fulton ounty airport-rown field – airport economic impact ...engineering, and consulting. output...

Fulton County Airport-Brown Field – Airport Economic Impact Analysis

March 2019

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

8845 Governor’s Hill Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45249 With assistance from:

REPORT

1-1

Fulton County Airport-Brown Field Economic

Impact

Executive Summary The Fulton County Airport-Brown Field is a general aviation airport located in western Fulton

County just outside the city limits of Atlanta. It serves as an important reliever airport to

Hartsfield – Jackson Atlanta International Airport, providing aviation services to privately-

owned and business aircraft.

Fulton County Airport is home to numerous corporate flight departments and an assortment

of aviation businesses that help make the airport a preferred base and destination for

companies that operate in the Atlanta region.

In 2018, the Fulton County Airport and its associated aviation activities supported:

• 1,230 total jobs

• $75.2 million in total annual payroll

• $198.6 million in total annual output

These economic impacts were determined through the use of an FAA-approved methodology

that has been successfully applied at airports across the United States. This methodology

considered the impacts linked to on-airport activity, capital improvements at the airport (both

private and public), and off-airport spending by visitors that used the airport.

These results are shown to be competitive with similar airports across the country. In fact,

when compared with other reliever airports, Fulton County Airport’s total economic impacts

are consistently above the average of those reliever airports, and its average employee payroll

and average output per employee exceeds the average by 24 percent and 15 percent,

respectively, indicating that Fulton County Airport provides well-paying jobs to workers that

are more productive, on average, than those at other reliever airports.

Additionally, a detailed comparison of Fulton County Airport with nine peer airports

demonstrates that Fulton County Airport is highly competitive in numerous categories while

highlighting areas that could be improved. Of note is that Fulton County Airport is located in a

metropolitan region with a gross domestic product that is one of the highest in the nation.

Additionally, the airport is in a region with a faster growing population than its peers and has

an unemployment rate and median household income that compares favorably with its peers.

A final point is that Fulton County Airport’s aviation services and airside facilities were

evaluated as being highly competitive with its peer airports. However, the analysis also found

that in terms of based aircraft and operations, Fulton County Airport has not experienced the

same level of recovery since the 2009 recession as its competitors. Details regarding the

airport, along with the processes used to gather data and estimate the economic impacts of

the Fulton County Airport, are described in more detail in the following sections.

Section 1 • Fulton County Airport-Brown Field Economic Impact

1-2

Fulton County Airport Background With a county population of over one million in 2017, Fulton County is Georgia’s most

populous county. It plays an important role in the region for business, politics, higher

education, healthcare, and culture. The Fulton County Airport supports numerous companies

seeking convenient access to the city center, west and south sides of Atlanta via general

aviation.

Fulton County Airport and its two runways are owned and operated by Fulton County.

Aviation services are provided by two full-service fixed-base operators (FBO) – Hill Aircraft &

Leasing, and Signature Flight Support. These FBOs fuel aircraft, lease hangar space, charter

aircraft, and provide numerous other aircraft services. An air traffic control tower operates on

the airfield and is staffed by a private contractor. Several government organizations, such as

the U.S. Marshalls and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, operate at the airport.

Runway 8/26, the airport’s primary runway, is 5,797 feet long and is equipped with both an

instrument landing system and a satellite-based instrument approach procedure, along with a

medium approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights. A crosswind

runway, Runway 14/32, is 4,158 feet long. These facilities enable properly equipped aircraft

to operate safely and efficiently from the airport during inclement weather conditions.

Like many general aviation airports, flight training is a component of the aviation offerings

found at Fulton County Airport. However, its close proximity to downtown Atlanta makes it a

top choice for operators of corporate and business aircraft. More than a dozen corporate

flight departments, including Coca-Cola, Home Depot, Sun Trust Bank, Koch Industries, and

Cox Enterprises, are based at the airport. These operations not only benefit the companies

they work for, they also are a source of highly compensated jobs that contribute to the local

economy.

The Economic Modeling Process This section describes the approach taken to gather information needed to estimate the

economic impacts of Fulton County Airport and the assumptions used in the model.

The economic impacts of Fulton County Airport considered in this analysis were either

estimated using data gathered from airport staff, on-airport tenants, and users of the airport,

or calculated using an input-output model. This input-output model, described in more detail

below, provides three measures of economic impact, broken down into several categories of

economic impact, and expressed as three related types of economic impact. Understanding

these semantics will help to interpret the results of this study.

Measures of Economic Impact This economic impact study expresses the results using three measures – employment,

payroll, and output.

Employment – Employment is based on the total of full-time jobs plus part-time jobs. In this

analysis, two part-time positions are the equivalent of a single full-time position.

Payroll – Payroll represents the costs associated with the annual salary, wages, and benefits

earned by all employees.


1-3

Output – Output is the quantity of goods and services generated annually by an airport, and

its associated activities and businesses, expressed in dollars. Output is estimated using an

organization’s annual sales, or its annual operating costs, which assumes that its output is

approximately equivalent to what it expends.

It is important to note that payroll and output cannot be combined because elements of

economic benefit related to payroll are also contained, to some extent, in the output estimate.

Each of the three impact measures (employment, payroll, and output) stand alone as part of

the quantification of an airport’s total economic impact.

Categories of Economic Impact The three measures described above are used to evaluate a number of categories of economic

impact. These categories are based on the source of economic activity and require various

forms of inputs that are described below in detail.

On-Airport Activity – This category includes airport tenants that are businesses with

employees, such as FBOs, flight schools, charter operators, corporate flight departments, retail

concessions, and airport restaurants. Also included are governmental agencies, such as public

airport sponsors, air traffic control organizations, other Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) units, as well as other state and federal agencies that serve or use aviation. Output for

on-airport activities is typically assumed to be the sum of annual gross sales. While this

assumption works well for profit-oriented tenants, it must be modified for organizations that

do not generate sales, such as government tenants or corporate flight departments. In order

to estimate the impact of these important tenant-related activities, output is assumed to be

the sum of all annual operating expenditures.

Capital Improvements – Airports undertake capital improvement projects (CIP), such as

runway rehabilitations or terminal improvements to maintain and improve the facilities

available to their users. In addition, on-airport businesses and other agencies invest in capital

improvements. These projects employ people in jobs such as construction, architecture,

engineering, and consulting. Output related to CIP is equal to the expenditures on those

projects.

General Aviation Visitors – Impacts from general aviation visitors are produced by non-local

passengers arriving via private or business aircraft that spend money off airport at hotels,

restaurants, and retail establishments. The annual spending of this category is classified as

output.

Types of Economic Impact Data gathered from the categories described above were used as inputs for a linear input-

output economic impact model. This model estimates three types of economic impacts

associated with Fulton County Airport using each of the three economic impact measures

described previously.

Direct Impacts – Direct impacts account for the initial point where the money from aviation-

related activity first starts circulating in the economy. This includes impacts that result from

on-airport activity and visitor spending. On-airport impacts include the employment, payroll,

and spending of businesses such as FBOs, corporate flight departments, and airport

management and operations staff. Capital expenditures of these businesses and government

organizations are also part of the direct impacts. Visitors contribute to direct impacts through


1-4

their off-airport spending (any on-airport spending by visitors is included in the on-airport

impacts), such as might take place at restaurants or hotels. Expenditures by visitors support

the direct jobs and payroll of employees working at the establishments where the visitor

spends money. Direct impacts serve as the inputs for the economic model.

Multiplier Impacts – Multiplier impacts result from the recirculation and respending of

direct impacts within the economy. This respending of money can occur multiple times and

takes two forms – indirect and induced. Indirect impacts occur when businesses spend their

revenue on business expenses, whereas induced impacts occur when employees spend their

earnings on goods and services. For example, as airport employees spend their salary for

housing, food, and services, those expenditures circulate through the economy resulting in

increased spending, payroll, and employment throughout Georgia. As this money is spent over

and over again, some of it leaks beyond the state’s boundaries, and thus no longer benefits the

residents of Georgia. The economic model uses parameters specific to Georgia to estimate the

leakage effect associated with these multiplier impacts, thereby tabulating only those impacts

that benefit the people and businesses of Georgia. Multiplier impacts are the output of the

economic model.

Total Impacts – Total impacts are the sum of all direct and multiplier economic impacts

attributable to Fulton County Airport.

Figure 1-1 shows how the categories of impacts flow through the types of impacts. The direct

on-airport impacts equate to the jobs that can be seen on the airport, while the direct visitor

impacts are measured in jobs that are found off the airport. Jobs associated with capital

improvements are found both on and off the airport. Furthermore, all of the direct impacts

help drive the multiplier impacts and contribute to the total impacts.

Figure 1-1: Illustration of Economic Impacts

Source: CDM Smith.

Direct impacts are measured through surveys of businesses, government units, and visitors.

Because multiplier impacts are not as easy to measure as direct impacts, they are estimated


1-5

instead. It is important to employ a reliable method of estimating multiplier impacts and one

leading method used is the input-output model.

The Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) input-output model was used to quantify

multiplier impacts in this study. IMPLAN is a linear model that estimates purchases and sales

between hundreds of sectors of the economy. The U.S. Forest Service, in cooperation with

several other government agencies, initially developed the IMPLAN system to generate

regional non-survey input-output models for regions as small as a single county. This

modeling process is considered one of the leading methods currently available for estimating

the total economic impact of an industry and has been used to estimate economic impacts for

individual airports and systems of airports throughout the country.

The IMPLAN model contains a large economic database used to generate input-output tables.

It includes data from sources such as Dun and Bradstreet, the U.S. Department of Commerce,

and the U.S. Census Bureau. IMPLAN multipliers and data tables specific to the industrial

sectors of Georgia were obtained and used in this analysis.

Proper use of this model involves inputting the best economic data available for the industry

analyzed. Therefore, the information gathered during the early part of the study is critical.

Data Collection Methods Because of the diverse aviation activity that occurs on Fulton County Airport, a variety of data

collection methods were used to obtain as much information as possible. The data collected

was used as the basis for determining most of the direct impacts of the airport and provided

input for the economic model that estimated the multiplier impacts.

Two distinct efforts were undertaken to collect data for the three categories of economic

impact described previously, using both surveys tailored for Fulton County Airport and

information from databases structured with characteristics to match those of the airport. The

methods used to collect information related to each category in this analysis are discussed in

the following sections.

On-Airport Activity and Capital Improvements The data collection effort for on-airport activity began with interviewing airport management

to collect economic impact data related to the operation of the airport and to gather a list of

on-airport businesses and government organizations. This economic impact data included

employment, annual payroll, annual operating expenses, and a three-year history of capital

expenditures for the airport. The list of on-airport businesses and government organizations

also included a point of contact and estimated employment levels at each establishment.

Using the list of on-airport businesses, the study team contacted each organization, either in

person or by email, requesting that they complete an airport tenant survey. These surveys

requested each tenant to provide a description of their aviation services along with their basic

economic impact information – employment, annual payroll, annual operating expenses,

annual gross revenues (if applicable), and three years of annual capital expenditures. For

tenants that did not respond, airport management estimated the number of employees.

General Aviation Visitors General aviation aircraft bring visitors to the Atlanta region via Fulton County Airport. These

visitors, whether traveling for business or pleasure, spend money on hotels, restaurants, retail


1-6

purchases, entertainment, and recreation. To estimate these visitor expenditures, the study

team made use of its in-house database comprised of general aviation visitor survey

responses from numerous other studies. Selecting only the data from reliever airports, the

study team built a custom database of more than 700 general aviation visitor survey

responses. Estimates of general aviation visitor behavior were derived from this database and

used in the development of the general aviation visitor expenditure estimate for Fulton

County Airport. The number of general aviation flights was also used to estimate the number

of general aviation visitors. This 2018 data came from the FAA’s Air Traffic Activity Data

System (ATADS).

Model Assumptions and Impact Estimate Methodologies In addition to the data collected for this economic analysis, a number of assumptions were

used in assessing the economic impacts of the Fulton County Airport. These assumptions,

along with the general methodologies used in estimating each category of economic impact,

are detailed in the following sections.

On-Airport and Capital Improvement Direct Impacts Much of the direct on-airport impacts came from data provided by the airport, the businesses,

and the government agencies on the airport. In some cases, incomplete or no data was

provided. In these situations, the study team relied on employment estimates from airport

management, or they developed an employment estimate from independent sources. Then,

using an in-house database containing the results of the economic impact analysis of

thousands of U.S. airports, per employee averages of payroll and output were estimated based

on the type of business and used to interpolate the overall payroll and output of the

organization.

As stated above, data for the past three years of capital improvements was gathered from the

airport and its business tenants. This was done because these projects tend to occur

irregularly and may take less than a year, or many years, to complete, resulting in peaks and

valleys in activity when assessing only a single year. To smooth out the economic impacts

associated with the variability of capital improvements, a three-year average was used.

The same in-house database was used to estimate capital improvement expenditures where

this data was not made available. The three-year average of capital expenditures was used as

the capital improvement direct output. This average capital expenditure was then used with a

ratio of employment to capital expense from the IMPLAN model to estimate employment

associated with these improvements. An average per capita income derived from Bureau of

Labor Statistics data was used to estimate the payroll associated with these jobs.

General Aviation Visitor Direct Impacts The direct economic activity produced by general aviation visitors using the Fulton County

Airport was estimated through a series of assumptions and calculations that started with the

number of aircraft operations at the airport. Based on FAA data and assumptions used in

other economic impact studies of general aviation activity, the number of general aviation

aircraft bringing visitors to Fulton County Airport was derived from the airport’s total

operations. A database of similar reliever airports was used to estimate the number of visitors

per arrival and the average expenditure per visitor during their stay in the Atlanta region. The

sum of these visitor expenditures was treated as direct output.


1-7

Estimates of jobs and payroll tied to general aviation visitor spending were based on a ratio of

employment to visitor expenditures from the IMPLAN model and an average per capita

income derived from Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Multiplier Impacts The initial direct economic impacts from financial transactions are not the only effects that

take place within an economy. As explained earlier, initial transactions result in a cascade of

follow-on impacts. For example, some of the money an airport rental car company earns

renting cars (its direct output) goes to the local bank to pay off part of the loan on the

company’s fleet of rental cars, which creates economic output for the bank. The bank then

uses some of its revenues to pay for local contracted security services, adding to the output.

Eventually, these transactions result in the money leaking beyond the defined boundaries of

the study – in this case, Georgia. The number of times that a dollar of output, or a dollar of pay,

or a job recirculates through Georgia’s economy before it leaks is a multiple of the initial input

from the airport and is referred to as a multiplier impact. Refer back to Figure 1-1 to view the

complex interactions typically occurring in an economy that the IMPLAN model considers.

Multiplier impacts are estimated by entering the direct impacts into the IMPLAN input-output

model and accounting for the different interactions that various categories of impact have

within the study area. The model determines how many times an impact is multiplied within

the study boundaries. Multipliers can vary somewhat from year to year as industries change

suppliers, costs for raw materials and transportation fluctuate, and as new technologies and

regulations impact industry sectors and the flows that occur between them.

The multipliers used in this analysis were developed specifically to measure the economic

impacts that occur within different sectors of the Georgia economy. Table 1-1 summarizes

the multipliers used for on-airport activities, capital improvements, and visitor spending. On-

airport activities were classified into one of three areas – aviation, concession, or government

– based upon the nature of their operation. This was done to more accurately assess the

degree to which each organization recirculated its economic influence within the region.

Table 1-1: Georgia Multipliers by Economy Sector

Economy Sector

Employment Multiplier

Payroll Multiplier

Output Multiplier

On-Airport: Aviation1 2.31 1.69 1.55

On-Airport: Concessions2 1.43 1.77 1.90

On-Airport: Government3 2.72 2.74 2.71

Capital Improvements4 2.27 1.97 1.90

General Aviation Visitors 1.48 1.80 1.86

Source: CDM Smith and IMPLAN.

1 Aviation multipliers are the weighted average of the Transport by Air, Aircraft Manufacturing, Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing, and Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing multipliers. 2 Concessions multipliers are the weighted average of the Hotels and Motels, Food Services and Drinking Places, Retail – Miscellaneous, and Automotive Equipment Rental and Leasing multipliers. 3 Government multipliers are the weighted average of the Other Federal Government Enterprises, and Other State and Local Government Enterprises multipliers. 4 Construction multipliers are the weighted average of the Construction of Other New Nonresidential Structures, Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing, Cement Manufacturing, Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing, Maintenance and Repair Construction of Nonresidential Structures, and Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services multipliers.


1-8

Total Impacts Total impacts consist of the sum of the direct and multiplier impacts. When referring to

Fulton County Airport’s economic impacts, this generally means the total employment, total

payroll, and total output of the airport.

Economic Impact of Fulton County Airport Fulton County Airport contributes directly to Georgia’s economy through its on-airport

impacts and the off-airport spending of its visitors. It also generates multiplier impacts

through the recirculation of expenditures by its aviation-related businesses, the expenditures

of employees of those businesses, and the recirculation of visitor purchases. These impacts

are described in detail by economic impact type (direct, multiplier, and total) in the following

sections.

Direct Impacts The direct impacts of Fulton County Airport are shown in Table 1-2, allocated among the

three categories of On-Airport, General Aviation Visitor Spending, and Capital Improvements.

Table 1-2: Fulton County Airport Direct Economic Impacts

Category Employment Payroll Output

On-Airport 325 $35,340,000 $91,712,000

General Aviation Visitor Spending 137 $2,715,000 $7,755,000

Capital Improvements 120 $4,210,000 $18,394,000

Total Direct Impacts 582 $42,265,000 $117,861,000


On-Airport Direct Impacts

The on-airport impacts of Fulton County Airport accounted for 325 employees with a payroll

of more than $35.3 million, producing $91.7 million in economic output. Not surprisingly, the

largest contributors to these impacts were those businesses and organizations with the

largest work forces. This included Hill Aircraft & Leasing Corporation (the airport’s busiest

FBO), and numerous corporate flight departments. Corporate flight departments are key

contributors to the economic impact of the airport. In addition to the time-saving

transportation benefits that they afford their companies (which is not part of the tabulated

economic impacts because of the uncertainty involved), they provide high quality jobs that

support the local economy and bolster the economic output of local aviation businesses

through their use of maintenance and fuel purchases.

General Aviation Visitors Direct Impacts

The visitors arriving in the Atlanta area via Fulton County Airport spend money at local

hospitality businesses. Based on data gathered from similar airports, and the operations

activity reported in the FAA’s ATADS, visitors spent an estimated $7.8 million off the airport.

This estimate was derived as shown in Table 1-3. Starting with the number of transient

general aviation aircraft arrivals, it was assumed that, on average, each arrival carried 3.6

visitors, yielding a total of 41,919 visitors arriving at Fulton County Airport on general

aviation aircraft. Each of those visitors spent an average of $185 (not including on-airport

purchases) during their stay, resulting in a total of $7.8 million in visitor expenditures.


1-9

Table 1-3: Fulton County Airport General Aviation Visitor Expenditures Estimate

Total Operations

General Aviation Transient Arrivals

Visitors per Arrival

General Aviation Visitors

Spending per Visitor

Visitor Expenditures

58,680 11,644 3.6 41,919 $185 $7,755,000

Source: CDM Smith.

Ratios from the IMPLAN model were used to estimate the number of jobs these expenditures

supported, with nearly 140 workers benefiting from visitor spending and earning an

estimated $2.7 million annually.

Capital Improvement Projects Direct Impacts

Economic impacts from capital projects by the airport and on-airport businesses are

substantial, contributing nearly $18.4 million annually to the total direct impacts. Several

corporate flight departments undertook significant capital investments in recent years. The

airport is pursuing a multi-phased development of the north terminal area and has

undertaken a number of improvements for this part of the airport.

These projects contribute to the economy through the employment and expenditures needed

to complete these improvements. Combined, these efforts support 120 direct jobs with an

estimated annual payroll of more than $4.2 million.

All Direct Impacts

The direct impacts resulting from airport activity – that is, the combination of on-airport,

visitor spending, and capital improvements – contributed more than 580 jobs to the local

economy, with a collective payroll of nearly $42.3 million. The airport and its aviation-related

entities are responsible for approximately $117.9 million in direct output.

Multiplier Impacts

The direct impacts discussed previously are only the initial economic activity attributed to the

airport. These financial transactions lead to additional transactions and the initial money is

spent over and over again, creating indirect and induced impacts, collectively termed

multiplier impacts. For example, the fuel purchased by Hill Aviation supports the jobs and

economic activity associated with the fuel distributor that sells fuel to Hill Aviation.

Construction workers that build hangars spend part of their paychecks on groceries, keeping

local stores in business and their clerks employed. The restaurants frequented by airport

visitors pay local utilities for services, providing employment for utility workers, and so on.

Without the direct economic impacts provided by the airport, these multiplier impacts would

not exist, and many companies would have to scale back business, or even cease operations.

The economic effects associated with multiplier impacts are estimated using the IMPLAN

economic input-output model described previously. Those estimates are shown in Table 1-4.


1-10

Table 1-4: Fulton County Airport Multiplier Economic Impacts


On-Airport 430 $26,693,000 $57,439,000



Total Multiplier Impacts 648 $32,938,000 $80,695,000


Multiplier impacts account for 648 employees with more than $32.9 million in payroll and

$80.7 million in economic output. These impacts are felt largely in the Atlanta metroplex, but

some reach other parts of Georgia due to the recirculation of the initial direct impacts.

Total Impacts

The total economic impacts of Fulton County Airport are determined by adding together the

direct impacts and the multiplier impacts. Table 1-5 shows the total economic impacts of

Fulton County Airport.

Table 1-5: Fulton County Airport Total Economic Impacts


On-Airport 755 $62,033,000 $149,151,000



Total Impacts 1,230 $75,203,000 $198,556,000


When all of the direct and multiplier impacts associated with Fulton County Airport are taken

into account, the effect is substantial. The airport, its associated businesses, government

agencies, and visitors support 1,230 jobs with payroll and benefits exceeding $75.2 million.

The economic output attributed to the airport and its activities amounts to $198.6 million.

2-1

Fulton County Airport-Brown Field Peer

Assessment

Purpose of Peer Airport Assessment Fulton County Airport-Brown Field is a designated reliever airport located in a constrained

suburban environment. The airport is largely, but not completely surrounded by residential,

commercial, and industrial development, State Route 70 (Fulton Industrial Boulevard NW) to

the south, and the Chattahoochee River to the north. Airports that exist in such constrained

environments may have difficulty generating economic benefits from additional development.

To help examine the potential benefits of further development at Fulton County Airport, this

study looks at nine similarly constrained reliever-type airports in other parts of the United

States. This document provides a brief profile of each airport, including operational history,

based aircraft, development investment, facilities and services, and profiles of their

surrounding communities. Analyzing development and the recent history of Fulton County

Airport and its peer airports may provide an insight into how Fulton County Airport may

operate and succeed with new development.

This study identified nine peer airports of Fulton County Airport, located throughout the

United States: Each of these peer airports has a similarly constrained location and comparable

activity profile to Fulton County Airport. All are located within highly-developed urban

environments and nearly all are designated reliever airports of busy commercial service

airports. As such, all are among the most dominant and busiest airports for general aviation

within their respective regions. The following are the nine identified peer airports:

• Cobb County International Airport-McCollum Field (Atlanta, Georgia) • DeKalb-Peachtree Airport (Atlanta, Georgia) • Chicago Executive Airport (Chicago/Prospect Heights, Wheeling, Illinois) • Cincinnati Municipal Airport-Lunken Field (Cincinnati, Ohio) • Concord Regional Airport (Concord, North Carolina) • McKinney National Airport (Dallas, Texas) • Allegheny County Airport (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) • Spirit of St. Louis Airport (St. Louis, Missouri) • St. Paul Downtown Airport Holman Field (St. Paul, Minnesota)

The locations of these peer airports are shown on Figure 2-1.

Section 2 • Fulton County Airport-Brown Field Peer Assessment

2-2

Figure 2-1: Peer Airport Locations

Source: CDM Smith.

Overview of Fulton County Airport-Brown Field (FTY) Fulton County Airport-Brown Field is a 985-acre facility located approximately 10 miles east

of downtown Atlanta near the communities of Kingsbridge Point and Carroll Heights. The

airport is owned and operated by Fulton County, and with approximately 60,000 operations

in 2017 was the 10th busiest airport in Georgia. The airport has two runways, with the 5,797-

foot runway 8/26 being the longest and primary runway. Operations at the airport are

supported by a visual approach slope indicator (VASI), runway end indicator lighting (REILs),

a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights

(MALSR), and several instrument approach procedures (IAP). The most advanced IAP is a

localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) approach on Runway 8, capable of

approach minimums of a 250-foot cloud ceiling and ¾ -mile visibility. Runway 8 also has an

instrument landing system with slightly higher minimums of 256 feet and ¾-mile visibility.

As a designated reliever airport for Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, Fulton County

Airport is one of the best-equipped general aviation and corporate aviation airports in the

region. The airport is served by two full-service fixed-base operators (FBOs) that offer a wide

range of aviation services and are the closest FBOs to downtown Atlanta.

As shown in Figure 2-2, Fulton County Airport is largely constrained by features both man-

made and natural on all sides. To the southwest of the airport are State Route 139 (Martin

Luther King Jr. Drive SW) and large lot commercial and industrial development. To the

southeast and east are State Route 70 (Fulton Industrial Boulevard NW) and the Carroll

Heights residential community. To the north of the airport is an undeveloped area, but just

beyond that is the Chattahoochee River and Kingsbridge Point community. To the northeast is

more commercial and industrial development. The airport itself, however, is not completely

built out, and there exists potential to expand to the north, particularly on the north side of

Runway 8/26.


2-3

Figure 2-2: Satellite Image and Airport Diagram for FTY

Source: Google Earth, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal Procedures.

Until very recently, development at Fulton County Airport has remained largely unchanged

for many years. With the exception of the 2017 closing of northernmost Runway 9/27, the

airport’s airfield is basically the same now as it was in the early 1990s. There have been no

runway extensions or widenings, and no expansions to the taxiway system. Furthermore, the

airport’s apron and hangar development are also largely the same as they were 25 years ago.

One of the few major changes to the airport over that time was the installation of REILs on

Runway 26 in the 1990s.

The pattern of capital investment at Fulton County Airport has

then been one of maintenance. In 2006, the airport received

$82,650 of FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding to

replace its perimeter fencing. In 2007 and 2008, the airport

received a combined $2.13 million to rehabilitate and

reconstruct taxiways and update its airport master plan.

However, in 2016, United Parcel Service (UPS) announced plans

to build a massive $400 million distribution center directly

northeast of Fulton County Airport’s Runway 26. This 1.2

million-square-foot facility opened in October 2018 and is

located at the intersection of State Route 70 (Fulton Industrial

Boulevard NW) and Sandy Creek Road (development as of March 2018 shown in Figure 2-3).

The UPS Majestic Logistics Center is expected to add 1,250 employees to the already 14,000

people employed by UPS throughout Georgia. The location of the center is meant to leverage


2-4

both the strengths of Fulton County Airport and the substantial industrial development along

State Route 70 (Fulton Industrial Boulevard NW). The distribution center is on airport

property as part of a long-term lease, and part of the overall project is an effort to expand

corporate hangar availability at the airport. This massive new economic engine on the airport

will almost surely lead to a higher level of aviation activity in the coming years.5 6

Figure 2-3: UPS Majestic Logistics Center on FTY

Source: Google Earth, 2018.

5 “$400 Million Investment Includes Advanced Automation and Provides Expanded Capacity to Better Serve UPS Customers,” United Parcel Service, 2016. 6 “UPS To Build $400 Million Logistics Center on Fulton County Property,” Fulton County, Georgia, 2016.


2-5

Figure 2-4 summarizes the recent development timeline at Fulton County Airport. Compared

to several of its peer airports, it has not experienced much change in recent history in terms of

airfield improvements. However, the addition of the UPS facility has the potential to be a

catalyst for not only increased activity but new airfield developments. The FAA’s National Plan

of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) estimates that for the next five years (2019 through

2023), Fulton County Airport will have an estimated development cost of over $17.8 million.

This includes new development as well as maintenance of existing facilities.


2-6

Figure 2-4: FTY Development Timeline

Abbreviations: RW = runway.

Source: CDM Smith, Fulton County Airport-Brown Field, Google Earth, United Parcel Service.

The lack of recent airfield developments may be partly reflected in recent activity trends at

the airport.

Figure 2-5 shows 10-year trends in total based aircraft and operations at Fulton County

Airport. Like most other airports, including the peer airports detailed later in this chapter,

Fulton County experienced losses in both metrics during the recession of 2007 to 2009.

However, unlike many airports, activity at Fulton County continued to decline post-recession,

albeit at a lower rate. Overall, from 2007 through 2017, aircraft operations declined from over

122,000 to less than half of that in 2017 with 60,000, an average annual decrease of 6.9

percent. Based aircraft, meanwhile, declined from 174 in 2007 to 60 in 2017, an average

annual decrease of 10.1 percent. As stated, decreases post-recession were less pronounced as

operations declined at a lower rate of 2.3 percent from 2010 to 2017. Based aircraft still

decreased at a significant rate, however, even if the 9.7 percent annually from 2010 to 2017 is

lower than the full 10-year average of 10.1 percent.

Figure 2-5: Operations and Based Aircraft Trends at FTY

Source: FAA 5010 Airport Master Record, FAA Terminal Area Forecasts.

Rec

essi

on

Po

st- R

ecession


2-7

Peer Airport Overviews The following sections provide brief overviews for each of the nine peer airports, including discussions of airport environs, 10-year histories of operational activity and based aircraft, and how recent development projects and expansions may have impacted activity trends.

Cobb County International Airport-McCollum Field (RYY) Cobb County International Airport-McCollum Field is a 309-acre facility located

approximately 25 miles northwest of Atlanta in Cobb County, Georgia. The airport is owned

and operated by Cobb County, and with over 68,000 total aircraft operations in 2017 was the

ninth busiest airport in the state by that measure. The airport has one runway, the 6,295-foot

Runway 9/27, with operations supported by a precision approach path indicator (PAPI) VGSI,

MALSF, and multiple IAPs. The airport has two IAPs capable of minimums of 250-foot cloud

ceiling and ¾-mile visibility, ILS and LPV approaches on Runway 27.

Cobb County International is a designated reliever airport for Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta

International Airport and among the most important and busiest general aviation airports of

the region. The airport is served by one full-service FBO, Hawthorne Global Aviation Services,

and is also served by several other businesses offering services such as flight training, aerial

tours, aircraft rental and sales, charter, aircraft maintenance, and aircraft customization.

The airport’s environs are heavily constrained by development (Figure 2-6). To the north,

airport expansion is limited by a rock quarry. At its closest, the edge of the quarry is located

only 400 feet from the runway. To the west, the airport is constrained by several roads and

highways (Main St./Old 41 Highway, McCollum Parkway, and Cobb Parkway/State Route

3/US 41) as well as commercial and industrial development. As a result of this development,

Runway 9 is displaced 1,062 feet. The airport is similarly constrained to the east and south by

commercial and industrial development.


2-8

Figure 2-6: Satellite Image and Airport Diagram for RYY

Source: Google Maps, FAA Terminal Procedures.

Major developments at Cobb County International over the last decade have included a

combination of airfield improvements and new services. In 2008, the airport received nearly

$8.5 million in federal AIP funding to rehabilitate and widen Runway 9/27 from 75 feet to 100

feet, greatly improving the airport’s ability to support larger jet aircraft. In 2015, the airport

celebrated both the activation of a new air traffic control tower and the opening of its new

United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facility. The latter made Cobb County an

ideal destination for business jet travelers both arriving to and departing from the region.

New taxiway connectors were also constructed in 2015, connecting to the displaced threshold

of Runway 9/27. This allowed for improved safety and efficiency of operations at the airport.

In 2016, the airport installed its MALSF lighting system on Runway 27.

Figure 2-7 summarizes the recent developments at Cobb County International. Beyond recent

developments, the NPIAS estimates that development costs through 2023 will reach just over

$6 million, accounting for both expansion and maintenance costs.


2-9

Figure 2-7: RYY Development Timeline

Abbreviations: ATCT = air traffic control tower; RW = runway; TW = taxiway; MALSF = medium-intensity approach

lighting system with sequenced flashing lights. Source: Cobb County International Airport-McCollum Field, FAA, Google Earth.

Cobb County International Airport experienced declines in both operations and based aircraft

in the years leading up to and during the recession of 2008 to 2010 (Figure 2-8). From 2007

to 2009, total operations at the airport dropped from over 110,000 to just over 60,000, a level

at which the airport has largely remained in the years since. Overall, from 2007 through 2017,

the airport lost an average of 4.7 percent of its total operations annually. However, since the

end of the recession, the airport actually experienced slight growth, adding 0.6 percent in

operations annually since 2010. The decline in based aircraft continued long after the end of

the recession, falling from 358 in 2007 to only 146 by 2013. However, a large spike in based

aircraft over the two ensuing years saw numbers again approach 300 aircraft. Overall, based

aircraft at Cobb County International decreased at an average of 3.3 percent annually over the

last decade, but saw a minimal increase (0.3 percent annually) since the end of the recession.

Figure 2-8: Operations and Based Aircraft Trends at RYY


Rec

essi

on

Po

st- R

ecession


2-10

DeKalb-Peachtree Airport (PDK) DeKalb-Peachtree Airport is a 745-acre facility located in Chamblee, Georgia, eight miles

northeast of downtown Atlanta in DeKalb County. The airport is owned and operated by

DeKalb County and is often simply referred to by its FAA identifier, PDK. With nearly 160,000

aircraft operations in 2017, DeKalb-Peachtree is the second busiest airport in Georgia,

surpassed only by Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International. The airport has three runways

and one heliport, with the 6,001-foot Runway 3R/21L being the airport’s primary runway.

Operations at the airport are supported by VASIs, PAPIs, REILs, a MALSF, and multiple IAPs.

The airport’s most advanced IAP is an instrument landing system (ILS) on Runway 21L,

capable of approaches with minimums of 343 feet for cloud ceiling and 7/8-mile visibility.

PDK is a designated general aviation reliever airport for Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta

International Airport, and its location makes it a frequent choice for corporate, business, and

general aviation aircraft visiting the Atlanta metropolitan area. The airport is served by three

full-service FBOs offering services such as ground handling, fuel sales, car rental, flight

planning, catering, and much more. The airport is also home to several aviation businesses

offering services such as flight training, aircraft rental and sales, aircraft maintenance, charter,

and aerial photography.

DeKalb-Peachtree is extremely constrained by existing development in its airport environs

(Figure 2-9). To the west, south, and east, the airport is surrounded by residential

development with scattered commercial development. To the north, the airport is constrained

by a mix of commercial and industrial development.

Figure 2-9: Satellite Image and Airport Diagram for PDK



2-11

Development at DeKalb-Peachtree Airport over the last decade has included significant

hangar and apron expansion as well as improvements in airport safety. In 2011, Atlantic

Aviation constructed a new hangar facility on the airport’s western apron area south of

Airport Road. A year later, the airport closed Runway 9/27, making way for development on

the land previously taken up by the runway. In 2013 and 2014, the western portion of the

deactivated Runway 9/27 was deconstructed and five new T-hangar complexes were built on

the site along with new aprons connecting to the other aprons in the area. This $8.2 million

development includes a total of 53 individual T-hangars and is expected to generate $500,000

annually in airport revenue. In 2017, a new 40,000-square foot box hangar opened directly

east of these T-hangar complexes with direct access to the parallel taxiway system. In 2018,

the airport installed an engineered materials arrestor system (EMAS) on Runway 21.

Figure 2-10 summarizes the recent development timeline at DeKalb Peachtree Airport. Over

the next five years, the NPIAS estimates the airport to have development costs of over $27

million, including both maintenance and expansion expenses.

Figure 2-10: PDK Development Timeline

Abbreviations: RW = Runway; TW = taxiway; EMAS = engineered material arrestor system.

Source: DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, Google Earth.

Figure 2-11 summarizes based aircraft and operations trends at DeKalb-Peachtree.

Operations at the airport experienced the expected decline both before and during the

recession but have only begun to recover in the last few years. From 2007 to 2014, operations

decreased from over 223,000 to only 137,000. Since then, they have increased steadily to

nearly 160,000 in 2017. Overall, operations at DeKalb-Peachtree decreased at an average

annual rate of 3.3 percent from 2007 to 2017. By comparison, based aircraft at the airport

experienced both a decline and early recovery from the recession, but have struggled to

maintain this growth since. Overall, the airport lost on average 7 percent of its total based

fleet annually from 2007 through 2017, dropping from 565 aircraft to 274.


2-12

Figure 2-11: Operations and Based Aircraft Trends at PDK


Chicago Executive Airport (PWK) Chicago Executive Airport is a 411-acre facility located in the Village of Wheeling in Cook

County, just over 20 miles north of downtown Chicago. Managed under the supervision of the

Chicago Executive Airport Board of Directors, the airport is an intergovernmental cooperative

of the City of Prospect Heights and the Village of Wheeling, Illinois. With over 77,000 total

operations in 2017, Chicago Executive was the seventh busiest airport in Illinois that year. The

airport has three runways, including its 5,001-foot primary, Runway 16/34. Operations at the

airport are supported by PAPIs, REILs, a runway lead-in light system (RLLS), and multiple

IAPs. The airport’s most advanced IAP is an LPV on runway 16 that allows for approaches

with a 262-foot cloud ceiling and 1-mile visibility minimums.

Chicago Executive Airport’s location in one of the largest metropolitan regions in the country

makes it an invaluable facility for corporate and general aviation. It is a dedicated reliever

airport for Chicago O’Hare International Airport and has convenient access to Interstates 294

and 94 and other major highways in the Chicago region. The greater Chicago area is home to

35 of Illinois’ 37 Fortune 500 companies, and Chicago Executive Airport’s three full-service

FBOs provide all the services required of high-end corporate aviation clientele.

As shown in Figure 2-12, the airport is constrained on the north, west, and south sides by

dense industrial, commercial, and residential development, as well as by roadways – Hintz

Road to the north, Wolf Road to the west, and Palatine Road to the south. The airport is also

constrained to the east by State Route 21 and large areas of parkland.

Rec

essi

on

Po

st- R

ecession


2-13

Figure 2-12: Satellite Image and Airport Diagram for PWK


Most of Chicago Executive Airport’s recent development activity has involved new hangar and

apron development and taxiway expansion or realignment. Apron expansion in the airport’s

northeast area was completed by 2010 and ready for T-hangar development. In 2011, six new

eight-unit T-hangar complexes were built on this site. From 2010 to 2012, T-hangar

complexes and associated aprons in the south part of the airport were demolished so that the

parallel taxiway to Runway 16/34 could be extended to the runway threshold. In 2013 and

2014, $6.4 million in projects on Runway 16/34 improved grading and clearing, while an east

area general aviation apron was rehabilitated for just under $1 million. In 2015, Hawthorne

Global Aviation Services opened new facilities in the southeast area of the airport near the

intersection of Milwaukee Avenue and Palatine Road. The new complex includes hangar and

apron space in addition to new general aviation terminal facilities and generates over

$165,000 a year in revenue.

Figure 2-13 summarizes recent development at Chicago Executive Airport. Beyond recent

and current developments, an airport the size of Chicago Executive will have substantial

future costs for airfield maintenance. NPIAS development forecasts estimate that the airport

will need nearly $86 million in development funding between now and 2023.


2-14

Figure 2-13: PWK Development Timeline

Abbreviations: RW = runway; TW = taxiway.

Source: Chicago Executive Airport, Google Earth.

Like most other airports included in this analysis, Chicago Executive Airport has experienced

declines in both operations and based aircraft in recent years, particularly during the

recession years (Figure 2-14). From 2007 to 2009, airport operations decreased from over

118,000 to just over 85,000. However, in the years since, this decline has been far slower,

despite operations not recovering to pre-recession levels. Overall, operations at the airport

have declined by 4.2 percent annually, but only 2.1 percent annually since the end of the

recession in 2010. By comparison, the decline in the airport’s based fleet has been far more

steady and gradual. The only year that Chicago Executive’s based fleet has grown over this

period was from 2015 to 2016. Overall, the airport has lost approximately 5 percent of its

total based aircraft each year since 2007.

Figure 2-14: Operations and Based Aircraft Trends at PWK


Cincinnati Municipal Airport-Lunken Field (LUK) Cincinnati Municipal Airport-Lunken Field is a 1,140-acre facility located six miles east of

downtown Cincinnati in Hamilton County, Ohio. The airport is owned and operated by the City


2-15

of Cincinnati, and with over 82,000 operations in 2017 was the fifth busiest airport in Ohio at

that time. The airport has three paved runways, including its 6,101-foot primary, Runway

3R/21L. Operations at the airport are supported by PAPIs, REILs, a MALSR, and several IAPs.

The airport’s most advanced IAP is an ILS on Runway 21L that supports minimums of 275 feet

for cloud ceiling and ¾-mile for visibility.

Lunken Field is classified as a designated reliever airport of Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky

International Airport but also supports considerable air taxi activity through Ultimate Air

Shuttle. The airport is among the most important general aviation airports in the Cincinnati

region and is home to three full-service FBOs, as well as two flight schools and several aircraft

sales, management, leasing, and charter companies.

The airport is constrained on all sides by various developments and natural features (Figure

2-15). To the northwest, the airport is held in by Wilmer Avenue, commercial and industrial

development, and hilly terrain that also has residential development. To the southwest, the

airport is constrained by residential and commercial development and eventually by the Ohio

River. To the east and southeast, the airport is constrained by the Little Miami River, hilly

terrain, and the Little Miami River State Scenic Park. Finally, to the north the airport is

constrained by a golf course and Beechmont Avenue.

Figure 2-15: Satellite Image and Airport Diagram for LUK


In the last decade, Lunken Field has received over $5.1 million in federal AIP funding for both

airport improvements and maintenance, much of which has been for improving lighting and

navigation at the airport. In 2008, the airport received over $330,000 to install new


2-16

navigational aids (NAVAIDs), while in 2012 it received over $275,000 to install new medium

intensity runway lighting (MIRL) on its secondary runways, Runway 3L/21R and Runway

7/25. In 2016 and 2017, the airport was given over $3.7 million to rehabilitate Runways

3L/21R and 3R/21L. Part of this project also included installing distance-to-go signage on

Runway 3L/21R. In 2017 and 2018, new hangars and aprons were constructed in the

southernmost part of the airport near the Runway 3R/21L threshold. This development also

included a connector to the airport’s taxiway system.

Figure 2-16 summarizes the recent development at Lunken Field, particularly the airport’s

efforts towards expansion over the last 10 years. Beyond current activities, the FAA NPIAS

forecasts that the airport will need approximately $3.8 million in maintenance and expansion

funding through 2023. While this is a low number compared to other airports on this list (and

the lowest of all airports involved), the airport very recently rehabilitated two of its runways,

lowering its immediate need for maintenance funding.

Figure 2-16: LUK Development Timeline

Abbreviations: RW = runway; NAVAID = navigational aids.

Source: Cincinnati Municipal Airport-Lunken Field, FAA, Google Earth.

Lunken Field has had the greatest success in terms of operational growth of any airport

included in this analysis ( Figure 2-17). While it experienced some decline during the

recession years, losing over 12,000 operations from 2007 to 2009, it has recovered to levels

not even experienced before the recession. Overall, the airport has gained 1.3 percent in

operations annually from 2007 to 2017. When looking only at post-recession years this

number is even more significant, with the airport gaining 3.5 percent in total operations on

average every year since 2010. The airport has not fared as well with its based fleet, however,

as it has lost based aircraft numbers nearly every year since 2007. Overall, the airport lost an

average of 6.1 percent of its based fleet annually from 2007 to 2017.


2-17

Figure 2-17: Operations and Based Aircraft Trends at LUK


Concord Regional Airport (JQF) Concord Regional Airport is a 750-acre facility located approximately 17 miles northeast of

Charlotte in Cabarrus County, North Carolina. The airport is owned and operated by the City

of Concord, North Carolina, and with over 65,000 aircraft operations in 2017 was the 10th

busiest airport in the state. The airport has one runway, the 7,400-foot Runway 2/20.

Operations at the airport are supported by PAPIs, REILs, a MALSR, and multiple IAPs. The

most advanced IAP is an ILS on Runway 20 that is capable of approaches with a 200-foot

cloud ceiling and ½-mile visibility.

Concord Regional Airport is classified as a primary, non-hub commercial service airport and

provides scheduled service by Allegiant Airlines. The vast majority of the airport’s operations

are general aviation activity, however, and the airport is one of the most important

connections in the Charlotte region for business aviation. Quick access to Interstate 85

enhances the airport’s role in the business aviation community. The airport operates its own

full-service FBO, offering fuel sales, flight planning, car rental, and ground handling, among

many other services.

The airport is constrained on all sides by a combination of mixed development and roadways

(Figure 2-18). To the east, the airport is constrained by Interstate 85 and industrial

development. To the south and southwest, the airport is hemmed in by a combination of

commercial development, wetlands, and residential development. To the west, the airport is

constrained by industrial, commercial, and residential development. And to the north, the

airport is blocked by a rock quarry.

Rec

essi

on

Po

st- R

ecession


2-18

Figure 2-18: Satellite Image and Airport Diagram for JQF


Over the past 10 years, the $13.7 million awarded to Concord Regional Airport is the second

most AIP funding for any airport included in this list after only Allegheny County Airport. The

most significant of these projects was the construction of a new terminal facility near the

southern end of the airport’s runway. The terminal, which accounted for over $6.4 million of

the AIP total, is over 25,000 square feet in size and includes a new automobile parking lot and

apron. Another significant federally-funded project was reconstructing Runway 2/20 to

improve its ability to handle aircraft weighing 172,000 pounds. This project, which was

completed in 2018, also included improvements to the airport’s MALSR. Other recent projects

at the airport have included hangar and apron development near the area now occupied by

the terminal and perimeter fencing construction in 2016.

Figure 2-19 summarizes recent developments at Concord Regional. Despite these massive

recent undertakings, the FAA NPIAS forecasts that the airport will still demand significant

development funding in the coming years, estimating that it will need approximately $70

million by 2023.

Figure 2-19: JQF Development Timeline


2-19

Abbreviations: RW = runway.

Source: Concord Regional Airport, FAA, Google Earth.

Figure 2-20 summarizes 10-year trends in total operations and based aircraft at Concord

Regional Airport. Despite some minor fluctuations – most notably in operational counts

during the recession – the airport has experienced relatively steady activity over this period.

Overall, operations are essentially unchanged since 2007 (an average annual decrease of only

0.1 percent) and since the end of the recession in 2010 have increased at an average rate of

1.7 percent annually. By percentage lost, based aircraft appear to have declined more than

operations (0.6 percent annual loss from 2007 to 2017), but with only 11 based aircraft lost

over the 10-year period, this is hardly significant. Overall, Concord Regional Airport

experiences some of the most stable activity of any airport in this analysis.

Figure 2-20: Operations and Based Aircraft Trends at JQF


McKinney National Airport (TKI) McKinney National Airport is a 778-acre facility located 33 miles north of downtown Dallas in

McKinney, Texas in Collin County. The airport is owned and managed by the City of McKinney

and with over 108,000 operations in 2017 was the 12th busiest airport in Texas that year. The

airport has one runway, the 7,002-foot Runway 18/36. Operations are supported by PAPIs, a

Rec

essi

on

Po

st- R

ecession


2-20

MALSR, and multiple IAPs. The most advanced IAP at the airport is an ILS on Runway 18

capable of approaches with a 200-foot cloud ceiling and ½-mile visibility.

McKinney National is a reliever to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, and because it is

located within that airport’s Class-B airspace, aircraft arrival and departure times are

simplified and made more efficient. The airport is home to some of the largest and busiest

corporate flight departments in the entire Dallas-Fort Worth region. The airport’s FBO,

McKinney Air Center, has been voted the best FBO in the country three times by the Flight

Plan Pilots’ Choice Awards.

McKinney National is only truly constrained to the west by industrial and residential

development (Figure 2-21). To the north, east, and south are large areas of agricultural

development that, while not developable at the moment, do not represent as high a hurdle to

expansion as does the built development.

Figure 2-21: Satellite Image and Airport Diagram for TKI


McKinney National Airport has one of the most significant recent development histories of

any airport included in this analysis. 2008 alone was an incredibly active year for

development at the airport, with an extension to the airport perimeter road, fuel farm

expansions bringing the airport’s total storage to 237,000 gallons, taxilane development, and

an overhaul to the airport’s security access management system. The latter included

implementing an integrated network requiring airport-issued access cards, controlled gates,

and enhanced surveillance. In 2011, the airport constructed and opened a new air traffic

control tower. In 2012, the airport constructed a new Runway 18/36 to the east of the


2-21

existing runway. The new runway measures 7,400 by 150 feet, replacing the previous Runway

18/36 that measured 7,000 feet by 100 feet and was converted into a parallel taxiway. The

new airport is capable of supporting aircraft up to 450,000 pounds double tandem, such as a

Boeing 767. Finally, in 2013 the airport acquired its only FBO to help increase the airport’s

level of self-sufficiency and revenue streams. The acquisition of the FBO included the

purchase of five large box hangars, 93 T-hangar units, a passenger terminal and office

building, and a 48-acre, 33-year land lease.

Figure 2-22 summarizes recent development at McKinney National. The airport is expected

to command a significant development budget in the coming years, albeit less so than several

other airports in this analysis. In total, the NPIAS forecasts estimate that the airport will

require a development budget of over $17 million through 2023.

Figure 2-22: TKI Development Timeline

Abbreviations: RW = runway; FBO = fixed-base operator; ATCT = air traffic control tower.

Source: McKinney National Airport, Google Earth.

McKinney National Airport has experienced some of the most positive overall growth of any

airport in this analysis (Figure 2-23). Although it experienced a decline in operations during

the recession, it has recovered to surpass pre-recession levels, even accounting for a dip in

activity from 2016 to 2017. Overall, the airport experienced 0.3 percent annual growth in

operations from 2007 to 2017. Since the end of the recession, however, the airport has seen

faster growth than any other airport in this analysis, growing at an average annual rate of 4.7

percent. The airport’s growth in based aircraft has been even more significant. Although it has

experienced slight declines in the last two years, it has still experienced an average annual

increase of 6.7 percent each year since 2007, nearly doubling its based fleet from 142 in 2007

to 274 in 2017.


2-22

Figure 2-23: Operations and Based Aircraft Trends at TKI


Allegheny County Airport (AGC) Allegheny County Airport is a 432-acre facility located approximately 10 miles southeast of

downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The airport is owned and managed by the Allegheny

County Airport Authority. With over 60,000 total aircraft operations in 2017, it was the eighth

busiest airport in the state during that year. The airport has two runways and one helipad,

including its 6,501-foot primary, Runway 10/28. Operations at the airport are supported by a

VASI, REILs, MALSR, and multiple IAPs. The most advanced IAP at the airport is the ILS on

Runway 28, capable of approaches with a 250-foot cloud ceiling and ½-mile visibility.

Allegheny County Airport is a designated reliever facility for Pittsburgh International Airport

and the most important general aviation airport for business activity near Pittsburgh. The

airport is home to corporate flight departments for many of the region’s largest corporations,

and business aviation at Allegheny County is supported by two full-service FBOs. Allegheny

County is also an important location for aviation education, with flight training offered by the

Pittsburgh Flight Training Center and the Pittsburgh Institute of Aeronautics offering degree

programs in aviation maintenance and avionics.

The airport is largely constrained by development, roadways, and terrain (Figure 2-24). To

the west, a large drop in terrain after the Runway 10 end limits expansion, while similar drop-

offs constrain the airport to the north. To the south and east, a mix of commercial and

residential development constrains the airport, as does Lebanon Church Road.

Rec

essi

on

Po

st- R

ecession


2-23

Figure 2-24: Satellite Image and Airport Diagram for AGC


Over the past 10 years, Allegheny County Airport had the largest AIP funding budget of any

airport included in this analysis, with nearly $19 million in total federal funding. Much of this

funding was used for airport maintenance, with over $9 million invested in taxiway

rehabilitation and another $2.8 million going to apron rehabilitation. The airport also had

significant developments for expansion and upgrades across these years, with AIP funding

used in 2008 for perimeter fencing construction, in 2013 and 2014 for the purchase of new

snow removal equipment, and for obstruction removal at three points. In 2008, Allegheny

County also reoriented taxiways in the southwest area of the airport.

Figure 2-25 summarizes the most significant developments at Allegheny County Airport over

the past decade. Despite receiving large sums of federal funding for maintenance in recent

years, the airport is still estimated to need a substantial investment in the coming years.

NPIAS forecasts estimate $24 million in capital needs for the airport through 2023.


2-24

Figure 2-25: AGC Development Timeline

Abbreviations: TW = taxiway.

Source: Allegheny County Airport, FAA, Google Earth.

Figure 2-26 summarizes activity trends over the past 10 years at Allegheny County Airport.

Compared to other airports in this analysis, Allegheny County has experienced almost steady

decline in both operations and based aircraft over this period, although both have finally

begun to recover in recent years. The largest single-year loss in operations at the airport

occurred from 2008 to 2009 during the recession, but the airport only showed gains in four

years, including the past two. Overall, Allegheny County Airport lost an average of 3 percent of

its operations from 2007 to 2017. By comparison, the only year that the airport saw growth in

its based fleet was from 2016 to 2017, when it added 22 based aircraft to increase from 70 to

92, still far below the 2007 number of 128. On average, the airport lost 4 percent of its based

aircraft each year from 2007 to 2017.

Figure 2-26: Operations and Based Aircraft Trends at AGC


Spirit of St. Louis Airport (SUS) At 1,300 acres, Spirit of St. Louis Airport is the largest peer airport by land area included in

this study. The airport is located approximately 26 miles west of downtown St. Louis near

Chesterfield, Missouri. The airport is owned and operated by St. Louis County, and, with over

Rec

essi

on

Po

st- R

ecession


2-25

94,000 aircraft operations in 2017, was not just the third busiest airport in the state, but the

busiest non-commercial airport. The airport has two runways, with its 7,485-foot primary,

Runway 8R/26L, being the longest. Operations at the airport are supported by VASIs, MALSRs,

and several IAPs. The airport’s most advanced approaches are ILSs on both ends of Runway

8R/26L, each capable of 200-foot cloud ceiling and ½-mile visibility minimums.

Spirit of St. Louis is an important airport for the region that caters to all aspects of the general

aviation community, particularly business aviation, and is accessible to downtown St. Louis

via Interstate 64. The airport is served by three full-service FBOs, all of which offer services

such as fueling, car rental, aircraft maintenance, and flight planning. The airport is also home

to two flight schools and several businesses offering services such as charter, aircraft sales,

and avionics, among others.

Spirit of St. Louis is less constrained than several of the airports discussed in this chapter but

remains limited by development on most sides (Figure 2-27). To the south, terrain, a golf

course, and residential development all limit expansion, while commercial and industrial

development encroach on the airport to the north and east.

Figure 2-27: Satellite Image and Airport Diagram for SUS


The recent major developments at Spirit of St. Louis Airport have included a combination of

airfield safety improvements and expansion potential. In 2008, a new full parallel taxiway was

constructed north of the airport’s secondary runway, Runway 8L/26R. This taxiway greatly

increases the airport’s potential for development expansion to the north, and multiple taxiway

connectors have already been built to potential development sites. In 2011, the airport


2-26

constructed a ground run-up enclosure (GRE), making it one of the only general aviation

airports in the world to build a GRE for aircraft noise abatement during maintenance testing.

In 2015 and 2016 the airport reconstructed and expanded parts of its taxiway connector

system in the western portion of airport property. From 2015 to 2018, several T-hangar units

were removed from this area as part of this ongoing development.

Figure 2-28 summarizes major recent development projects at Spirit of St. Louis. The airport

is not anticipated to require a significant investment in the immediate future, as NPIAS

forecasts only estimate capital needs of $4.3 million through 2023, second lowest of all

airports included in this analysis.

Figure 2-28: SUS Development Timeline

Abbreviations: RW = runway; TW = taxiway; GRE = ground run-up enclosure.

Source: Spirit of St. Louis Airport, Google Earth.

Like countless other airports, Spirit of St. Louis experienced drops in activity both before and

during the recession of 2008 to 2010 ( Figure 2-29). The airport lost operations in each year

from 2007 to 2010, going from nearly 150,000 operations to under 100,000. Since the

recession, operations have remained largely steady between 90,000 and 110,000 annually.

Overall since 2007, the airport has lost an average of 4.3 percent of its operations annually.

However, since the end of the recession, this annual rate of decrease is only 0.2 percent. Based

aircraft recovered far better since the recession and only experienced a dramatic decrease in

the year directly before the recession. Overall, the airport has lost an average of 0.7 percent of

its based fleet each year from 2007 to 2017.


2-27

Figure 2-29: Operations and Based Aircraft Trends at SUS


St. Paul Downtown Airport Holman Field (STP) St. Paul Downtown Airport Holman Field is a 540-acre facility located directly across the

Mississippi River from downtown St. Paul in Ramsey County, Minnesota. It is also only a 12-

mile drive from downtown Minneapolis. The airport is owned and operated by the

Minneapolis St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission. With over 66,000 operations in 2017,

it is the fifth busiest airport in the state. The airport has three runways, with its 6,491-foot

Runway 14/32 being the longest. Operations are supported by PAPIs, REILs, a MALSR, and

several IAPs. The most advanced IAPs are an ILS and LPV serving Runway 14, both capable of

250-foot cloud ceiling and ¾-mile visibility minimums.

St. Paul Downtown is a designated reliever for Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, but

its prime location also means that it is one of the most important business airports in the

region. It is also the only reliever airport in the Minneapolis system with a runway at least

5,000 feet in length. The airport is served by two full-service FBOs that offer a wide range of

services such as car rental, fueling, aircraft maintenance, hangar parking, de-icing, oxygen,

catering, and more.

As can be seen in Figure 2-30, St. Paul Downtown is extremely constrained on all sides. To the

north and east, the airport’s expansion is limited by the Mississippi River. To the west and

southwest it is limited by a combination of industrial, commercial, and residential

development, and by U.S. 52.

Re

cess

ion

Po

st- R

ecession


2-28

Figure 2-30: Satellite Image and Airport Diagram for STP


The past decade of development at St. Paul Downtown airport has been focused more on

safety improvements than on expansion. In 2008, the airport built EMAS on both ends of

primary Runway 14/32. That same year, the airport constructed a floodwall to prevent

flooding from the Mississippi River. In 2016, the blast pad on Runway 13 was removed, and

the taxiway connectors for that runway end were reoriented so that aircraft exiting the

runway would not pass onto Runway 14/32.

Figure 2-31 summarizes the major development projects at St. Paul Downtown over the past

decade. The airport’s relatively modest development pattern is expected to continue in the

coming years, as NPIAS forecasts expect the airport to need a development fund of $8.5

million through 2023.


2-29

Figure 2-31: STP Development Timeline

Abbreviations: RW = runway; TW = taxiway; EMAS = engineered materials arrestor system.

Source: St. Paul Downtown Airport, FAA, Google Earth.

Over the past 10 years, St. Paul Downtown Airport has experienced one of the most dramatic

losses in operational activity as any airport included in this analysis (Figure 2-32). Even with

a significant recovery from 2016 to 2017, the airport has lost an average of 6.2 percent of its

annual operations each year since 2007. It also showed none of the post-recession recovery

other airports experienced, losing 3.7 percent annually since 2010, worst of any airport

included. By comparison, its based fleet has shown far greater stability. While it has also

decreased at the rate of 2 percent annually since 2007, its 4.6 percent annual growth since the

end of the recession is among the best rates for any of the airports included in this analysis.

Figure 2-32: Operations and Based Aircraft Trends at STP


Comparison to Peer Airports The following sections compare facilities, services, activity levels, and community profiles of

Fulton County Airport to its peer airports. This provides a broader context for how the airport

performs across several categories while also providing insight into ways the airport may

expand or improve itself to grow activity levels in the coming years.

Rec

essi

on

Po

st- R

ecession


2-30

Airport Facilities and Services An airport’s ability to serve a certain level of service is determined primarily by its facilities.

Airside facilities such as runways, taxiways, NAVAIDs, and instrument approaches have a

direct impact on an airport’s operational safety and efficiency.

Table 2-1 details total land area, the number of runways at each airport, and primary runway

dimensions. Fulton County Airport is comparable to several of its peer airports in terms of

total acreage, and at 985 acres is only surpassed by Lunken Field in Cincinnati and Spirit of St.

Louis Airport. Having two runways gives Fulton County greater operational capacity than

peer airports with only one runway. However, its primary runway is shorter than the primary

runways of most peer airports. Many primary runways shown in the table below are well over

6,000 or even 7,000 feet, whereas Fulton County’s Runway 8/26 is 5,797 feet in length, longer

only than Chicago Executive Airport’s primary runway.

Table 2-1: Airside Facilities of FTY and Peer Airports (1 of 2)

Associated City

Airport Name Acreage Number of Runways

Primary Runway

Primary Runway Area

Atlanta, GA Fulton County-Brown Field 985 2 8/26 5,797 x 100

Atlanta, GA Cobb County Intl-McCollum Field

309 1 9/27 6,295 x 100

Atlanta, GA DeKalb-Peachtree 745 3 3R/21L 6,001 x 100

Chicago, IL Chicago Executive 411 3 16/34 5,001 x 150

Cincinnati, OH Cincinnati Muni-Lunken Field 1,140 3 3R/21L 6,101 x 150

Concord, NC Concord Regional 750 1 2/20 7,400 x 100

Dallas, TX McKinney National 778 1 18/36 7,002 x 150

Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny County 432 2 10/28 6,501 x 150

St. Louis, MO Spirit of St. Louis 1,300 2 8R/26L 7,485 x 150

St. Paul, MN St. Paul Downtown Holman Field

540 3 14/32 6,491 x 150

Source: FAA 5010 Airport Master Record.


2-31

Table 2-2 details other operational facilities at Fulton County and its peer airports. A full

parallel taxiway greatly increases operational efficiency, capacity, and safety. Fulton County

Airport has a full parallel taxiway serving its primary runway, as do all of its peer airports

other than Lunken Field. However, Lunken Field’s primary runway is served by a full-length,

non-parallel taxiway system that provides similar benefits. Fulton County’s NAVAIDs and IAP

are very comparable to those at peer airports, allowing for extremely low approach

minimums and safer, more efficient operations during times of inclement weather.


2-32

Table 2-2: Airside Facilities of FTY and Peer Airports (2 of 2)

Associated City

Airport Name Taxiway Type NAVAIDs Best Instrument

Approach

Atlanta, GA Fulton County-Brown Field Full Parallel VGSI/REIL/ALS LPV (250' and 3/4 mile)

Atlanta, GA Cobb County Intl-McCollum Field Full Parallel VGSI/ALS ILS (200' and 3/4 mile)

Atlanta, GA DeKalb-Peachtree Full Parallel VGSI/REIL/ALS ILS (343' and 7/8 mile)

Chicago, IL Chicago Executive Full Parallel VGSI/REIL/ALS LPV (262' and 1 mile)

Cincinnati, OH Cincinnati Muni-Lunken Field Full Non-Parallel VGSI/REIL/ALS ILS (275' and 3/4 mile)

Concord, NC Concord Regional Full Parallel VGSI/REIL/ALS ILS (200' and 1/2 mile)

Dallas, TX McKinney National Full Parallel VGSI/ALS ILS (200' and 1/2 mile)

Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny County Full Parallel VGSI/REIL/ALS ILS (250' and 1/2 mile)

St. Louis, MO Spirit of St. Louis Full Parallel VGSI ILS (200' and 1/2 mile)

St. Paul, MN St. Paul Downtown Holman Field Full Parallel VGSI ILS (250' and 3/4 mile)

Source: FAA 5010 Airport Master Record, FAA Terminal Procedures.

Table 2-3 summarizes some key aviation services available at Fulton County Airport and its

peer airports. With two FBOs, the airport has as many FBOs as the majority of its peers. Fulton

County Airport and all of its peers have at least one based flight school and on-site rental car

company, two key services for very different sectors of the general aviation community. In

addition, Fulton County Airport has on-call U.S. Customs and Border Protection service, a

service shared by all of its peers other than Concord Regional Airport and Allegheny County

Airport.

Table 2-3: Key Aviation Services of FTY and Peer Airports

Associated City

Airport Name Number of FBOs

Based Flight Schools

On-Site Rental Car

U.S. Customs

Atlanta, GA Fulton County-Brown Field 2 Yes Yes Yes


1 Yes Yes Yes

Atlanta, GA DeKalb-Peachtree 3 Yes Yes Yes

Chicago, IL Chicago Executive 3 Yes Yes Yes

Cincinnati, OH Cincinnati Muni-Lunken Field 3 Yes Yes Yes

Concord, NC Concord Regional 1 Yes Yes No

Dallas, TX McKinney National 1 Yes Yes Yes

Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny County 2 Yes Yes No

St. Louis, MO Spirit of St. Louis 3 Yes Yes Yes


2 Yes Yes Yes

Source: Airport websites, FAA 5010 Airport Master Record.

In terms of airside facilities and general aviation services, Fulton County Airport is extremely

competitive with its peer airports.

Aviation Activity As discussed above, Fulton County Airport experienced a decline in aviation activity not just

during the recession of 2008 to 2010, but in the post-recession years as well, when many

airports’ activity was recovering. The following sections compare recent trends in aircraft

operations at Fulton County to those at its peer airports.


2-33

Aircraft Operations Trends

Figure 2-33 summarizes operation trends at Fulton County and its peer airports from 2007

to 2017. While nearly every airport on the list lost operations over this period, Fulton County

experienced the most dramatic decline in operations, losing an average of 6.9 percent

annually from 2007 to 2017. Fulton County also did not recover after the recession in the

same manner as its peers, losing an average of 2.3 percent of its aircraft operations from 2010

to 2017, more than any of its peer airports except St. Paul Downtown. Most peer airports

showed positive growth in operations over this time, even if Lunken Field is the only airport

to have surpassed its pre-recession highs.

Figure 2-33: Operation Trends at FTY and Peer Airports, 2007-2017


Fulton County Airport was far more competitive in terms of operational volume at the

beginning of the 10-year study period than it is today. In 2007, the airport’s 122,196

operations were above the average of its peer airports (116,811 operations). However, as

early as 2009 the airport’s total operations were under the average and have remained so in

the years since. By 2017, Fulton County Airport’s total operations number was 45 percent

below the average of its peer airports (87,032 operations).

Rec

essi

on

Po

st-Recessio

n


2-34

Based Aircraft Trends

Fulton County Airport’s loss in based aircraft has been even more dramatic than its loss in

operations (Figure 2-34). From 2007 to 2017, the airport lost an average of 10.1 percent of

its based aircraft per year. None of its peer airports surpassed even a 7.0 loss annually. Unlike

operations, most peer airports did not experience a recovery in based aircraft after the

recession, with only Cobb County International, McKinney National, and St. Paul Downtown

showing growth in their based fleets. However, even compared to the peer airports that

continued to show decline, the 9.7 percent annual loss at Fulton County Airport was high.

Figure 2-34: Based Aircraft Trends at FTY and Peer Airports, 2007-2017


Fulton County Airport’s total based aircraft has been far below the average of its peer airports

throughout the entire 10-year study period. In 2007, the airport had 174 based aircraft, more

than 100 fewer than the average of its peer airports. By 2017, Fulton County’s based fleet had

decreased to only 60 aircraft, nearly 150 fewer than the average of its peer airports (214).

Rec

essi

on

Po

st-Recessio

n


2-35

Table 2-4 details the current fleet mix at Fulton County Airport and its peer airports. In total,

Fulton County has fewer based aircraft than any of its peers and is one of only two airports on

the list with fewer than 100 based aircraft, the other being Allegheny County Airport. The

airports on this list, including Fulton County, have an average of 199 based aircraft. Compared

to its peer airports, Fulton County’s based fleet is composed differently, with a higher

percentage of jets (47 percent) compared to the average among all airports (22 percent). This

would indicate that Fulton County’s overall activity still has a high percentage of business jet

operations but hosts fewer other general aviation activities such as recreational flying or

flight training compared to many of its peer airports.

Table 2-4: Based Aircraft Fleet Mix at FTY and Peer Airports

Associated City

Airport Name Single-Engine

Multi-Engine

Jet Total Fixed-Wing

Heli- copter

Military Total Based

Aircraft

Atlanta, GA Fulton County-Brown Field 21 9 28 58 2 0 60

Percent of Total Based Aircraft 35% 15% 47% 97% 3% 0%


184 28 56 268

15 0 283

Atlanta, GA DeKalb-Peachtree 185 43 32 260 14 0 274

Chicago, IL Chicago Executive 95 21 57 173 3 0 176

Cincinnati, OH Cincinnati Muni-Lunken Field 83 22 62 167 1 0 168

Concord, NC Concord Regional 114 15 32 161 5 0 166

Dallas, TX McKinney National 222 21 25 268 6 0 274

Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny County 49 9 30 88 4 0 92

St. Louis, MO Spirit of St. Louis 242 54 78 374 20 0 394


16 10 34 60

5 35 100

Average Number 121 23 43 188 8 4 199

Average Percent of Total Based Aircraft 61% 12% 22% 94% 4% 2% Source: FAA 5010 Airport Master Record, FAA Terminal Area Forecasts.

Community Profiles The following sections provide a 10-year overview of socioeconomic conditions, typically in

each airport’s associated city. While focusing only on the associated cities does not capture

full metro regions, it does provide an adequate snapshot of trends in the most densely

populated areas served. Factors analyzed include population, unemployment rate, and median

household income. Note that Cobb County International and DeKalb-Peachtree have been

removed from this analysis because they share Atlanta, Georgia as an associated city with

Fulton County Airport.


2-36

Table 2-5 summarizes population trends in each airport’s associated city from 2007 to 2017.

Overall, Atlanta experienced some of the most significant growth on the list. From 2007 to

2017, Atlanta’s population increased by a total of 12.4 percent or an average of 1.2 percent

annually. This 1.2 percent annual increase is higher than all associated cities other than St.

Paul, Minnesota and the aforementioned Concord, North Carolina.


2-37

Table 2-5: Population Trends of Associated Cities, 2007-2017

Associated City Airport Name 2007

Population 2017

Population Total Change

2007-2017 CAGR

2007-2017

Atlanta, GA Fulton County-Brown Field 432,511 486,299 12.4% 1.2%

Chicago, IL Chicago Executive 2,737,996 2,716,462 -0.8% -0.1%

Cincinnati, OH Cincinnati Muni-Lunken Field 297,304 301,305 1.3% 0.1%

Concord, NC Concord Regional 64,725 92,072 42.3% 3.6%

Dallas, TX McKinney National 1,240,044 1,341,103 8.1% 0.8%

Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny County 290,918 302,414 4.0% 0.4%

St. Louis, MO Spirit of St. Louis 350,759 308,626 -12.0% -1.3%


266,258 306,604 15.2% 1.4%

CAGR = compounded annual growth rate. Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

In December 2007, the unemployment rate in Atlanta was 5.9 percent, higher than the

national average of 5 percent, but comparable to that in several of the peer airports’

associated cities (Table 2-6). By December 2017, unemployment in Atlanta had fallen to 4.7

percent, level with the national average but higher than the average of these airports’

communities. The associated cities of all peer airports also saw the rate of unemployment

decrease over this period. The total improvement in unemployment rate in Atlanta (1.2

percent lower in 2017 than in 2007) is better than that in most peer airport associated cities,

surpassed only by St. Louis, Missouri and St. Paul, Minnesota.

Table 2-6: Unemployment Rate in Airports’ Associated Cities, 2007-2017

Associated City Airport Name 2007 Unemployment

Rate 2017 Unemployment

Rate Change

2007-2017

Atlanta, GA Fulton County-Brown Field 5.9% 4.7% -1.2%

Chicago, IL Chicago Executive 5.9% 5.3% -0.6%

Cincinnati, OH Cincinnati Muni-Lunken Field 5.2% 4.3% -0.9%

Concord, NC Concord Regional 4.1% 4.0% -0.1%

Dallas, TX McKinney National 4.5% 3.3% -1.2%

Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny County 4.3% 4.2% -0.1%

St. Louis, MO Spirit of St. Louis 7.4% 3.9% -3.5%


4.4% 2.9% -1.5%

Note: Unemployment rates from December of the represented years. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Household income is an indicator of the purchasing power of a region for goods and services

such as aviation. The higher the income, the higher the purchasing power. Household income

is used in this analysis in lieu of per capita personal income because the U.S. Census Bureau

publishes household income estimates at the city level every year, more frequently than it

publishes estimates of per capita personal income. Median income is used instead of mean

income because it removes outliers and is more representative of a true average of the

population.

Table 2-7 summarizes median household income in each airport’s associated city in 2007 and

2017. In 2007, the median household income in Atlanta was $55,169, higher than the average

of all associated cities listed ($49,124) but lower than the national average at the time


2-38

($58,772).7 By 2017, this number had increased to $57,597, still higher than the averages of

all associated cities of peer airports ($51,485) but lower than the national average ($61,372).

For Atlanta, this represented a total increase of 4.4 percent and average annual increase of 0.4

percent. This average annual rate is comparable to that of most other associated cities of peer

airports.

Table 2-7: Median Household Income in Airports’ Associated Cities, 2007-2017

Associated City

Airport Name 2007 Median

Household Income

2017 Median Household

Income

Total Change

2007-2017

CAGR 2007-2017

Atlanta, GA Fulton County-Brown Field $55,169 $57,597 4.4% 0.4%

Chicago, IL Chicago Executive $53,241 $55,295 3.9% 0.4%

Cincinnati, OH Cincinnati Muni-Lunken Field $38,617 $38,938 0.8% 0.1%

Concord, NC Concord Regional $65,648 $67,844 3.3% 0.3%

Dallas, TX McKinney National $47,954 $50,627 5.6% 0.5%

Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny County $37,865 $45,851 21.1% 1.9%

St. Louis, MO Spirit of St. Louis $40,003 $41,441 3.6% 0.4%

St. Paul, MN St. Paul Downtown Holman Field $54,497 $54,290 -0.4% 0.0%

Average $49,124 $51,485 CAGR = compounded annual growth rate.

Note: All numbers in 2017 dollars. Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Based on the factors of population growth, unemployment rate, and median household

income, Fulton County Airport serves a city that is very similar to those served by its peer

airports. Beyond Atlanta, the entire Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA metropolitan area is

one of the most active economic regions in the country. In 2017, the region ranked 10th among

all U.S. metropolitan regions with a gross domestic product (GDP) of $334 billion and steady

growth over the last several years (Table 2-8). Such a high level of economic activity should

support not just robust activity at one, but several high-end general aviation airports such as

Fulton County Airport and its regional peers Cobb County International and DeKalb-

Peachtree.

Table 2-8: Metro GDP in Airports’ Associated Cities, 2017

Airport Name Metropolitan Area 2017 Metro

GDP

National Rank by

GDP

Fulton County-Brown Field Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA $334 Billion 10

Chicago Executive Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI $583 Billion 3

Cincinnati Muni-Lunken Field Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN $119 Billion 29

Concord Regional Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC $147 Billion 21

McKinney National Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX $480 Billion 4

Allegheny County Pittsburgh, PA $131 Billion 25

Spirit of St. Louis St. Louis, MO-IL $140 Billion 22

St. Paul Downtown Holman Field

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI $226 Billion 15

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

7 The 2007 U.S. median household income number of $50,233 inflated to 2017 dollars.


2-39

Economic Impact Every peer airport included in this study has had its economic impact estimated in recent

years. The oldest of these estimates is 2011 for the Atlanta area airports and Allegheny

County Airport.

Table 2-9 summarizes the direct employment, payroll, and economic output estimated for

Fulton County and each of its nine peer airports (with payroll and output inflated to 2018

dollars). Fulton County Airport had economic impact numbers comparable to its peer

airports. Its 582 jobs and $118 million in direct output were lower than the averages of 777

jobs and $131 million in output, but its direct payroll of $42 million was higher than the

average.

Table 2-9: Economic Impact Estimates for FTY and Peer Airports

Associated City

Airport Name Direct Jobs

Direct Payroll

Direct Output

Year of Study

Atlanta, GA Fulton County-Brown Field 582 $42,265,000 $117,861,000 2018

Atlanta, GA Cobb County Intl-McCollum Field 419 $15,835,600 $75,976,300 2011

Atlanta, GA DeKalb-Peachtree 919 $41,263,700 $137,627,200 2011

Chicago, IL Chicago Executive 451 $22,828,500 $89,410,000 2011

Cincinnati, OH Cincinnati Muni-Lunken Field 918 $54,006,100 $181,701,000 2012

Concord, NC Concord Regional 1,140 $17,829,000 $102,553,500 2014

Dallas, TX McKinney National 423 $34,437,000 $116,310,000 2017

Pittsburgh, PA Allegheny County 815 $38,697,600 $179,185,800 2011

St. Louis, MO Spirit of St. Louis 1,689 $59,988,600 $215,499,800 2013

St. Paul, MN St. Paul Downtown Holman Field 410 $16,901,000 $89,454,500 2017

Average 777 $34,405,210 $130,557,910 Notes: The direct economic impacts of Spirit of St. Louis Airport and St. Paul Downtown Holman Field were

estimated based on available total economic impact data; payroll and output figures in 2018 dollars. Source: CDM Smith, NC DOT Division of Aviation, and St. Paul Downtown Holman Field.

A broader comparison can help put Fulton County Airport’s economic impacts in context.

Through the use of CDM Smith’s Airport Economic Comparator Tool (AECT), it is possible to

select a set of airports with similar characteristics from a large database of airport economic

impact results.


2-40

Table 2-10 compares the results of Fulton County Airport’s economic impacts with the

average impacts from all of the NPIAS reliever airports in the AECT, which includes the

economic impacts from more than 100 airports.


2-41

Table 2-10: Comparison of Total Economic Impact Estimates for FTY and Reliever Airports

Fulton County Economic Impact Comparison Metric

Fulton County Airport

AECT Reliever Airports Average

Difference between FTY and

AECT Airports Percent

Difference

Employment On-Airport 755 798 - 43 - 5.4%

Visitors 203 218 - 15 - 6.9%

Capital Improvements 272 69 203 296.3%

Total Employment 1,230 1,085 145 13.4%

Payroll On-Airport $62,033,000 $44,574,000 $17,459,000 39.2%

Visitors $4,877,000 $6,458,000 - $1,581,000 - 24.5%

Capital Improvements $8,293,000 $2,523,000 $5,770,000 228.7%

Total Payroll $75,203,000 $53,555,000 $21,648,000 40.4%

Output On-Airport $149,151,000 $122,594,000 $26,557,000 21.7%

Visitors $14,456,000 $18,083,000 - $3,627,000 - 20.1%

Capital Improvements $34,949,000 $10,807,000 $24,142,000 223.4%

Total Output $198,556,000 $151,485,000 $47,071,000 31.1%

Average Payroll $61,000 $49,000 $12,000 24.5%

Output per Employee $161,000 $140,000 $21,000 15.0%


Fulton County Airport lagged behind the average of other reliever airports in terms of visitor

impacts, which is largely driven by its lack of recovery in general aviation traffic since the

recession. However, its recent capital improvements helped boost its overall economic

impacts above the averages. Its total employment of 1,230 jobs is 13 percent above the

average of reliever airports. Its total payroll and output are 40 percent and 31 percent higher,

respectively, than the averages found at reliever airports. Of particular note is that Fulton

County Airport has an average payroll per employee that is more than 24 percent greater than

its peer reliever airports, and its output per employee is 15 percent higher, indicating that

jobs associated with Fulton County are better paying and more productive than at the average

reliever airport.

Fulton County Airport will continue to serve as an economic engine for the region and, as

activity recovers to pre-recession levels, its economic impact will grow. Additionally,

synergies between the airport and the UPS Majestic Logistics Center may generate additional

economic benefits once UPS starts operations.

Conclusion As a dedicated reliever airport constrained by surrounding development in a dense urban

environment, Fulton County Airport has several hypothetical peer airports throughout the

nation. Because of the constrained nature of their environs, these airports often have difficulty

expanding facilities or growing activity levels.

This peer assessment analyzed the airport and compared it to nine peer airports across

several characteristics such as airport facilities and services, community factors, and

economic impact, as well as providing an overview of the facilities and recent development

histories for each airport, along with a broader comparison of economic impacts among


2-42

reliever airports. In most categories, Fulton County Airport was found to be competitive with

its peers (Table 2-11).

Table 2-11: FTY Competitiveness with Peer Airports

Category Level of Competitiveness

Compared to Peer Airports

Details of Competitiveness

Airside Facilities Highly Competitive Comparable facilities to peer airports

Aviation Services Highly Competitive Comparable services to peer airports

Aircraft Operations Not Competitive 45% below average of analyzed airports

Based Aircraft Not Competitive 257% below average of analyzed airports

Community Trends: Population Highly Competitive Atlanta's population grew over 12% from 2007 to 2017

Community Trends: Unemployment

Somewhat Competitive Atlanta's 4.7% unemployment rate is near the average

Community Trends: Median Household Income

Somewhat Competitive

Atlanta's median household income is higher than the average of all included airport associated cities but lower than the national average.

Metro Region GDP Highly Competitive Atlanta metro region has the 10th highest metro GDP in the U.S.

Economic Impact: Employment Somewhat Competitive 27% below average

Economic Impact: Payroll Highly Competitive 12% above average

Economic Impact: Output Somewhat Competitive 19% below average

Source: CDM Smith.

However, the airport is not very competitive in indicators of airport activity such as aircraft

operations and based aircraft. In terms of both operations and based aircraft, Fulton County

Airport lags behind the average of its peers more now than it did a decade ago. In 2007, its

operational count was higher than this average but in 2017 it was 45 percent below the

average of the peer airports. In 2007, its based aircraft count was 56 percent below the

average and had fallen to 257 percent below the average by 2017.

In terms of recent developments, Fulton County Airport has undergone very few if any

expansion projects in the last 10 years. While not all of Fulton County’s peer airports have

undergone massive airfield expansions, several have done what they can to increase capacity

and efficiency within their constrained environs. Cobb County International Airport, for

example, widened its runway in and improved its taxiway system. DeKalb-Peachtree, Chicago

Executive, and Lunken Field have all expanded their hangar capacity in the past 10 years.

Concord Regional Airport strengthened its primary runway, making the airport more

attractive for large jet aircraft, while building a new terminal building. St. Paul Downtown

Airport and Allegheny County Airport both improved the efficiency of their taxiway systems.

However, there is no consistent relationship between these projects, an airport’s level of AIP

funding, community factors, and operations and based aircraft trends. Table 2-12 compares

several of these factors and shows that some clear relationships do exist. For example,

McKinney National Airport had five notable capacity/efficiency development projects in the

past 10 years and experienced the most rapid growth in operations and based aircraft of any

airport in the analysis. Concord Regional Airport, meanwhile, had a high level of both AIP

funding and capacity/efficiency projects and showed respectable growth in operations, if not

based aircraft.


2-43

Table 2-12: Summary of Recent Activity Levels and Investment at Peer Airports

Airport Name

Notable Capacity/ Efficiency Projects in

Past 10 Years

Total 2008-2017 AIP Funding

Operations CAGR

2010-2017

Based Aircraft CAGR 2010-2017

Associated City

Population CAGR

2007-2017

Associated City

Median Household

Income CAGR

2007-2017

Fulton County-Brown Field 0 $1,383,378 -2.3% -9.7% 1.2% 0.43%

Cobb County Intl-McCollum Field

5 $8,488,200

0.6% 5.6%

DeKalb-Peachtree 3 N/A* 0.3% -6.8%

Chicago Executive 5 N/A* -2.1% -5.7% -0.1% 0.38%

Cincinnati Muni-Lunken Field 4 $5,166,835 3.5% -4.8% 0.1% 0.08%

Concord Regional 3 $13,774,263 1.7% -1.2% 3.6% 0.33%

McKinney National 5 N/A* 4.7% 6.7% 0.8% 0.54%

Allegheny County 1 $18,809,679 -1.6% -3.8% 0.4% 1.93%

Spirit of St. Louis 2 N/A* -0.2% -0.8% -1.3% 0.35%

St. Paul Downtown Holman Field

1 $13,079,952

-3.7% 4.6% 1.4% -0.04%

Most positive trend Second most positive trend Third most positive trend

CAGR: compound annual growth rate. *The FAA does not have AIP grant history data available for these airports.

Source: FAA 5010 Airport Master Record, FAA Terminal Area Forecasts, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

However, most airports showed little consistency between development, funding, and

community trends and activity trends. For example, Allegheny County Airport spent more AIP

funding from 2008 through 2017 than any other airport researched but showed negative

growth in both operations and based aircraft after the recession. The only conclusion to be

made is that other factors, such as the wider aviation industry or local economic development

trends, are likely influencing activity levels as much as, if not more than, airport investment

and development.

What is clear, however, is that no capacity projects have taken place at Fulton County Airport

in recent years and the airport lags behind its peers in terms of activity. Its facilities and

services are all at levels that can support higher operational counts and a larger based fleet,

such as those the airport experienced in past years. While airfield development would likely

assist in bringing the airport’s activity back to levels seen in bygone years, outside factors

such as local economic development would probably have an even greater influence on such a

boon. The UPS Majestic Logistics Center, recently opened on Fulton County Airport, could be a

factor that will help the airport experience a new era of growth in the coming years. The

investments that the airport is making in the north terminal area are also expected to help

bolster activity at the airport.

fulton ounty airport-rown field – airport economic impact ...engineering, and consulting. output...

Documents