2013 Colorado Economic Impact Study documents how Colorado commercial and general aviation airports support the state’s economy and the economies of communities throughout the state. Estimates of economic impact were developed for jobs supported, annual payroll, and total annual economic output.

Colorado’s airport system transports people and goods to many domestic and international locations; airports facilitate commerce; and airports help to maintain Colorado’s outstanding quality-of-life. Airports are essential to Colorado’s diverse business base which includes employers in the areas of communications, agriculture, energy, high tech manufacturing and tourism. Airports also support essential services which include but are not limited to air ambulance flights, transportation for medical personnel, firefighting, law enforcement and search and rescue missions.

Agricultural Spraying Operations at Yuma Municipal Airport. Photo by Shahn Sederberg

Jobs

Jobs supported by the operation and development of airports, by off-airport air visitor spending, and by off-airport companies that rely on air cargo services to ship their goods.

265,700

Payroll

Annual payroll associated with aviation supported jobs.

$12.6 billion

Output

Output or total annual economic activity which is comparable to the spending required to purchase goods and services to support operations for all activities considered in this study.

$36.7 billion

2 2013 Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports

Past and Current Economic Impacts

The Colorado Division of Aeronautics has periodically measured the economic impact of Colorado’s commercial and public-use general aviation airports four times since 1998. Methodologies used to conduct these studies have been similar, but they are not identical. Therefore, results between reporting periods are not directly comparable.

This update included more research to translate part-time employment into full time equivalent jobs; it used airport specific estimates for general aviation visitors as opposed to national averages; and it considered local economic settings to estimate each airport’s economic contribution to its service area.

In recent years, the aviation industry has, in part, contracted as a result of higher fuel prices. In addition, economic downturns and slow recoveries have reduced both business and leisure travel; and travelers also now have shorter stays and spend less per visit. Aviation, similar to other industries, now does more with less in terms of the number of people employed.

Even with a more conservative approach used to estimate economic impacts and external economic factors that have adversely impacted aviation, this study shows that total annual economic output associated with Colorado’s airports has still increased.

Statewide

$36.7 billion2013

$32.2 billion2008

Denver International Airport

2013

2008 $22.3 billion

$26.3 billion

Other Commercial Service Airports

$8.1 billion2013

$7.9 billion2008

General Aviation Airports

$2.4 billion2013

$1.9 billion2008

Total Economic Output

Conccourse B at Denver International Airport. Photo by Shahn Sederberg


Sources of Economic Impact

This study measured economic impacts in terms of jobs, payroll, and total annual economic activity or output. Sources of economic activity for these three impact categories are as follows:

Many people are employed in Colorado to administer, maintain and operate airports. Many airports also have tenants or businesses that provide aviation services or services that support airport customers.

Airports & Tenants

Millions of visitors arrive in Colorado each year on commercial airline flights or on general aviation aircraft. Jobs and associated payroll at hotels, restaurants, retail outlets and recreational venues are supported by visitor spending.

Visitor Spending

Investment made to improve airports supports additional economic impact during the time when spending takes place. Economic impact in the capital investment category results from federal, state, local, and privately funded projects.

Capital Investment

Colorado manufacturers rely on air cargo services at Denver International to support their businesses. They ship goods to customers throughout the U.S. and internationally, resulting in additional economic benefits.

Air Cargo

Airports, tenants, spending for capital investment, visitor spending, and air cargo shipments all contribute to local and state tax revenues. Estimates of these aviation related tax revenues were developed in this study.

Tax Revenues

Many businesses in Colorado improve their efficiency by using aviation; the number of non-aviation jobs in Colorado that gain efficiency from commercial and/or general aviation was also estimated.

Off-Airport Employment

Conccourse B at Denver International Airport. Photo by Shahn Sederberg


Study Methodology

All study airports provided assistance with collecting data used to estimate economic impacts. Airport operators provided inputs for economic activities related to operating their airports, their tenants, capital investments, as well as visitor estimates. When initial economic impacts enter the economy, the impacts re-circulate, generating successive rounds of spending, employment, payroll and output in other sectors of the economy. Economic impacts generated through the recirculation of initial impacts in the economy are classified in this study as “multiplier” effects.

Initial impacts multiply a greater number of times in an urbanized area than the same initial impact in a less developed area. For this study, six regions were used to establish appropriate multipliers for each airport. State level multipliers were used to calculate total statewide aviation related economic impacts. Since a higher percentage of all initial economic impacts are retained within the state’s economy, statewide economic impacts are greater than the sum of the individual airport impacts.

This update used the IMPLAN model to estimate multiplier impacts. IMPLAN was selected, in part, because data tables in this model include more current socio-economic data than other similar models. IMPLAN also more readily supports the development of region-specific multipliers. The recirculation of initial economic impacts is not the same in rural Colorado as it is in the Denver Metropolitan area. The 2008 economic impact study used only statewide multipliers.

Initial Imacts

Multiplier Effect

Total Impacts

Output$36.7 billion

Payroll$12.6 billion

Jobs265,700

Spending


Statewide Airport Related Economic Impacts

Airport AdministrationEach airport in Colorado, from the largest to the smallest, has some level of employment that is devoted to supporting airport administration, operation and maintenance. This study considered all employment associated with running Colorado’s airports, both full-time and part-time and whether the employment is on or off the airport. For many airports, employees who help with legal, accounting, and human resource functions, for example, are not located at the airport and only a portion of their job is directly related to supporting the airport. The number of hours worked by each employee in support of an airport was used to translate part-time jobs into full time equivalent positions.

Tenants/BusinessesMany airports in Colorado also support aviation related tenants such as airlines, government agencies, rental car companies, fixed base operators, terminal concessionaires, flight instructors, aerial applicators and others. These tenants employ thousands of people in Colorado and create significant economic impact in terms of payroll and output (spending).

Capital Investment Colorado’s airports also undertake capital projects to maintain, improve, or expand airside and landside facilities; to enhance services they provide; to increase safety; and to purchase equipment. These capital expenditures support additional employment and payroll while projects are being planned and implemented. Airport, tenant, and capital investment related spending at Colorado airports supports an estimated 110,707 jobs with an annual payroll of $6.6 billion, which includes both the initial and the multiplier effects. Total annual economic activity associated with airport management, tenants and capital investment is estimated at $18.2 billion.

Total Annual Statewide Economic Impacts Airport, Tenant & Capital Investment

Airports TenantsCapital

Investment TotalJobs 6,365 99,151 5,191 110,707

Payroll (Billions) $0.3 $6.0 $0.3 $6.6

Output (Billions) $0.7 $16.7 $0.8 $18.2

Total Annual Statewide Output

Airport, Tenant & Capital Investment

66%

25%9%

Other Commercial

Airports

All General Aviation Airports


Statewide Visitor Economic Impacts

Visitors fly to Colorado for business trips, vacations, recreational activities, to see friends and family, and for other reasons such as school or military travel. This study estimated that 8 million visitors arrived at 14 different Colorado airports on commercial airline flights. An estimated 7 million of these commercial airline visitors arrived via Denver International. Visitor estimates include only the non-resident portion of each airport’s total departing passengers and excludes connecting passengers at Denver International. The economic impact of spending by connecting and resident passengers is reflected primarily in economic impacts for terminal tenants or airport administration.

An additional estimated one million visitors also traveled to Colorado on general aviation aircraft. Among all general aviation visitors, 93 percent arrived at commercial airports and the remaining 7 percent arrived at general aviation airports.

Visitors who come to Colorado spend money on hotels, food and beverages, local transportation, retail purchases and recreational/entertainment activities. Most air visitors spend at least one night in the state; but some visitors, particularly general aviation visitors, may only stay for the day. Information on air visitor spending was obtained from surveys completed specifically for this study and from a variety of other secondary data sources.

This study estimated all annual visitor-related spending (output) in Colorado and the associated number of jobs and annual payroll supported by visitor related spending. Total annual visitor related economic impacts shown here include the multiplier effects.

Total Annual Statewide Economic Impacts Visitor Spending

Commercial Visitors

General Aviation Visitors Total

Jobs 125,252 6,934 132,186

Payroll (Billions) $4.3 $0.2 $4.6

Output (Billions) $12.5 $0.7 $13.2

Cycling through the vineyards in Palisade, Colorado Wine Country. Photo Colorado Tourism Office, Denise Chambers-Miles


Economic Impact for Businesses Relying on Air Cargo

In the Denver metropolitan area, there are manufacturers who produce goods that are shipped to various domestic and international destinations. High value and time sensitive products are often shipped by air from Denver International. Some of the leading commodities shipped via air cargo from Denver International are shown below:

Denver International plays a critical role in supporting manufacturers, enabling them to export their products to other states and to international destinations. The economic impacts associated with these businesses represent additional economic output and employment that is possible because of air cargo services available at Denver International. Economic impacts related to on-airport air cargo activities at Denver International and other study airports are included in airport tenant related impacts. Information from the Foreign Trade Division and the FHWA Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) of the U.S. Department of Transportation was used to estimate additional off-airport air cargo economic impacts. Annual estimates of the economic impacts for businesses that rely on air cargo shipping, shown here, include multiplier effects.

Total Annual Statewide Economic Impacts Businesses Relying on Air Cargo

Domestic Air Cargo

International Air Cargo Total

Jobs 18,748 4,060 22,808

Payroll (Billions) $1.2 $0.3 $1.4

Output (Billions) $4.3 $1.0 $5.4

Photo by Shahn Sederberg

• Transportation equipment• Electronics• Computer equipment• Precision instruments• Chemicals• Pharmaceuticals


City Airport NameTotal

EmploymentTotal

PayrollTotal

OutputAlamosa San Luis Valley Airport 176 $6,669,207 $23,532,768

Aspen Aspen-Pitkin County Airport 8,310 $283,004,101 $841,142,866

Colorado Springs Colorado Springs Municipal Airport 27,721 $1,753,550,417 $3,692,057,477

Cortez Cortez-Montezuma Municipal Airport 129 $5,682,575 $16,938,630

Denver Denver International Airport 188,338 $8,624,024,963 $26,279,909,001

Durnago Durango-La Plata County Airport 2,646 $94,483,704 $282,256,287

Eagle Eagle County Regional Airport 6,294 $217,511,273 $635,901,268

Grand Junction Grand Junction Regional Airport 2,871 $130,775,972 $380,039,796

Gunnison Gunnison-Crested Butte Regional Airport 938 $34,743,998 $98,532,461

Hayden Yampa Valley Regional Airport 3,034 $104,934,790 $299,330,000

Loveland Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport 826 $24,824,762 $129,425,610

Montrose Montrose Regional Airport 2,035 $77,424,675 $221,760,254

Pueblo Pueblo Memorial Airport 827 $22,521,045 $85,008,702

Telluride Telluride Regional Airport 686 $27,349,782 $78,552,756

Individual Airport Total Annual Economic Impacts

Commercial Service AirportsTotal Annual Economic Impacts

Total annual employment, payroll and output estimates for each system airport are shown here. These impacts include the multiplier effect, and the multipliers used to estimate these impacts are specific to each airport’s location within Colorado.


EmploymentTotal

PayrollTotal

OutputAkron Gebauer Airport 0 $0 $0

Akron Colorado Plains Regional Airport 40 $1,011,676 $3,960,257

Blanca Blanca Airport 1 $49,000 $67,000

Boulder Boulder Municipal Airport 340 $19,636,302 $69,928,445

Brush Brush Municipal Airport 1 $61,034 $123,838

Buena Vista Central Colorado Regional Airport 26 $901,093 $3,078,973

Burlington Kit Carson County Airport 22 $583,934 $2,594,631

Calhan Calhan Airport 2 $72,198 $373,555

Canon City Fremont County Airport 65 $1,684,454 $6,775,398

Center Leach Airport 2 $83,994 $189,702

Colorado Springs Meadow Lake Airport 130 $4,941,197 $10,140,031

Craig Craig-Moffat County Airport 14 $404,669 $1,087,749

Crawford Crawford Airport 20 $523,847 $1,660,792

Creede Mineral County Memorial Airport 1 $55,103 $91,093

Del Norte Astronaut Kent Rominger Airport 13 $338,828 $1,259,127

Delta Blake Field 20 $617,608 $1,552,679

Delta Westwinds Airpark 3 $136,000 $290,000

Denver Centennial Airport 6,792 $404,921,753 $1,322,113,315

Denver Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport 2,670 $153,902,452 $460,506,178

Denver Front Range Airport 489 $31,595,263 $75,527,117

Dove Creek Dove Creek Airport 0 $0 $0

Durango Animas Airpark 19 $708,347 $2,201,202

Table continued on Page 9

General Aviation Airports Total Annual Economic Impacts



EmploymentTotal

PayrollTotal

OutputEads Eads Airport 9 $241,640 $436,998

Ellicott Colorado Spring East Airport 1 $65,852 $108,418

Erie Erie Municipal Airport 217 $4,933,864 $12,832,775

Fort Morgan Fort Morgan Municipal Airport 32 $1,038,009 $3,024,229

Glenwood Springs Glenwood Springs Municipal Airport 36 $1,625,066 $3,920,371

Granby Granby-Grand County Airport 21 $776,087 $2,340,018

Greeley Easton-Valley View Airport 1 $53,000 $97,000

Greeley Greeley-Weld County Airport 672 $30,783,822 $94,091,266

Haxtun Haxtun Municipal Airport 2 $88,673 $195,054

Holly Holly Airport 2 $69,000 $161,000

Holyoke Holyoke Municipal Airport 16 $456,311 $1,693,988

Hudson Platte Valley Airpark 1 $58,165 $112,979

Julesburg Julesburg Municipal Airport 1 $56,000 $110,000

Kremmling McElroy Field 19 $595,157 $2,046,641

La Junta La Junta Municipal Airport 19 $755,705 $2,397,821

La Veta Cuchara Valley Airport 1 $73,161 $149,416

Lamar Lamar Municipal Airport 49 $1,221,790 $4,515,516

Las Animas Las Animas City & County Airport 2 $102,011 $272,978

Leadville Lake County Airport 28 $942,393 $3,425,548

Limon Limon Municipal Airport 2 $89,652 $410,386

Longmont Vance Brand Municipal Airport 204 $9,066,791 $27,744,992

Mack Mack Mesa Airport 6 $276,019 $1,044,028

Meeker Meeker Airport 61 $2,478,900 $5,963,101

Monte Vista Monte Vista Municipal Airport 6 $211,000 $283,207

Nucla Hopkins Field 9 $324,300 $983,656

Pagosa Springs Stevens Field 59 $2,038,618 $6,946,527

Paonia North Fork Valley Airport 3 $126,565 $239,129

Rangely Rangely Airport 22 $630,181 $1,870,899

Rifle Garfield County Regional Airport 456 $21,696,515 $56,938,799

Saguache Saguache Municipal Airport 1 $52,000 $72,000

Salida Harriet Alexander Airport 37 $1,491,762 $4,732,747

Springfield Springfield Municipal Airport 8 $279,093 $1,065,553

Steamboat Springs Steamboat Springs-Bob Adams Field 86 $2,794,202 $8,819,667

Sterling Sterling Municipal Airport 32 $1,246,674 $3,638,168

Trinidad Perry Stokes Airport 16 $453,252 $1,378,966

Walden Walden-Jackson County Airport 6 $232,609 $607,237

Walsenburg Spanish Peaks Airfield 9 $404,243 $1,137,983

Westcliffe Silver West Airport 9 $353,589 $1,354,773

Wray Wray Municipal Airport 23 $562,901 $998,919

Yuma Yuma Municipal Airport 18 $597,571 $982,037

General Aviation Airports Total Annual Economic Impacts

(Continued from Page 8)


Total Annual Statewide Tax Benefits

Colorado also benefits from tax revenues derived directly from airport supported activities both on and off the airports. Annually, this study estimated that aviation activity contributed more than $1.5 billion in tax revenues to local, state and federal governments. By far, the largest tax revenue contributor is sales tax collected from visitors on lodging, rental cars, restaurants, and retail items. Some visitor spending takes place on airport for rental cars and with terminal concessionaires. Most visitor related spending, however, takes place off airport.

Sales taxes are also collected when purchases are made by employees whose jobs are supported by airports or employees who work at visitor supported establishments such as hotels and restaurants. Sales tax is also collected in connection with capital investment activity and air cargo commerce, as well as from employees in these sectors when they make taxable purchases. In total, Colorado realizes an estimated $1 billion in sales tax revenues from aviation supported activities.

Two other important aviation related tax contributions are related to state and federal personal income tax. Aviation related employees pay an estimated $104 million in Colorado personal income tax and $402 million in federal income tax. Excise and sales tax on aviation fuel generated $41.4 million in tax revenues during fiscal year 2012. Two thirds of this amount was returned directly to the Colorado airports with the remainder going to support grants for system airports.

Direct Tax Impacts DIA & Other Colorado Airports

$1,136,060,48074%

Other CommercialAirports

$308,722,03020%

Direct Tax Contributions By Group

General AviationAirports

$84,902,0706%

Commercial Aviation Visitors

$796,281,92052%

Tenants $7572,966,560

38%

Airport Admin. $20,511,590

1%

Air Cargo (Denver) $83,210,860

5%

Capital Improvements $18,618,250

1%

General Aviation Visitors

$18,618,250 3%

Visit

ors

Retail Sales

Lodging

Food & Beverage

Entertainment

Recreation

Local Transportation O

n-Ai

rpor

t Act

iviti

es

Fuel Sales

Rental Cars

Retail

Restaurants

Services

Construction

Empl

oyee

s

AirportAdministration

On AirportTenants

Construction

Visitor SupportedBusinesses

Aviation Activities with Tax Impacts


Off-Airport Non-Aviation Business Benefits

Major employers in Colorado rely on commercial aviation, general aviation and air cargo to improve their efficiency. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) estimates that more than 60 percent of all general aviation flights in the U.S. are business related. A recent passenger survey at Denver International indicates that over 30 percent of the airport’s visitors are traveling to Colorado for business meetings, conferences, or other business related trips. National statistics indicate that Denver International’s total business related travel, when resident and connecting passengers are considered, is most likely in excess of the 30 percent reported for visitor related travel.

Outreach to businesses around the state was conducted to provide a better understanding of how they benefit from aviation. Businesses were contacted in a variety of ways to participate in an on-line survey. Most statewide agencies, organizations and groups in Colorado, including chambers of commerce, were contacted to help distribute the survey. Through CDOT’s Communications Office, news and media outlets throughout Colorado were provided with a press release that provided a survey link.

The purpose of reaching out to employers throughout Colorado was to estimate the number of additional jobs in Colorado that in some way gain efficiency from using aviation. These jobs are in addition to the jobs supported by airports, tenants, capital investment projects, air visitors and off-airport air cargo activity.

Based on information collected from the survey, an estimated 230,060 additional jobs in Colorado gain added efficiency by using aviation services. When these jobs are combined with all other jobs supported by airport related activities, an estimated 495,760 jobs, which represents 15 percent of Colorado’s total employment, is in some way supported by aviation.


Changes in Economic Impacts

Any economic impact study is a snapshot of conditions present at the time the study is conducted. Data from previous and current reporting periods shows an upward trend in annual economic impacts associated with Colorado airports.

While total statewide economic impacts have grown, for some airports, external economic conditions and internal aviation industry conditions resulted in declines in aviation activity. Changing conditions dampened the 2013 economic impacts for some Colorado airports.

Despite the weak U.S. and global economies, Colorado’s airport system continues to make significant positive and increasing contributions to the state’s economy. Colorado’s commercial and general aviation airports are not only important transportation assets, but they are also valuable economic resources.

This study estimates that Colorado’s statewide annual aviation related economic output represents approximately 13.4 percent of Colorado’s Gross State Product. By maintaining, protecting and improving Colorado’s airports, the system will continue to provide a significant economic return for the investment made.

Annual Payroll

2003

2008

$9.8 Billion

$11.2 Billion

$12.6 Billion2013

Comparison of Statewide Economic Benefits

Jobs

280,1562003

2008 340,786

265,7002013

Annual Output

2003

2008

$23.5 Billion

$32.2 Billion

$36.7 Billion2013


Summary of Aviation Economic Impacts

Airports, companies relying on air cargo, and spending by air visitors contribute an estimated $1.5 billion in aviation related tax revenues. There are an estimated 230,060 non-aviation jobs in Colorado that benefit from efficiencies gained through using the state’s commercial and general aviation airports.

When all on-airport activities, such as airport management, airport tenants and airport capital investment projects are considered, along with multiplier effects, Colorado’s airports support an estimated 110,707 jobs. Off-airport spending by visitors who arrive in Colorado on commercial airline or general aviation flights supports 132,186 additional jobs; and off-airport activities supported by air cargo shippers are responsible for another 22,808 jobs. The total annual payroll associated with these jobs is estimated at $12.6 billion. The total annual economic output from the airport system, estimated in this study at $36.7 billion, far exceeds the $20 million investment from the Colorado Discretionary Grant Program made in 2013. Colorado airports are worth the investment!

Summary of Aviation Economic Impacts Jobs, Payroll & Output

Initial Impacts

Multiplier Impacts

Total Impacts

JobsOn-Airport 56,531 54,176 110,707

Visitor Spending 91,608 40,578 132,186

Off-Airport Cargo 9,173 13,636 22,808

Total Jobs 157,312 108,390 265,701*

Payroll (Billions)On-Airport $4.0 $2.6 $6.6

Visitor Spending $2.6 $1.9 $4.6

Off Airport Cargo $0.7 $0.8 $1.4

Total Payroll $7.3 $5.3 $12.6

Output (Billions)On-Airport $10.3 $7.8 $18.2

Visitor Spending $7.4 $5.8 $13.2

Off Airport Cargo $3.4 $2.0 $5.4

Total Output $21.1 $15.6 $36.7

*The total estimate of airport related employment of 265,701 does not include this study’s estimate of 230,060 jobs that benefit and gain efficiency from using the Colorado’s commercial and general aviation airports.

Colorado Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics5126 Front Range Parkway Watkins, Colorado 80137 303.512.5250 www.colorado-aeronautics.org

Prepared by: ICF SH&E, with Jviation, EDR Group and KRAMER aerotek, Inc

Colorado Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics

5126 Front Range ParkwayWatkins, Colorado 80137

303-512-5250www.Colorado-Aeronautics.org

The Economic Impact of

YAMPA VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT

Hayden, Colorado

COLORADOStatewide Benefits from Aviation

Airports in Colorado are important underpinnings for state

and local economies. Airports not only provide safe and

convenient travel options but as shown in this study, they

create employment opportunities and contribute to state and

local tax revenues. Aside from the jobs, payroll and annual

economic activity that airports in Colorado support, during fire

season, airports are essential to the state’s forest fire fighting

efforts. Doctors routinely use Colorado airports to provide

medical services for residents in less densely populated

areas of the state. Patients are often transported by air in

emergency situations. During Colorado’s catastrophic flood in

September 2013, airports played an essential role in rescuing

residents who could not otherwise have been reached.

The continued maintenance and development of Colorado’s

public-use airports is essential. For Colorado to support the

travel needs of its businesses, residents, and visitors and

for the state to remain at the forefront of industries such as

energy and tourism, airports are essential. Annually, airports

make significant economic contributions, while at the same

time the airports help to improve the quality of life for all who

reside in the state.

For more information on this airport’s specific annual economic

impacts or on the CDOT Statewide Aviation Economic Impact

Study please contact:

COLORADOStatewide Benefits from Aviation

STATEWIDEAnnual Economic Impact

Colorado is served by a diverse system of airports. These

airports accommodate the needs of Colorado businesses

and residents, as well as visitors who come to Colorado

to conduct business, attend conventions, and vacation.

Airports in Colorado support hundreds of thousands of

jobs and contribute billions of dollars in annual economic

activity. At the same time, airports and aviation activities

are a source of tax revenues.

Important links between airports and the economy were

measured in a research project undertaken by the Colorado

Department of Transportation’s Division of Aeronautics.

Similar research efforts were undertaken in 1998, 2003

and 2008, but results from this update and previous

studies are not directly comparable. This update to the

Colorado Aviation Economic Impact Study found that

all of Colorado’s airports, including Denver International,

contribute $36.7 billion in output to Colorado’s economy

and support 265,700 jobs. These employees earn $12.6

billion. In total, Colorado’s airports contribute $1.1 billion in

state and local tax revenues.

These annual economic benefits include “multiplier”

effects, which capture the recycling of initial economic

impacts in the economy. Successive rounds of spending

associated with the economic activities of airport

operators, airport tenants, capital investment, air visitors

and other non-aviation businesses that rely on air cargo,

support additional jobs, payroll and economic activity

in Colorado. Multiplier impacts are estimated using

multipliers that are specific to the state, or to the market

area of each study airport. Total statewide and airport-

specific impacts are the sum of initial and applicable

multiplier impacts.

Prepared by:

ICF SH&E, Inc. with Jviation, EDR Group and KRAMER aerotek, Inc.

COLORADO AIRPORTSECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY2 0 1 3

FOR

Jobs

Jobs supported by the operation and develop-ment of airports, by off-airport air visitor spending, and by off-airport companies that rely on air cargo services to ship their goods.

265,700

Payroll

Annual employee payroll associated with aviation supported jobs.

$12.6 billion

Output

Output or total annual economic activity which is comparable to the spending required to purchase goods and services to support oper-ations for all activities considered in this study.

$36.7 billion

Taxes

Local and state tax revenues derived directly from airport-supported activities both on and off the airports, including sales taxes, income taxes, and fuel excise taxes.

$1.1 billion

Annual Airport, Tenant and Capital Improvement Economic Impact for

Yampa Valley Regional Airport

Initial Multiplier Effect Total

Jobs 242 166 408

Payroll $17,317,000 $6,825,000 $24,142,000

Output $40,486,000 $21,845,000 $62,331,000

Annual Visitor Economic Impact for Yampa Valley Regional Airport

Initial Multiplier Effect Total

Commercial Airline Visitor Impacts

Jobs 1,730 607 2,337

Payroll $49,665,000 $22,312,000 $71,977,000

Output $139,626,000 $71,738,000 $211,364,000

General Aviation Visitor Impacts

Jobs 214 75 289

Payroll $6,077,000 $2,739,000 $8,816,000

Output $16,836,000 $8,799,000 $25,635,000

YAMPA VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT (HDN)Annual Economic Impact on the Local Economy

Annual Tax ImpactsThe economic activities related to the airport and visitors

using the airport generate significant local and state

tax revenues. Visitors pay taxes on lodging, rental cars,

restaurant meals, and other purchases. Workers whose jobs

are supported by airports and visitor spending also pay sales

tax and state income taxes. Annual local and state taxes

linked to the operation of Yampa Valley Regional Airport total

$14.1 million.

Total Economic Impact of Yampa Valley Regional AirportOver the past five years, the aviation industry has been

impacted by increased fuel costs and a lagging U.S. economy.

This has resulted in consolidation in the airline industry,

fewer new general aviation aircraft being manufactured in

the U.S., and an overall reduction in flights. For some Colorado

airports, the contraction in aviation demand over the past

five years translated into lower economic impacts. In

other instances, demand and economic impacts may have

increased or remained constant, despite downturns.

Together, airport, tenant, capital improvement and visitor

impacts, along with multiplier effects, represent the total

economic contribution of Yampa Valley Regional Airport.

The airport’s economic contribution to the communities it

serves is $299.3 million in output and 3,034 jobs, with an

annual payroll of $104.9 million.

How the Economic Impact of Yampa Valley Regional Airport

was Calculated

Output$299.3 million

Payroll$104.9 million

Jobs3,034

Initial ImpactAirport Administration

Airport Tenants

Capital InvestmentO

N-A

IRPO

RT

OFF

-AIR

PORT

Commercial Visitor Spending

General Aviation Visitor Spending

Businesses Using Air Cargo Shipping

Multiplier Effect

Total Impact

Visitor ImpactsVisitors travel to Colorado on commercial airline flights and

general aviation aircraft to conduct business or vacation

in the state. Annually, 108,000 visitors arrive in Colorado

via Yampa Valley Regional Airport. Some stay only for the

day, but others stay longer and have higher spending rates.

Air visitors spend money locally on food, lodging,

transportation, entertainment and retail purchases. Visitor

spending in turn supports jobs and payroll while producing

additional economic impacts through multiplier effects.

The economic impact of Yampa Valley Regional Airport (HDN) on its local economy was estimated as a part of CDOT’s statewide study. The economic contributions of Yampa Valley Regional Airport stem from on-airport activities and off-airport spending by visitors who arrive in Colorado via the airport. The economic contributions of these activities are measured through jobs, associated payroll, and economic output.

On-Airport ImpactsOn-airport activities considered in this study include

the administration, operation and maintenance of

Yampa Valley Regional Airport as well as the activities

of airport tenants that provide aviation services or

support the airport’s customers. Airport operators

routinely undertake improvement projects to maintain

or expand infrastructure. The study also identified the

economic impact of capital investment spending which

supports jobs and payroll in the local economy over

each project’s duration.

airport master plan update - appendices

Documents