airport management study

Final Report

Airport Management Study

Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority

February 6, 2009

Prepared for:

County of Lehigh and County of Northampton

In Association With:

Prepared by:

THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC.20 Corporate Woods Blvd Albany, New York 12211

The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority

Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Table of Contents Page 1-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................... See Separate Document SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1-1 SECTION 2 STAKEHOLDER SURVEY ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Survey Results...................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Survey Summary................................................................................................................ 2-19 SECTION 3 COMPARABLE AIRPORTS ANALYSIS .............................................................. 3-1 3.1 Comparable Airports Data Collection, Screening and Selection.............................. 3-1 3.2 Comparable Airports Overview........................................................................................ 3-4 3.3 Human Resources ............................................................................................................. 3-25 SECTION 4 AIR SERVICE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Analysis of Interview with LVIA...................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Comparison to Peer Airports ............................................................................................ 4-8 4.3 Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................................. 4-10 SECTION 5 ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 5-1 5.1 National Governance Models ........................................................................................... 5-2 5.2 National Organization of Operations Models ................................................................ 5-2 5.3 Governance of Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority ............................................. 5-4 5.4 Organizational Analysis.................................................................................................... 5-10 5.5 LNAA Departmental Analysis ........................................................................................ 5-12 SECTION 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 6-1 6.1 SWOT Components........................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 SWOT Results ..................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Summary............................................................................................................................... 6-5 APPENDICES


Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Introduction Page 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Lehigh County and Northampton County, Pennsylvania, retained The Louis Berger Group, Inc. in

association with Signet Human Resources Management and TranSystems (Study Team) to perform

the Airport Management Study of the Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority (LNAA) and Lehigh

Valley International Airport (LVIA).

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the airport functions to

include the current state of air service, policies, revenue goals, planning/engineering, contracts,

personnel, operational procedures, property management, and project management and to provide

recommended actions to enhance the value of Lehigh Valley International Airport (LVIA) to the

Lehigh Valley.

1.1 Study Scope

In order to accomplish the above study objectives, Berger defined a study scope which was

submitted to and approved by Lehigh and Northampton Counties. The scope provided for several

key study elements, including: a) to identify and gather relevant study information; b) methods for

evaluating information concerning LNAAs management and organizational structure; c) the

comparison of LNAA to comparable airports; d) the assessment of air service marketing and

development initiatives; e) organizational evaluation including a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities and Threats) analysis; and f) to report on findings and provide recommendations.

1.2 Study Process

The Study was conducted over approximately five (5) months and the process involved the

collection of various data and reports, the development and analysis of stakeholders perspectives by

conducting surveys and interviews, assessing information from comparable airports, attending Board

meetings, on-site observations, and completing exercises to evaluate the overall organization of

LNAA. These efforts culminate in the identification of findings and recommendations documented

as part of this report.



Data Collection The Study Team collected over 50 documents regarding LNAA on various

subjects. These included: governmental documents such as the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities

Act and LNAA By-Laws; financial, administrative and policy documents including LNAAs current

Financial Statement, New Board Member Orientation Presentation, LNAA Policies and Procedures

for Union Employees, and Policies and Procedures for Non-Bargaining Unit Employees; and

planning, operational and marketing documents such as LVIA Marketing and Advertising Package,

Airline Marketing Presentations, and the LVIA Airport Master Plan Update, among others.

The primary purpose for gathering and reviewing these documents was to provide the necessary

input needed for the Study Team to make accurate observations concerning the overall governance

of the Authority.

Development of Stakeholder Perspectives The study included an extensive effort to understand

the perspectives of various stakeholders (a stakeholder being defined as someone who has an

interest in LNAA or the Airport). To do this, multiple methods were used that included in-person

and telephone interviews, as well as a survey instrument that is discussed later in the report.

The interviews were primarily conducted in Lehigh County offices with members of the Study

Team. For logistical reasons, only a few of the participants found it necessary to be interviewed via

telephone. Over 40 individuals representing a cross-section of Airport Employees, Airport

Management, Board of Governors, County Administration, and Regional and Community

representatives (stakeholders) participated in the interview process each of which were

approximately 30 minutes in duration or longer.

In addition to those people that were interviewed, a parallel survey was conducted. Surveys were

conducted with each member of the LNAA Board of Governors, LNAA, appropriate Lehigh and

Northampton County officials and a cross section of regional and community representatives. A

total of 92 surveys were distributed electronically (web based) of which 48 people responded

representing a response rate of approximate 52%.

Assessment of Comparable Airports This component of the study effort identified five (5)

airports to compare LNAA against and evaluate common and best practices among them. To

choose the comparable airports, the Study Team identified airports that were in close proximity to



major domestic and international hubs, similar to LVIA. Additional criteria included the number of

passenger enplanements, existing governance type, multiple airport operator status, and FAA hub

classification. From these criteria, the study developed a list of potential comparable airports. After

further evaluation, the Study Team in coordination with the Counties chose the following five

comparable airports in which comparative data was collected and evaluated:

1. General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee, WI)

2. T. F. Green Airport (Providence, RI)

3. Orlando Sanford International Airport (Sanford, FL)

4. Harrisburg International Airport (Harrisburg, PA)

5. Stewart International Airport (Newburgh, NY)

Each of these comparable airports were reviewed and compared to LVIA in various categories. In

addition, the recent past and present activities regarding LVIAs Air Service Development activities

were also assessed and is reported Section 4. A comprehensive review of all air service development

marketing efforts was performed. Information was gathered through meetings with airport

marketing officials, through the collection of information on incentive plans, recent air service

development studies, and on other efforts tailored to market airlines.

Organizational Evaluation The Study Team performed an organizational evaluation to review

the data and information collected through the various study efforts discussed above. Included with

this effort was a SWOT analysis conducted with LNAA. The SWOT analysis was held at LNAA

offices and provided key inputs into the overall evaluation. This information as well as information

collected on the various governance models of todays airports in the United States and the

comparable airports in this study provided key input into the overall development of findings and

recommendations for this study.

Findings and Recommendations The Airport Management Study provides strategic findings

and recommendations for the Counties to consider for implementation in its effort to increase the

efficiency and effectiveness of airport operations with regard to the management of the Counties

three airports: Lehigh Valley International Airport, Queen City Airport, and Braden Airpark. The

essence behind each finding and recommendation identifies areas where the efficiency and

effectiveness of LNAA can be enhanced for the betterment of the Lehigh Valley as a whole.



1.3 Document Outline

This report is divided into multiple sections providing information on each of the efforts completed

for this comprehensive review. First, a standalone Executive Summary of the Study undertaking was

produced and highlights some of the findings and recommendations made during the study process.

The full results of the study can be found in Sections 1 through Section 6 as identified below.

Section 1 Introduction. Provides an introduction to the study presenting the studys scope and process.

Section 2 Stakeholder Research. Examines the stakeholder input process involving the information gathered as a result of the survey process.

Section 3 Comparable Airports Analysis. Identifies the basis on which comparable airports used for the study were selected and assesses LNAA and LVIA in comparison with

comparable organizations and airports in the areas of operations, management and

organizational structure.

Section 4 Air Service. Provides an overview of the air service marketing and development initiatives and of the overall efficiency and effectiveness of LNAAs approach toward air

service development LVIA.

Section 5 Organizational Analysis. Building on the data and analysis from Sections 2 and 3, provides a descriptive narrative of how LVIA compares in key areas. This section also

examines commonly used airport governance models, as well as the organizational and

governance structure of the LNAA.

Section 6 Findings and Recommendations. Provides a summary of the SWOT analysis and presents the findings made by the Study Team along with strategic recommendations to

be considered by the Counties and LNAA for implementation.



1.4 Key Project Staff

The following provide brief biographies of the key project staff that conducted this study.

Steven T. Baldwin, Senior Vice President Mr. Baldwin is responsible for Bergers National Aviation

Program and the delivery of all domestic aviation services throughout the firms network of offices. He brings

with him 27 years of airport and aviation experience to this effort. Prior to Joining Berger in 1996, he served

the NYSDOT Aviation Division for 14 years. There he had responsibility for the day-to-day operations of

Stewart International Airport in Newburgh, NY and Republic Airport on Long Island. While with the DOT

Aviation Division, he also directed the States planning and environmental programs for the State owned and

operated airports, in addition to providing staff services to two governor appointed commissions. In addition,

Mr. Baldwin served as the Governors congressional liaison to Congress on matters concerning overflight

noise, and served two years in the NYS Governors office as a senior advisor assigned to the Governors

Office of Regulatory Reform. He is an active commercial instrument rated multi-engine pilot and flight

instructor, and holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Airport Management from Florida Institute of

Technology and a Masters Degree in Public Administration from the Rockefeller College of the State

University of New York.

Russell B. Vachon, Senior Aviation Associate Mr. Vachon brings 4o years of transportation/aviation

industry experience to this study. Prior to joining The Louis Berger Group, Mr. Vachon was the Director of

Aviation for the New York State Department of Transportation where he managed various aviation

programs to include: annual grants to 85 eligible airports sponsors totaling an average of $5.5M for planning

and development which leveraged an average of $70M annually in FAA Airports Improvements Program

funds, ranking NY among the top three states in federal funds administered nationally; 100% State funded

grants to 38 airports for $10M; FAA-financed, $0.5M annual aviation system planning program; FAA 5010

inspections of 150 airports annually; specialized technical assistance to airports to address environmental,

financial and development needs; the operation of Stewart International and Republican Airports involving

the policy and decision-making oversight of 100 employees, coordination of programs with separate,

politically appointed, advisory commissions, the administration of both an $8 million annual operating

budget, completely underwritten with airport revenues, and a $10 million annual capital budget, as well as all

lease negotiation policy decisions. He also represented New York State in national associations: the Airports

Council International-North America serving as a member of the Government Affairs Committee, American

Association of Airports Executives, The National Association of Aviations Officials, and the New York

Airport Managers Association.



Marc C. Champigny, Management Associate Mr. Champignys experience includes financial, safety,

security, operational, and planning services at several airports of varying size and function. Having worked as

an Operations Coordinator at Morristown Municipal Airport and in the public sector for the New York State

Department of Transportations Aviation Services Bureau, Mr. Champigny brings a comprehensive base of

experience and a strong understanding of the airport operators requirements. As an Assistant Director, he

has managed projects relating to airport management, financial feasibility, market comparables, business

planning and strategy, rate analysis and modeling, master planning, and FAA 5010 safety inspections. As an

active Private Pilot, Mr. Champigny also brings unique experience related to aircraft operations. Mr.

Champigny holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Aviation Management from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical

University and a Masters Business Administration from the College of Saint Rose.


Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-1

2.0 STAKEHOLDER SURVEY

To review and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of LNAA and the Lehigh Valley

International Airport, a 15-point questionnaire was deigned to facilitate dialogue and gather key

information from Board of Governors members, Airport Management employees, and Non-

Management Airport employees, Regional Executives, Stakeholders and Non-Airport employees. In

conjunction with on-site interviews, the Study Team used online survey software to develop and

electronically distribute, via email, a comprehensive survey to obtain opinions and perceptions of the

Airport. Survey questions focused on the following areas:

Survey participants level of understanding of the Airports organizational structure; The level of economic importance of the Airport to the local community and the region; The current state of Airport service and its ability to meet air traveler needs; The Airports relationship with stakeholders and the general public; The effectiveness of Airport Management; and The effectiveness of Airport Authority public outreach and communication initiatives.

Throughout the survey development process, the Study Team worked closely with the Counties to

ensure survey questions would generate responses that provide the necessary information needed to

meet the Studys objective within the Studys scope of work. Typically, large survey invitation lists

are associated with lower response rates, thus it was important for the Study Team to obtain the

most focused and high-quality representatives to survey as possible. A complete list of proposed

survey participants was provided by Lehigh and Northampton Counties. The list included a

comprehensive cross-section of participants from Airport employees and Board members, to

Stakeholders and Regional Executives.

2.1 Survey Results

In order to obtain the most accurate responses in the opinion of the survey taker, the Study Team

prefaced the survey with an introduction that assured the confidentiality of participant identity by

explaining that survey results would be collected and presented to the Counties in aggregate form. A

copy of the survey questions are provided as an Appendix within this report.



The survey was opened and

distributed via email on

September 24, 2008 and was

closed on October 31, 2008.

Participants were sent

reminder emails bi-weekly if a

completed survey wasnt

received by the survey

administrator.

Ninety-two (92) survey

invitations were sent, of

which 48 completed surveys

were received, resulting in a

52% response rate. Metadata

compiled by survey systems that use email invitations indicate that the average survey response is

32.5%. As mentioned, a function of the survey software allowed the Study Team to selectively

follow up with non responders and improve the response rate. Despite the ambiguity of what

response rates mean, the credibility of survey statistics are often linked to response rates.

The demographic profile of survey respondents is shown on the following page in Figure 2.1,

Results of Survey Question 1. Of the total responses, 56% indicated they were either a Board of

Governors member or an Airport Employee, while 44% identified themselves as a Regional

Executive, an Airport Stakeholder or a Non-Airport Employee.



Figure 2.1- Results of Question 1

In order to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the Lehigh Valley International Airport from

an economic development and Airport management standpoint, the survey questions were designed

to assist the Study Team in understanding the respondents general perception of the Airport.

Following each question, the respondent was given the option to provide additional comments

related to their response.

Individual comments were analyzed and reviewed for consistency. Common characteristics were

identified among comments, which allowed the Study Team to make observations of the perception

and opinions of the current state of the Lehigh Valley International Airport.

Question 2

The survey asked the respondents to provide their overall perception of the Airport. Answers to this

question are provided in graphical form in Figure 2.2 on the following page. As the chart shows,

90% of all respondents feel that the Airport is a valuable economic asset. Only 10% either believe it

is just another mode of transportation or did not have an opinion. None of the respondents

believed that the Airport is an unnecessary asset.

31%

15%

10%

44%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Board of Governors Member

Airport ManagementEmployee

Non-Management AirportEmployee

Regional Executive, AirportStakeholder or Non-Airport

Employee

In regards to Lehigh Valley International Airport, how would you classify yourself?




To further analyze the survey responses, specific questions within the survey were cross-tabulated

what the respondents answered in question 1, In regards to LVIA, how would you classify

yourself?

As you can see in the cross-tab analysis in Figure 2.3 on the following page, 100% of the Board of

Governors respondents as well as management and non-management Airport employees believe

that the Airport is a valuable economic asset while a smaller percentage, (76%) of regional

executives, Airport stakeholders, or non-Airport employees believe this to be true. This

demonstrates that generally the more removed one is from the development, operation, and/or daily

management of the Airport; the more likely they are to view an airport as just another mode of

transportation. Overall a small percentage of respondents (8%) perceive the Airport as just another

mode of transportation, however, of more significance is the fact that none of the respondents view

the Airport as an unnecessary asset.

Those who view the Airport as just another mode of transportation identified themselves as

Regional Executives, Airport Stakeholders, or Non-Airport Employees.

90%

8%

2%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

A valuable economicasset

Just another mode oftransportation

No opinion

An unnecessary asset

What is your perception of Lehigh Valley International Airport?



Figure 2.3- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 2

Question 3

Generally, Airports provide economic growth to communities in the form of jobs, tourism and

business links. Question 3 asked the respondent to rate the importance of aviation growth in the

city/county from an economic perspective. As Figure 2.4 on the next page indicates, nearly 80% of

all respondents believe that aviation growth within the local area is very important. Notably, the

cross tabulation chart shown as Figure 2.5 that follows, indicates that 100% of Airport employees

who took part in the survey believe that from an economic perspective, aviation growth is very

important.

100%

100%

100%

76% 19% 5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Board of GovernorsMember



Regional Executive,Airport Stakeholder orNon-Airport Employee

What is your perception of Lehigh Valley International Airport?

A valuable economic asset Just another mode of transportation No opinion An unnecessary asset





73% 27%

100%

100%

71% 29%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





From an economic perspective, how would you rate the importance of aviation growth in the city/county?

Very important Somewhat important Not important

79%

21%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Very important

Somewhat important

Not important

From an economic perspective, how would you rate the importance of aviation growth in the city/county?



The next two survey questions related to the Airports organizational/management structure and the

effectiveness of the Airport Authority in satisfying its primary mission, which is, To develop and

operate facilities to serve the short and long term needs of the travelling public, air cargo shippers, general aviation

community and the economic development of Lehigh Valley.

Question 4

Figure 2.6 below indicates that more than 54% of all survey respondents fully understand the

Airports organizational /management structure.

Figure 2.6- Response to Question 4

A cross tabulation of these results is shown in Figure 2.7. The chart indicates that the 8% of

respondents that do not understand the organizational structure were either, Board of Governors

members, Regional Executives, Airport Stakeholders, or Non-Management Airport Employees. This

cross-tab analysis also demonstrated to the Study Team that the more removed the person is from

Airport Management or the day-to-day operation of the Airport, the less likely they are to

understand the organizational structure. 40% of Non-Management employees as well as 14% of

Airport Management employees do not fully understand the Airports organizational structure.

54%

38%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

I fully understand it

Somewhat understand it

I do not understand it atall

How well do you understand the airport organizational/management structure?




A review of the comments on Question 4 indicated that some respondents feel the management

structure is overly complicated in the sense that there exist too many tiers of management.

Respondents also stated that there may be opportunities for management to integrate more closely

with Non-Management employees.

Question 5

Survey question 5 addressed whether or not the Airport Authority is effective in satisfying its core

mission. As the figure on the following page shows, over 42% of all respondents believe that the

Authority is effective in satisfying the mission, while 10% believe that the Authority is ineffective in

satisfying the mission.

67% 27% 7%

86% 14%

60% 40%

33% 52% 14%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





How well do you understand the airport organizational/management structure?

I fully understand it Somewhat understand it I do not understand it at all




The cross tabulation analysis shows that the 100% of individuals who believe that the Authority is

ineffective in satisfying the mission are either, Regional Executives, Airport Stakeholders or Non-

Airport Employees. Two percent of the respondents said that they didnt have enough involvement

or exposure allowing them to respond.

42%

46%

10%

2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

The Authority is effective insatisfying the mission

The Authority is onlysomewhat effective insatisfying the mission

The Authority is ineffectivein satisfying the mission

I do not have enoughinvolvement or exposureallowing me to respond

The primary mission of the Airport Authority is to develop and operate facilities to serve the short and long term needs of the travelling public, air cargo shippers,

general aviation community, and the economic devlopment of Lehigh Valley. How well do you feel the Authority satisfies this mission?




The next few questions in the survey focused on passenger use of the Airport, the specific years that

respondents used the Airport for air travel, their frequency of use, typical destination airports and

the adequacy of the Airport in meeting their travel needs.

Question 6 and 7

Of all respondents, over 90% have used the Airport for business or leisure travel over the last 5

years. Of all respondents who have used the Airport over the last 5 years, the following chart depicts

a breakdown of the percentage of those who used the Airport in a specific year. The chart shows a

gradual increase in travel from 2005 through 2007. Due to the survey closeout date of October 31,

2008, the 52% of respondents that indicated they travelled in 2008 does not include the months of

November and December. Historic industry travel data has shown that due to the holidays of

Thanksgiving and Christmas, the months of November and December tend to be busy travel

months. Consequently, one can assume that the trend between 2005 and 2007 would continue

through 2008 if the respondents considered all 12 calendar months.

47% 47% 7%

86% 14%

80% 20%

14% 62% 24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%




Regional ExecutiveAirport Stakeholder orNon-Airport Employee

The Authority is effective in satisfying the missionThe Authority is only somewhat effective in satisfying the missionThe Authority is ineffective in satisfying the missionI do not have enough involvement or exposure allowing me to respond

The primary mission of the Airport Authority is to develop and operate facilities to serve the short and long term needs of the travelling public, air cargo shippers, general aviation

community, and the economic devlopment of Lehigh Valley. How well do you feel the Authority satisfies this mission?




Question 8

Figure 2.11 on the following page depicts the frequency of travel among those respondents that

have used Lehigh Valley for their air travel needs over the last five years. Nearly 70% of all

respondents have used the Airport less than ten times and almost 15% of all respondents have used

the Airport over 30 times. While we do not know the exact number of times those who have used

the Airport less than 10, it can be said that the nearly 15% who have used the Airport more than

thirty times in the last five years, use it an average of at least 6 times a year.

52%

80%

73%

64%

68%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

When did you travel?




Question 9

The survey requested that those respondents who have used the Airport in the last 5 years provide

some typical destination airports. The most common destination airports provided by respondents

included:

Atlanta, GA Chicago, IL Charlotte, NC Cleveland, OH Columbus, OH Denver, CO

Las Vegas, NV Los Angeles, CA Orlando, FL Pittsburgh, PA San Francisco, CA

Question 10

The next chart, Figure 2.12 depicts the responses on how well the Lehigh Valley International

Airport meets air travelers needs. Thirty three percent of respondents indicated that the Airport

meets all of their air travel needs well. Two percent of respondents (one individual) indicated that

Lehigh Valley was not used for air travel needs.

68%

18%

14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Less than 10

10-30

More than 30

How often did you use the airport in the last five years?




Comments provided in response to this question suggest that respondents feel that Philadelphia and

Newark provide cheaper, more direct flights. However, there was consensus among travelers, noting

satisfaction with the convenience provided at Lehigh Valley. Regarding the level of service, some

indicated through comment that the level of service at Lehigh Valley exceeds that of Philadelphia

and Newark.

Question 11

Survey question 11 asked the opinion of the state of air service at Lehigh Valley since 2004. As

shown in the results of the next question in Figure 2.13, in comparison to previous years, over 50%

of respondents feel that since 2004, the state of air service has worsened. Twenty one percent feel

that air service has improved while 26% of respondents believe that the state of air service at Lehigh

Valley is unchanged in recent years.

33%

44%

21%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Meets all my air travelneeds very well

Meets some of my needsbut the airport needs

improvement to satisfythem all

Does not meet my needsvery well

I do not use Lehigh Valleyfor my air travel needs

As an airport user, how well does Lehigh Valley International Airport meet your air travel needs?




When asked what may be some contributing factors to a reduction of the state of service at Lehigh

Valley, common responses were.

Too few airline options Higher ticket prices than Philadelphia or Newark Too few destination airports Poor economy/industry trends

The two final survey questions addressed the issue of communication and the relationship between

the Airport Authority and Airport Stakeholders. First, whether or not they believe that the Authority

has established effective communications with the business community and the general public in a

manner that is proactive and one which shows dedication to serving the publics interest. Secondly,

the respondents were asked whether they believed the relationship between the Authority and

Stakeholders is positive enough as to show dedication in promoting good working relationships.

26%

21%

52%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unchananged inrecent years

Air service hasimproved

Air service hasworsened

Since the year 2004, how would you rate the state of the air service at Lehigh Valley?



Question 12

As shown in Figure 2.14, thirty-eight percent of respondents believe that the relationships between

the Airport Authority and stakeholders are in fact positive and promote good working relationships.

Forty-two percent feel that the relationships are somewhat positive but believe that more effort is

needed in this area to more effectively promote good working relationships. Twenty percent believe

that the relationships between the Authority and Airport Stakeholders are negative.


38%

20%

42%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes

No

Somewhat, but moreeffort is needed in

this area

In your opinion, are the relationships between the Airport Authority and Stakeholders positive so as to promote good working

relationships?



In Figure 2.15, a cross tabulation of respondents, shows that 89% of those who believe the

relationships are not positive have classified themselves as either Airport Stakeholders, or Non-

Airport Employees or Regional Executives.


Question 13

This question asked: What do you like/dislike about the current state of communications between

the Community and/or Region and the Airport Authority?

Some of the comments received indicated the perception that the Airport Authority has very little

communication with the community or the region, while others highlighted the Authoritys effort to

communicate with the community through various news publications, press releases, and public

meetings, as well as an airport website and 24 hour call center available to the public.

Overall, there were varying opinions that provided insight into the effectiveness of communication

between the Airport Authority and the community or the region. This information will be utilized as

a context in the organizational analysis.

5 (29%) 1 (11%) 7 (37%)

6 (35%)

3 (18%) 2 (11%)

3 (18%) 8 (89%) 10 (53%)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





In your opinion, are the working relationships between the Airport Authority and Stakeholders positive so as to promote good working

relationships?

Yes No Somewhat, but moreeffort is needed in this area



Question 14

Regarding communications and the Authoritys establishment of effective communications that are

proactive and show dedication to serving the publics interests, 40% of all respondents believe that

the Authority has established communications that show dedication to the public. Combined, almost

60% believe that the Authority has been only somewhat effective in establishing such

communication or that the Authority has not been effective in doing so.


Of the 30% of respondents who believe that the Authority has not been effective in establishing

effective communication, 80% of those respondents, as shown in Figure 2.17 on the next page, are

either Regional Executives, Stakeholders, or Non-Airport Employees. Of those who believe that the

Authority has established effective communication, the majority are either Airport Management

Employees or Non-Management Airport Employees.

40%

31%

29%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes

No

Somewhat, butmore effort is

needed in this area

In your opinion has the Airport Authority established effective communications with the business community/general public in a manner that is proactive and

shows dedication to serving the public's interest?




Question 15

The last question of the survey asked: Given your exposure to the Airport, what improvements are

needed at the Airport to improve its efficiency and effectiveness?

In general, comments to improve air service included: the need for more destination airports,

competitive pricing, and an increase in the choice of airlines. A general suggestion to improve

management and organization included possibly reducing the levels of management which may

encourage better communication between management, stakeholders, airport employees, and the

travelling public.

5 (26%) 2 (13%) 8 (57%)

6 (32%) 1 (7%)

3 (16%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%)

5 (26%) 12 (80%) 4 (29%)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





In your opinion has the Airport Authority established effective communications with the business community/general public in a manner that is proactive and

shows dedication to serving the public's interest?

Yes No Somewhat, but more effort is needed in this area



2.2 Survey Summary

The Airport survey was sent to a list of 92 possible respondents, of which 48 completed surveys

were received for a 52% response rate. Ninety percent of respondents believe that the Airport serves

as a valuable economic asset. More importantly, 80% of all respondents believe that aviation growth

in Lehigh Valley is very important while the remaining 20% believe aviation growth is somewhat

important to the area.

A review of overall survey comments shows consistency in sentiment. Overall, the improvements

needed at the Airport to improve its efficiency and effectiveness include the following:

More airlines; Cheaper airfare; More destination airports; More non-stop flights and; Improved communication and public outreach initiatives.

To supplement the survey results, Study Team members met with various stakeholders to conduct

interviews. The interviewee was asked to describe their background and their familiarity with the

reporting structure at LVIA. In addition, they were also asked to provide their opinion on the

general efficiency and effectiveness of the Airport and their Department, challenges faced by the

Airport and suggestions for Airport improvement.

The Study Team has thoroughly assessed all survey and interview findings and has considered them

within the organizational evaluation, findings and recommendations section of this report.



This page intentionally left blank.

The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport

Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-1

3.0 COMPARABLE AIRPORTS ANALYSIS

In an effort to better correlate current practices relating to airport management with the Lehigh

Northampton Airport Authority (LNAA), an analysis was performed comparing several key aspects

of LNAA and Lehigh Valley International Airport (LVIA) with similar airports throughout the

Region and the United States.

The following sections: (1) describe the approach employed to determine the list of comparable

airports; (2) provide an overview of the selected comparable airports in the context of an

organizational, management, and operational framework; (3) compare human resources data and

practices; and (4) provide an overview of comparable airport trends.

3.1 Comparable Airports Data Collection, Screening and Selection

The screening process to determine comparable airports began with collecting passenger boarding

data, also called enplanements, from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Data from 2006

was used as it was the last complete year for which this data set was available at the time this study

was commenced. The data set was imported into Excel spreadsheet format and included

information for all domestic airports that had scheduled air carrier service. This data included:

Rank (based on enplanements); City and State; Three-letter airport code (e.g. ABE); Airport name; Service level; FAA hub classification; 2006 enplanements; 2005 enplanements; and Percentage change in enplanements between 2005 and 2006



This data was then organized first by each airports 2006 enplanements (passenger boardings), then

by service level; and lastly by hub type to remove from the list airports that are not comparable to

LVIA. Upon removing the identified non-comparable airports from the data, only airports meeting

the following criteria from the remaining data were kept to consider:

Proximity to a large hub airports (e.g. Philadelphia International Airport); Serves as a regional airport; Operates a system of airports; and Governance/Management structure (Authority, Board, County, Municipal, etc.).

The data set remaining for further analysis consisted of sixteen (16) airports chosen by the Study

Team that met some or all of the above criteria. An airport was not required to meet all criteria, but

rather provide examples of different governance structures from similar situated airports. For

example, the Study Team considered other airports in Pennsylvania that have an Authority and were

formed under the same municipal authorities act as LNAA; others were considered as a result of

their County governance model; and others were looked at because of their Authority type

governance structure formed outside of Pennsylvania, both large and small scale.

The five (5) comparable airports chosen to be included in this analysis are a mix of the criteria

discussed above, providing the Study Team with a cross representation of comparable airport

information. These airports are identified in Table 3.1.

Detailed information obtained from these airports is presented later in this Section of the report.



3.1 Comparable Airports Matrix

U.S. Rank

FAA Loc. ID

City

State

Airport Name

Hub Type

CY 06

Enplanements

CY 05

Enplanements

%

Change

Lg. Hub

Competitor

Dis

t.

to

Lar

ge

Hu

b

(mi)

Governance

Structure

System of

Airports/#

134

ABE

A

llent

own

PA

Lehi

gh V

alley

In

tern

atio

nal

S 39

7,60

3 41

9,12

2 -5

.13%

Ph

ilade

lphi

a

New

ark

72 78

Aut

horit

y Y

es /

3

49

MK

E

Milw

auke

e W

I G

ener

al M

itche

ll In

tern

atio

nal

M

3,63

0,09

8 3,

602,

536

16.7

6%

Chic

ago

OH

are

73

Coun

ty

Yes

/ 2

92

SFB

Sanf

ord

FL

Orla

ndo

Sanf

ord

Inte

rnat

iona

l S

915,

135

789,

795

15.8

7%

Orla

ndo

33

Aut

horit

y N

o /

0

60

PVD

Pr

ovid

ence

RI

Th

eodo

re

Fran

cis G

reen

A

irpor

t M

2,

588,

992

2,84

6,00

2 -9

.03%

Bo

ston

Log

an

62

Qua

si-St

ate

Yes

/ 6

108

MD

T H

arris

burg

PA

H

arris

burg

In

tern

atio

nal

S 57

7,55

9 64

7,46

8 -1

0.80

%

Ph

ilade

lphi

a

Ba

ltim

ore

Was

hing

ton

Lehi

gh V

alley

110 97 92

Aut

horit

y Y

es /

2

194

SWF

New

burg

N

Y

Stew

art

Inte

rnat

iona

l N

15

6,63

8 19

9,74

1 -2

1.58

%

N

ewar

k

JF K

enne

dy

La

Gua

rdia

A

lban

y

72 79 69 98

Aut

horit

y Y

es /

6

Source: Federal Aviation Administration and Yahoo Maps. Note: Hub Type is FAAs Airport Classification: M = Medium Hub; S = Small Hub; N = Non-Hub.



3.2 Comparable Airports Overview

When making comparisons between airports, it is most useful to balance quantitative metrics, those

things capable of being expressed numerically, and qualitative metrics, those things described in

terms of quality or character. In an airport environment there are both numerous quantitative and

qualitative metrics that can be considered. For this study, a framework was developed for use when

contacting representatives of the comparable airports that included questions related to both

qualitative and quantitative metrics in three key contexts:

Organizational; Management; and Operational.

A copy of this framework is provided in the Appendix. Contact information for key personnel

including the Airport Directors and Human Resources Directors from each comparable airport was

compiled and is also found in the Appendix. Initial and follow-up telephone interviews with each

key person identified were conducted between August 15 and December 1, 2008. All five airports

that were contacted were willing to participate and included the following airports:

General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee, WI); Orlando Sanford Airport (Sanford, FL); Theodore Francis Green Airport (Providence, RI); Harrisburg International Airport (Harrisburg, PA); and Stewart International Airport (Newburgh, NY).

The information garnered from the interviews is presented below within the three contexts of the

framework identified previously (organizational, management, and operational). Organizational

charts provided by each of the airports contacted are found at the end of this section.



3.2.1 Organizational Context

The Organizational Context is comprised of those aspects of the airport which directly relate to

organizational structure and size, governing body, financing, etc.

Lehigh Valley International Airport

Lehigh Valley International Airport (LVIA) is a FAA-designated regional commercial service airport

to the Lehigh Valley area and it is part of a multi-airport system that includes two general aviation

airports (Queen City Airport and Braden Airpark). LVIA is owned by both Lehigh and

Northampton Counties, and is operated by the Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority (LNAA).

The LNAA, which is an autonomous, independent agency, was established under the Pennsylvania

Authorities Act and employs approximately 129 staff. Primary financing for Lehigh Valley

International comes from a mix of Passenger Facility Charges (PFC), (currently at the maximum

allowable $4.50), Authority-Issued Bonds, and user fees.

The Authority is directed by a Board of Governors, who is charged with making policy, approving

budgets, setting criteria for contracts, and approving any contract or procurement item for more

than $15,000. The Board consists of 19 members; 10 members are appointed from Lehigh County

and 9 members are appointed from Northampton County and serve 5 year terms with no term

limits. The Executive Director of Lehigh Valley International is hired by the Board and is a contract

employee. While the terms of the contract may vary, it generally consists of a 4-year term with at

least one automatic one-year renewal.

General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee, Wisconsin)

General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee) serves the commercial air service needs of the

greater Milwaukee area in Wisconsin. It is part of a multi-airport system consisting of one

commercial and one general aviation airport, Timmerman Airport.



Milwaukee is owned and operated by Milwaukee County, with an approximate staff of 200

personnel. Financing for CIP projects comes from a mix of user fees and AIP entitlement funds.

The Airport is overseen by a 19-member County Board who are elected officials from the

community at-large. The Board is responsible for setting policy and budget approval.

The Airport Director is an at-will employee of the County who is hired by the Director of Public

Works, who then must get approval from the County Executive and then the County Board. The

Airport Director must go through a performance review and approval from the County Board every

4 years.

Orlando Sanford International Airport (Sanford, Florida)

Orlando Sanford International Airport (Sanford) serves as a commercial reliever airport to Orlando

International Airport, with a high percentage of its passengers coming from the leisure traffic

market. It is a single airport that is owned by the City of Sanford financed primarily through AIP

entitlement funds and user fees.

Orlando Sanford International is operated by the Sanford Airport Authority, which includes a staff

of 55 people and a 9-member Board of Directors who are appointed by the Sanford City

Commission to 4 year terms with no term limits. The Board is responsible for setting policy, budget

approval, and the employment/hiring of the Airport CEO. The CEO is hired directly by the

Authority, and is a contract employee of the Authority with a contract term of 3 years.

Theodore Francis Green Airport (Providence, Rhode Island)

Theodore Francis Green Airport (Providence) serves the commercial service needs of the state of

Rhode Island, eastern Connecticut and northeastern Massachusetts, and is part of a multi-airport

system that includes Providence and five general aviation airports: Block Island State Airport,

North Central State Airport, Quonset State Airport, Westerly State Airport, and Newport State

Airport/Robert F. Wood Airpark.



Providence is owned and operated by the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC), a quasi-

independent agency, and is overseen by an Airport Board. RIAC employs 185 full and part time

employees. Financing is through AIP and user fees.

The Airport Board consists of seven (7) members and is charged with setting policy, budget

approval, and the hiring of the CEO. One Board member is appointed by the Mayor of Warwick,

and six by the Governor of Rhode Island. The CEO is hired by the Board and is a contract

employee of the Board.

Harrisburg International Airport (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania)

Harrisburg International Airport (Harrisburg) serves as a FAA-designated regional commercial

service airport as a part of a multi-airport system that includes one commercial service airport and

three general aviation airports: Capital City Airport, Franklin County Regional Airport, and

Gettysburg Regional Airport, all serving central Pennsylvania.

Harrisburg is owned and operated by the Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority (SARAA),

and is financed through AIP, Airport Revenue Bonds, and user fees. The Airport has 120 full and

part-time staff. The SARAA Board consists of 15 members that are appointed by the respective

elected officials for the counties of Dauphin, York, and Cumberland, and the townships of Fairview

and Lower Swatara. Board members are responsible for setting policy, budget approval, and the

hiring of the Executive Director. The Executive Director is an at-will employee of the Board, and

is subject to annual performance reviews.

Stewart International Airport (Newburg, New York)

Stewart International Airport (Stewart) serves as one of four commercial service airports owned by

the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ). The system of airports owned by the

PANJNY also includes Teterboro Airport, which serves as a general aviation reliever airport. This



system of airports serves the needs of southern New York, southwestern Connecticut and northern

New Jersey (New York Metropolitan Area).

Financing for Stewart comes from a mix of AIP, PFC, and user fees. The Airport has a staff of

approximately 54 full time staff, which is a mix of PANYNJ staff, private management and

consultants. The PANYNJ Board of Commissioners consists of 12 members. Both New York and

New Jersey appoint 6 members, which are subject to state Senate approval, with members serving 6-

year overlapping terms. The Commissioners serve as public officials, are responsible for setting

policy and budget approval for all of the transportation services that are covered by the PANYNJ.

The General Manager is a direct at-will employee of the PANYNJ.

A summary table of the comparable airports organizational comparison can be found in Table 3.2

below and the airports organizational charts can be found on the following pages.



Table 3.2 Comparable Airports Organizational Context

Airports

Leh

igh

Vall

ey

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Gen

eral

Mitc

hell

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Orla

ndo

Sanf

ord

Inte

rnat

iona

l

T.F.

Gre

en

(Pro

vide

nce)

Har

risbu

rg

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Stew

art

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Single or Multi

Airport System

Multi-Airport

Multi-Airport

Single Airport

Multi- Airport

Multi- Airport

Multi-Airport

Number Of

Full Time Staff

129 200 55 185 120 54

Governing Body

Airport Authority

County Board

Airport Authority

Airport Board

Airport Board

Board of Com-

missioners

Number Of

Governing Officials

19 19 9 7 15 12

Official Selection

Appoint- ment by County

Executives

Elected by the Public

Appoint- ment by City Commission

Appoint- ment by Warwick Mayor &

RI Governor

Appoint- ment by

Counties & Townships

Appoint-ment by States

Term Length 5 Years 5 Years 4 Years 5 Years 5 Years 6 Years

Term Limits No No No No No No

orga

niz

atio

n

Primary Financing

User Fees, PFC,

Authority Issued Bonds

User Fees AIP

Entitlement

Bonds PFC AIP

Entitlement

User Fees AIP

Entitlement

User Fees Bonds AIP

Entitlement

PFC Investments

AIP Entitlement



Line

Te

chs

Cou

r. H

gras

st

Lehi

gh V

alle

y In

tern

atio

nal A

irpor

tLe

high

Nor

tham

pton

Airp

ort A

utho

rity

Boa

rd o

f Gov

erno

rs

Exec

utiv

e D

irect

or

Dire

ctor

of

Publ

ic S

afet

yD

irect

or o

f Fin

ance

&

Bud

gets

Seni

or P

roje

ct

Man

ager

Dire

ctor

of

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Adm

inis

trativ

e A

ssis

tant

Lega

l Cou

nsel S

peci

al A

ssis

tant

to th

e E

xecu

tive

Dire

ctor

Airp

ort

Pl

anne

r

Dep

uty

Exec

utiv

e D

irec

tor Assi

stan

t to

the

Dep

uty

Exe

cutiv

e D

irect

orB

rade

n A

irpar

k

Dire

ctor

of

Bus

. Dev

lpm

tSu

perin

tend

ent

of M

aint

enan

ceD

irect

or o

f LVI

A

Avi

atio

n Se

rvic

esSy

stem

s D

irect

or

Prop

ertie

s M

anag

er

Park

ing

Atte

ndan

ts

Pas

seng

er

Serv

ices

(25)

Pas

seng

er S

ervi

ces

Coo

rd.

Land

Aqu

i. Sp

ecia

listH.R

. Acc

t. G

ener

alis

t

Acco

untin

g C

lerk

Plan

ner

Eng

inee

rP

roje

ct

Engi

neer

Adm

in A

sst.

Cle

rk

Com

mC

ente

rFi

re D

ivis

ion

Polic

e D

ivis

ion

Bus

ines

s D

ev.

Coo

rd

Bus

ines

s D

ev.

Mgr

.

Ass

ista

nt

Sup

erin

tend

ent o

f M

aint

enan

ce

Mai

nten

ance

(25)

Cus

todi

al S

uper

viso

r

Cus

todi

ans

(18)

Sys

tem

s Te

ch.

Airl

ine

Serv

ices

M

anag

er

FBO

Lin

eOps

Mgr

.

Airl

ine

Serv

ices

M

anag

er

ATO

stat

ion

Mgm

t

Cle

rk

Des

k R

eps

Cle

rk

Supe

rinte

nden

t G

roun

d Tr

ans.

Te

rmin

al S

rvcs

Supe

rvis

orPa

ssen

ger

Serv

ices

FBO

Lin

eOps

Mgr

.

Acc

ount

ing

Mgr

.

QC

Lin

eOps

Mgr

.Li

ne

Tech

sLine

Tech

s C

our.

Hgr

asst

Lehi

gh V

alle

y In

tern

atio

nal A

irpor

tLe

high

Nor

tham

pton

Airp

ort A

utho

rity

Boa

rd o

f Gov

erno

rs

Exec

utiv

e D

irect

or

Dire

ctor

of

Publ

ic S

afet

yD

irect

or o

f Fin

ance

&

Bud

gets

Seni

or P

roje

ct

Man

ager

Dire

ctor

of

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Adm

inis

trativ

e A

ssis

tant

Lega

l Cou

nsel S

peci

al A

ssis

tant

to th

e E

xecu

tive

Dire

ctor

Airp

ort

Pl

anne

r

Dep

uty

Exec

utiv

e D

irec

tor Assi

stan

t to

the

Dep

uty

Exe

cutiv

e D

irect

orB

rade

n A

irpar

k

Dire

ctor

of

Bus

. Dev

lpm

tSu

perin

tend

ent

of M

aint

enan

ceD

irect

or o

f LVI

A

Avi

atio

n Se

rvic

esSy

stem

s D

irect

or

Prop

ertie

s M

anag

er

Park

ing

Atte

ndan

ts

Pas

seng

er

Serv

ices

(25)

Pas

seng

er S

ervi

ces

Coo

rd.

Land

Aqu

i. Sp

ecia

listH.R

. Acc

t. G

ener

alis

t

Acco

untin

g C

lerk

Plan

ner

Eng

inee

rP

roje

ct

Engi

neer

Adm

in A

sst.

Cle

rk

Com

mC

ente

rFi

re D

ivis

ion

Polic

e D

ivis

ion

Bus

ines

s D

ev.

Coo

rd

Bus

ines

s D

ev.

Mgr

.

Ass

ista

nt

Sup

erin

tend

ent o

f M

aint

enan

ce

Mai

nten

ance

(25)

Cus

todi

al S

uper

viso

r

Cus

todi

ans

(18)

Sys

tem

s Te

ch.

Airl

ine

Serv

ices

M

anag

er

FBO

Lin

eOps

Mgr

.

Airl

ine

Serv

ices

M

anag

er

ATO

stat

ion

Mgm

t

Cle

rk

Des

k R

eps

Cle

rk

Supe

rinte

nden

t G

roun

d Tr

ans.

Te

rmin

al S

rvcs

Supe

rvis

orPa

ssen

ger

Serv

ices

FBO

Lin

eOps

Mgr

.

Acc

ount

ing

Mgr

.

QC

Lin

eOps

Mgr

.Li

ne

Tech

s



G

ener

al M

itche

ll In

tern

atio

nal A

irpor

t

Milw

auke

e C

ount

y

Exec

utiv

e D

irect

or

Man

ager

Mar

ketin

g/Pu

blic

Rel

atio

ns

2 A

irpor

t Int

erns

Gen

eral

Cou

nsel

Noi

se A

bate

men

tG

IS S

peci

alis

t

.

.

Law

Enfo

rcem

ent

(8)

Adm

inis

trat

ion

2 St

uden

t Int

erns

Air

port

Eng

inee

rsA

irpo

rt P

lann

er

Dep

uty

Dir

ecto

rFi

nanc

e/A

dmin

Gro

und

Tra

nspo

rt&

Par

king

Man

ager

Acc

ount

ing

Secr

etar

yPr

oper

ties M

ngr

Prop

ertie

s Spc

Con

tract

s

Dep

uty

Dir

ecto

rO

ps/M

aint

enan

ce

Ope

ratio

ns M

ngr

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mng

rA

dmin

. Ass

t.M

aint

enan

ce M

ngr

Ope

ratio

nsSt

aff

Mai

nten

ance

Staf

f

Safe

ty &

Tr

aini

ng

Spec

ialis

t(Non

-Air

port

) (N

on-A

irpo

rt)

(Non

-Air

port

)

Gen

eral

Mitc

hell

Inte

rnat

iona

l Airp

ort

Milw

auke

e C

ount

y

Exec

utiv

e D

irect

or

Man

ager

Mar

ketin

g/Pu

blic

Rel

atio

ns

2 A

irpor

t Int

erns

Gen

eral

Cou

nsel

Noi

se A

bate

men

tG

IS S

peci

alis

t

.

.

Law

Enfo

rcem

ent

(8)

Adm

inis

trat

ion

2 St

uden

t Int

erns

Air

port

Eng

inee

rsA

irpo

rt P

lann

er

Dep

uty

Dir

ecto

rFi

nanc

e/A

dmin

Gro

und

Tra

nspo

rt&

Par

king

Man

ager

Acc

ount

ing

Secr

etar

yPr

oper

ties M

ngr

Prop

ertie

s Spc

Con

tract

s

Dep

uty

Dir

ecto

rO

ps/M

aint

enan

ce

Ope

ratio

ns M

ngr

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mng

rA

dmin

. Ass

t.M

aint

enan

ce M

ngr

Ope

ratio

nsSt

aff

Mai

nten

ance

Staf

f

Safe

ty &

Tr

aini

ng

Spec

ialis

t(Non

-Air

port

) (N

on-A

irpo

rt)

(Non

-Air

port

)



O

rland

o Sa

nfor

d A

irpor

t Aut

horit

y

City

of S

anfo

rdM

ayor

and

City

Com

mis

sion

Sanf

ord

Airp

ort A

utho

rity

Boa

rd o

f Dire

ctor

s

Pres

iden

t and

Chi

ef E

xecu

tive

Offi

cer

Inci

dent

Com

man

der/L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent

Con

stru

ctio

n

Man

agem

ent

Vice

Pre

side

nt o

f Fin

ance

/CFO

&

Air

port

Chi

ef o

f Pol

ice

Vice

Pre

side

nt o

f

Ope

ratio

nsVi

ce P

resi

dent

of

A

dmin

istr

atio

n

Pro

perti

es

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Offi

ce A

dmin

istra

tion

Bui

ldin

g M

aint

enan

ce

Publ

ic In

form

atio

n O

ffice

r

Airp

ort P

olic

e &

Dis

patc

h

Fina

nce

& A

ccou

ntin

g

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy

Gra

nt A

dmin

istra

tion

Airf

ield

Mai

nten

ance

Airp

ort O

pera

tions

& S

afet

y

Airp

ort S

ecur

ity C

ompl

ianc

e &

Acc

ess

Con

trol

Airc

raft

Res

cue/

Fire

fight

ing

(AR

FF

Hor

izon

tal

Ver

tical

Ren

ovat

ion

Rem

odel

ing

Dire

ctor

of S

peci

al A

ffairs

Gen

eral

Cou

nsel

Orla

ndo

Sanf

ord

Airp

ort A

utho

rity

City

of S

anfo

rdM

ayor

and

City

Com

mis

sion

Sanf

ord

Airp

ort A

utho

rity

Boa

rd o

f Dire

ctor

s

Pres

iden

t and

Chi

ef E

xecu

tive

Offi

cer

Inci

dent

Com

man

der/L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent

Con

stru

ctio

n

Man

agem

ent

Vice

Pre

side

nt o

f Fin

ance

/CFO

&

Air

port

Chi

ef o

f Pol

ice

Vice

Pre

side

nt o

f

Ope

ratio

nsVi

ce P

resi

dent

of

A

dmin

istr

atio

n

Pro

perti

es

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Offi

ce A

dmin

istra

tion

Bui

ldin

g M

aint

enan

ce

Publ

ic In

form

atio

n O

ffice

r

Airp

ort P

olic

e &

Dis

patc

h

Fina

nce

& A

ccou

ntin

g

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy

Gra

nt A

dmin

istra

tion

Airf

ield

Mai

nten

ance

Airp

ort O

pera

tions

& S

afet

y

Airp

ort S

ecur

ity C

ompl

ianc

e &

Acc

ess

Con

trol

Airc

raft

Res

cue/

Fire

fight

ing

(AR

FF

Hor

izon

tal

Ver

tical

Ren

ovat

ion

Rem

odel

ing

Dire

ctor

of S

peci

al A

ffairs

Gen

eral

Cou

nsel



Boar

d of

Dire

ctor

s

Chief

Aud

itor

& Fi

nanc

ial A

nalys

tMa

nage

r of E

xec.

Supp

ort S

ervic

es

Dire

ctor

Hum

an R

esou

rces

VP P

ublic

Affa

irs&

Air S

ervic

e Mar

ketin

g

Para

legal

VP

Com

mer

cial

Prog

ram

sCo

rp.

Cont

rolle

r

Proc

. Sp

ecial

ist

Fina

nce M

gr.

Proj

. Con

t. Mg

r/DBE

Liais

on O

ff.Gr

ants

/Con

tract

s

Proj

ect A

cct

Mana

ger

Eng.

Mana

ger

Plng

.VP

Env

Mgm

t Sy

s

TSS

Proj

Mgr

.

Proj

Mgr

.

CADD

Op

P/T

Airp

ort

Plan

ner

Fire

Chi

ef

Chief

of P

olice

GA

(Lan

dmar

k)AV

P Op

s &

Main

tena

nce

Aero

naut

ics

Ins. Ca

ptain

Mgr O

ps

Mgr A

irfiel

d

AVP

Build

ings

Lts

(4)

Insp

ecto

r

Depu

ty

Capt

ains (

4)

AVP

Com

m.

Prog

.

Cont

r. Mg

r Ad

m.

Mgr P

arkin

g/Gr

ound

Tr

ans.

Com

mun

ity

Relat

ions

TSS

Air S

ervic

e Mkt

gAn

alyst

HR M

anag

erPa

yrol

l Man

ager

Rece

ptio

nist

Sr A

dmin

As

st.

Gene

ral C

ouns

el

Mana

ger

Audi

tMa

nage

r Au

dit

Oper

atio

ns an

d Ma

inte

nanc

e

Plan

ning

, En

gine

erin

g, an

d En

viron

men

tal

TSS

IISr

. VP.

Fin

ance

and

Adm

in

Badg

e Coo

rd

P/T

TSS

Snr T

SS

TSS

Mgr

Build

ings

Mgr E

nv P

rog

Adm

in A

sst.

Acco

untin

g

Acco

untin

gAc

coun

ting

TSS

TSS

Capi

tal

Prog

ram

Mana

ger

Airp

ort

Plan

ner

Badg

e Coo

rd

Emer

g. R

esp.

Coor

dina

tor

Lawy

er

Pres

iden

t & C

EO

Envn

Proj

Mgr

TSS

Noise

Pro

gMg

r

Chief

Tec

h.

Offic

er

Seni

or IT

An

alyst

IT A

nalys

t

IT A

nalys

t

IT A

nalys

tAc

coun

ting

T.F.

Gre

en A

irpor

tBo

ard

ofDi

rect

ors

Chief

Aud

itor

& Fi

nanc

ial A

nalys

tMa

nage

r of E

xec.

Supp

ort S

ervic

es

Dire

ctor

Hum

an R

esou

rces

VP P

ublic

Affa

irs&

Air S

ervic

e Mar

ketin

g

Para

legal

VP

Com

mer

cial

Prog

ram

sCo

rp.

Cont

rolle

r

Proc

. Sp

ecial

ist

Fina

nce M

gr.

Proj

. Con

t. Mg

r/DBE

Liais

on O

ff.Gr

ants

/Con

tract

s

Proj

ect A

cct

Mana

ger

Eng.

Mana

ger

Plng

.VP

Env

Mgm

t Sy

s

TSS

Proj

Mgr

.

Proj

Mgr

.

CADD

Op

P/T

Airp

ort

Plan

ner

Fire

Chi

ef

Chief

of P

olice

GA

(Lan

dmar

k)AV

P Op

s &

Main

tena

nce

Aero

naut

ics

Ins. Ca

ptain

Mgr O

ps

Mgr A

irfiel

d

AVP

Build

ings

Lts

(4)

Insp

ecto

r

Depu

ty

Capt

ains (

4)

AVP

Com

m.

Prog

.

Cont

r. Mg

r Ad

m.

Mgr P

arkin

g/Gr

ound

Tr

ans.

Com

mun

ity

Relat

ions

TSS

Air S

ervic

e Mkt

gAn

alyst

HR M

anag

erPa

yrol

l Man

ager

Rece

ptio

nist

Sr A

dmin

As

st.

Gene

ral C

ouns

el

Mana

ger

Audi

tMa

nage

r Au

dit

Oper

atio

ns an

d Ma

inte

nanc

e

Plan

ning

, En

gine

erin

g, an

d En

viron

men

tal

TSS

IISr

. VP.

Fin

ance

and

Adm

in

Badg

e Coo

rd

P/T

TSS

Snr T

SS

TSS

Mgr

Build

ings

Mgr E

nv P

rog

Adm

in A

sst.

Acco

untin

g

Acco

untin

gAc

coun

ting

TSS

TSS

Capi

tal

Prog

ram

Mana

ger

Airp

ort

Plan

ner

Badg

e Coo

rd

Emer

g. R

esp.

Coor

dina

tor

Lawy

er

Pres

iden

t & C

EO

Envn

Proj

Mgr

TSS

Noise

Pro

gMg

r

Chief

Tec

h.

Offic

er

Seni

or IT

An

alyst

IT A

nalys

t

IT A

nalys

t

IT A

nalys

tAc

coun

ting

T.F.

Gre

en A

irpor

t



Tech

s

Har

risbu

rg In

tern

atio

nal A

irpor

tSu

sque

hann

a A

rea

Reg

iona

lA

irpor

t Aut

hori

ty

Exec

utiv

e D

irect

or

Adm

inis

trativ

e A

ssis

tant

Dep

uty

Exec

utiv

e D

irect

or

H.R

. Ass

ista

nt

H.R

. Man

ager

M

anag

er, T

erm

inal

Faci

litie

s, P

arki

ng,

& G

T

& A

dmin

istr

atio

nD

eput

y D

irect

or o

f Fin

ance

D

eput

y D

irect

or o

f PR

&

Mar

ketin

gD

eput

y D

irect

or o

f Pla

nnin

g &

Eng

inee

ring

Dep

uty

Dire

ctor

, Sec

urity

O

ps, &

Pub

lic S

afet

y

Acco

untin

gM

anag

er

Par

t Tim

eA

ccou

ntan

t

AR

/AP

Spec

ialis

t

Pro

perty

Man

ager

Purc

hasi

ngA

gent

Mar

ketin

g &

Cus

tom

er S

vcM

anag

er

Cus

tom

er In

fo/

Sus

queh

anna

Clu

b

Rec

eptio

nist

Adve

rtisi

ng&

Mar

ketin

g

Util

ities

,W

ater

,/ Se

wer

Man

airport management study

Documents

comparable airports

organizational analysis

county of lehigh

county of northampton

analysis of interview

survey summary

comparable airports

separate document section