|
|
|
Saving the Airport Here are readers’ ideas for coping with this month’s Manager’s Choice dilemma. To post your own ideas, see the instructions at the bottom of this page.
I take issue with the idea that not having any airport or aviation background is an advantage. The various rules and regulations specific to the operation of an airport are so complicated and often unique that someone involved in the planning process better have a darn good grasp. If it’s not the manager or director responsible, he/she will need an undying faith in the assistants that do have that knowledge. If the current staff does not have the regulatory, grant and operational background, this would be my first place to look for shoring up a failing management team.
The second point where I would part company with the suggestions is in working the privatization issue as a bargaining chip. I agree that everyone--tenants, unions, politicians and citizens--is better served with a public airport when possible. As with other public services, a private company can and should drop unprofitable service while a public entity must continue the necessary programs. I would certainly include an airport in that mix for without reliable transportation no community can thrive.
One thing missing in the original description is any mention of the other aviation services an airport supplies. What kind of cargo operations are involved? How about military operations (I assume West Dakota has a modern cavalry)? There are plenty of opportunities beyond air-carrier systems to help keep the system running. As in any enterprise, diversity of income sources is desirable.
Still, the basic method to improve the situation is as Mr. Behn states, getting the participants to acknowledge and back the necessary changes. This includes economies of efficiency as well as developing new markets and reliable sources of revenue.
A.V. (Lex) Rutter
“The near-collapse of the US airline industry in the first few days following the terrorist attacks on America last Sept. 11 has laid bare for all to see the financial house of cards upon which much of modern commercial air travel is constructed. Without doubting for a minute the depths of the crisis, it still is possible to be stunned at the rapidity with which this industry — which by its own measure contributes directly or indirectly around 10% of US GDP — was brought to its knees.
“It is true that carriers already were in a weakened state, having been hit hard by the collapse of business travel, and were bleeding about $10 million more per day than they were taking in on an industry-wide basis before Sept. 11. Nevertheless, it also is true that even under ideal conditions airlines are extremely vulnerable to any unexpected disruption owing to the very nature of air transport. For example, it is a business in which inventory cannot be stored and perishes as soon as it is created. Its product is a commodity that has no intrinsic worth and is not particularly valued by its users. It is a business in which even the largest players have to borrow against tomorrow’s ticket sales in order to operate today’s flight schedule and in which up to 80% of costs are fixed in the short term regardless of whether the airline is operating or not.”
The fact that the airline pulled out should not be much of a surprise in the short term, and it is more important to focus on the long term. It is important to stay in contact with the airlines to see if, when and how service will be restored. It is also important to note that at most airports with only one airline, the airline is not generating a significant amount of revenue in comparision to other aviation users and even the total expenses of the airport.
I would echo Mr. Rutter’s comments about other aviation users. For Zenith City, I would venture that the majority of the use of the airport is likely general aviation, likely 90-95 percent, but of course the public generally only sees the passenger airline service. This in retrospect is a significant fault of the ZCAA and its executive director. Over-emphasis on airline service can be very detrimental particularly considering that these entities are like the 900-pound gorilla — they sit anywhere they want to. This is true in the recent past with cities like Colorado Springs with Western Pacific and Denver with Continental, and if communities of this size do not have a say with whether the airlines come or go, a community like Zenith City should not expect to be treated anything different.
It should be continually emphasized to the general public and community leaders that the airport facility is designed and maintained to support all aviation users, particularly as it relates to the airfield (runways, taxiways, apron). The only component which is different for an airport with airline service is the passenger terminal. All the rest of the airfield is essentially the same and still necessary regardless of what happens to the airline.
It is true that the ZCAA and community should be faulted with being more grandiose than it appears was necessary with the terminal. I would highly recommend that if it is not possible for an airline to return to Zenith City then the terminal, likely the showpiece welcoming place at the airport, be converted into a general aviation terminal to accomodate the unscheduled passengers to the community.
If airline service is expected to return, I recommend that the ZCAA, considering this is a small community with limited demand for airline service and general aviation, look closely at any synergies that can be developed to jointly accomodate the needs of airline passengers and general aviation in a common cluster of facilities. While there will be security restrictions in place on the airside of the terminal, there are still similar demands for passengers such as ground transportation, food and beverage, meeting rooms, etc.
Another component to consider is that likely the people from the West Dakota area have travel agencies which organize and conduct bus or airline charters. This terminal building is exactly that, a terminal. It can work airside for planes and landside for bus charters. These charters would likely not generate a lot of money but may make it possible to provide enough customers for services such as restaurants to keep the operations open and available to all customers in the terminal.
I would highly recommend that the privatization issue not be addressed even as a threat. I do not believe it is even financially feasible for a “public utility,” with the demand like that created in Zenith City, to be funded completly by private sources. I do not think it would be beneficial, since public opinion needs to be redirected to the truthful need of the airport, to make them think it is possible to privatize. Airports in communities of this size are much like city streets. They do not make money but certainly serve a public purpose in keeping the community connected to the national air transportation system through airlines and general aviation.
Kent Penney
The writer was an airport manager for nine years at two airports before being appointed to his current position.
Zenith City Airport is an “origin and destination” airport, not a “hub” airport. People arrive at the airport in time to get on their flight, and when they return, they retrieve their luggage, get in their cars and go home. They do not sit and wait in a restaurant for a connecting flight as they would at a hub airport. If the restaurants do not pay their way, let them go.
Most airports, over time, accumulate too many employees and then, when the traffic count slows down, transfer some of them to other areas of city government. If the airport is not maximizing it use of “passenger facility charges,” it should. Passenger automobile parking fees should also be maximized. With the downturn in airline service, landing fees, which have always been a major revenue source for airports, have been reduced. Only an economic recovery and/or new economic development will entice more people to fly and, in turn, entice the airlines to provide more flights, and thus more landing fees.
It is important for local government and local business organizations to promote economic recovery and new economic development, and not waste time, energy, and dollars promoting the “airport.”
Stewart Hobbs
Agree or disagree? If you think you have a better way to deal with this month's Manager's Choice dilemma or would like to expand on the approaches presented here, share your thoughts with other readers. Send your solution to mailbox@governing.com. Please include your name, location, government or business title or job description, and a daytime phone number (for verification purposes). |
 |
