BUKU Airport Management Study

Final Report
Airport Management Study
Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Prepared for:
County of Lehigh and

County of Northampton
Prepared by:
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC.

20 Corporate Woods Blvd
Albany, New York 12211
In Association With:
February 6, 2009
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report – Airport Management Study
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 Table of Contents – 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 LNAA’s 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 stakeholder’s 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.
Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Introduction – Page 1-1

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 LNAA’s 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 LVIA’s 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 today’s 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 study’s

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 LNAA’s 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 Berger’s National Aviation
Program and the delivery of all domestic aviation services throughout the firm’s 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 State’s 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 Governor’s congressional liaison to Congress on matters concerning overflight
noise, and served two years in the NYS Governor’s office as a senior advisor assigned to the Governor’s
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. Champigny’s 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 Transportation’s Aviation Services Bureau, Mr. Champigny brings a comprehensive base of
experience and a strong understanding of the airport operator’s 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.

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 Airport’s 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 Airport’s 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 Study’s objective within the Study’s 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.
Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey – Page 2-1
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 wasn’t
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 regards to Lehigh Valley International Airport, how

would you classify yourself?
Regional Executive, Airport

Stakeholder or Non-Airport 44%
Employee
Non-Management Airport 10%

Employee
Airport Management 15%

Employee
Board of Governors Member 31%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
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 respondent’s 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.
What is your perception of Lehigh Valley International Airport?
An unnecessary asset 0%
No opinion 2%
Just another mode of 8%

transportation
A valuable economic 90%

asset
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
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.
Figure 2.3- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 2
What is your perception of Lehigh Valley International Airport?
Regional Executive,
Airport Stakeholder or 76% 19% 5%
Non-Airport Employee

Employee

Employee
Board of Governors 100%

Member
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
A valuable economic asset Just another mode of transportation No opinion An unnecessary asset
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.
From an economic perspective, how would you rate the importance

of aviation growth in the city/county?
Not important 0%
Somewhat important 21%
Very important 79%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
From an economic perspective, how would you rate the importance

of aviation growth in the city/county?
Regional Executive,
Airport Stakeholder or 71% 29%

Employee

Employee
Board of Governors 73% 27%

Member
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very important Somewhat important Not important
The next two survey questions related to the Airport’s 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
Airport’s organizational /management structure.
Figure 2.6- Response to Question 4
How well do you understand the airport organizational/management

structure?
I do not understand it at 8%
all
Somewhat understand it 38%
I fully understand it 54%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
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 Airport’s organizational structure.
How well do you understand the airport organizational/management

structure?
Regional Executive,
Non-Management Airport 60% 40%

Employee
Airport Management 86% 14%

Employee
Board of Governors 67% 27% 7%

Member
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I fully understand it Somewhat understand it I do not understand it at all
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.
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?
I do not have enough

involvement or exposure 2%
allowing me to respond
The Authority is ineffective 10%

in satisfying the mission
The Authority is only

somewhat effective in 46%
satisfying the mission
The Authority is effective in 42%

satisfying the mission
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
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 didn’t have enough involvement
or exposure allowing them 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?
Regional Executive
Non-Management Airport 80% 20%

Employee
Airport Management 86% 14%

Employee
Board of Governors 47% 47% 7%

Member
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The Authority is effective in satisfying the mission

The Authority is only somewhat effective in satisfying the mission
The Authority is ineffective in satisfying the mission
I do not have enough involvement or exposure allowing me to respond
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.
When did you travel?
2004 68%
2005 64%
2006 73%
2007 80%
2008 52%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
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.
How often did you use the airport in the last five years?
More than 30 14%
10-30 18%
Less than 10 68%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
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 Las Vegas, NV

Chicago, IL Los Angeles, CA
Charlotte, NC Orlando, FL
Cleveland, OH Pittsburgh, PA
Columbus, OH San Francisco, CA
Denver, CO
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.
As an airport user, how well does Lehigh Valley International Airport

meet your air travel needs?
I do not use Lehigh Valley 2%

for my air travel needs
Does not meet my needs

21%
very well
Meets some of my needs

but the airport needs 44%
improvement to satisfy
them all
Meets all my air travel

33%
needs very well
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
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.
Since the year 2004, how would you rate the state of the air service
at Lehigh Valley?
Air service has 52%

worsened
Air service has 21%

improved
Unchananged in 26%
recent years
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
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 public’s 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.
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.
In your opinion, are the relationships between the Airport Authority

and Stakeholders positive so as to promote good working
relationships?
Somewhat, but more

effort is needed in 42%
this area
No 20%
Yes 38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
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.
In your opinion, are the working relationships between the Airport

Authority and Stakeholders positive so as to promote good working
relationships?
Regional Executive,
Airport Stakeholder or 3 (18%) 8 (89%) 10 (53%)
Non-Management Airport 3 (18%) 2 (11%)

Employee
Airport Management 6 (35%)

Employee
Board of Governors 5 (29%) 1 (11%) 7 (37%)

Member
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes No Somewhat, but moreeffort is needed in this area
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 Authority’s 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.
Question 14
Regarding communications and the Authority’s establishment of effective communications that are
proactive and show dedication to serving the public’s 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.
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?
Somewhat, but
more effort is 29%
needed in this area
No 31%
Yes 40%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
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.
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?
Regional Executive,
Airport Stakeholder or 5 (26%) 12 (80%) 4 (29%)
Non-Management Airport 3 (16%) 1 (7% ) 1 (7%)

Employee
Airport Management 6 (32%) 1 (7%)

Employee
Board of Governors 5 (26%) 2 (13%) 8 (57%)

Member
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes No Somewhat, but more effort is needed in this area
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.
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.
Lehigh Valley International Airport
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
Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis – Page 3-1
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.
Dist.
to
Large
Hub
U.S. Rank
FAA Loc. ID
City
State
Airport Name
Hub Type
CY 06
Enplanements
CY 05
Enplanements
%
Change
Lg. Hub
Competitor
Governance
Structure
System of
Airports/#
(mi)
Philadelphia 72
Lehigh Valley
134 ABE Allentown PA S 397,603 419,122 -5.13% Authority Yes / 3
International
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Newark 78
General
Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009

49 MKE Milwaukee WI Mitchell M 3,630,098 3,602,536 16.76% Chicago O’Hare 73 County Yes / 2
International
Orlando
92 SFB Sanford FL Sanford S 915,135 789,795 15.87% Orlando 33 Authority No / 0
International
Theodore
Source: Federal Aviation Administration and Yahoo Maps.

60 PVD Providence RI Francis Green M 2,588,992 2,846,002 -9.03% Boston Logan 62 Quasi-State Yes / 6
Airport
Philadelphia 110
Harrisburg
108 MDT Harrisburg PA S 577,559 647,468 -10.80% Baltimore Washington 97 Authority Yes / 2
International
Lehigh Valley 92
3.1 – Comparable Airports Matrix
Newark 72
JF Kennedy 79
Note: Hub Type is FAA’s Airport Classification: M = Medium Hub; S = Small Hub; N = Non-Hub.
Stewart
194 SWF Newburg NY N 156,638 199,741 -21.58% Authority Yes / 6
International
LaGuardia 69
Albany 98
Comparable Airports Analysis – Page 3-3

Final Report – Airport Management Study
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 (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
Lehigh Valley
International
International
International
International
International
(Providence)
T.F. Green
Harrisburg
Orlando
Mitchell
General
Sanford
Stewart
Single or
Multi Multi- Multi- Single Multi- Multi- Multi-
Airport Airport Airport Airport Airport Airport Airport
System
Number
Of
129 200 55 185 120 54
Full Time
Staff
Board of
Governing Airport County Airport Airport Airport
Com-
Body Authority Board Authority Board Board
missioners
Number
Of
19 19 9 7 15 12
Governing
organization
Officials
Appoint-
Appoint- Appoint-
Appoint- ment by Appoint-
Official ment by Elected by ment by
ment by City Warwick ment by
Selection County the Public Counties &
Commission Mayor & States
Executives Townships
RI Governor
Term
5 Years 5 Years 4 Years 5 Years 5 Years 6 Years
Length
Term Limits No No No No No No
User Fees, PFC

Bonds User Fees
PFC, User Fees User Fees Investments
Primary PFC Bonds
Authority AIP AIP AIP
Financing AIP AIP
Issued Entitlement Entitlement Entitlement
Entitlement Entitlement
Bonds
Board of Governors
Legal Counsel
Executive Director
Deputy Executive Director Special Assistant to the

Executive Director
Administrative Assistant
Assistant to the Deputy
Executive Director

Braden Airpark
Director of Director of Finance Airport Senior Project Director of Director of Superintendent Director of LVIA Systems
Administration & Budgets Planner Manager Public Safety Bus. Devlpmt of Maintenance Aviation Services Director
Business Dev.
Coord Systems
Admin Asst. Tech.
Assistant
Superintendent Properties H.R. Acct. Planner Project Superintendent of
Ground Trans. Manager Generalist Engineer Engineer Maintenance
Clerk Airline Services
Terminal Srvcs Clerk
Business Dev. Manager
Mgr.
Maintenance (25)
Land Aqui. Accounting
Clerk Police Division Fire Division Comm Center
Specialist
Parking Supervisor Airline Services
Attendants Passenger Custodial Supervisor Manager Clerk
Services ATOstation
Mgmt
Custodians (18)
Passenger Services Coord.
FBO LineOps
Mgr. Line
Techs
Passenger Cour.
Services (25) Hgr
asst
FBO LineOps
Mgr.
Desk
Accounting Mgr.
Reps
QC LineOps Line
Mgr. Techs

General Mitchell International Airport
Milwaukee County
Executive Director
(Non-Airport) (Non-Airport)
Manager Marketing/ Administration 2 Student Interns Airport Planner Airport Engineers General Counsel
Public Relations

GIS Specialist
2 Airport Interns Noise Abatement
Ground Transport Law

Deputy Director
Deputy Director & Parking Manager Enforcement
Ops/Maintenance (Non-Airport)
Finance/Admin
.
.
(8)
Accounting Secretary Properties Mngr Properties Spc Contracts Operations Mngr Environmental Mngr Maintenance Mngr Admin. Asst.
Safety &
Training
Specialist
Operations Maintenance
Staff Staff

Orlando Sanford Airport Authority
City of Sanford
Mayor and City Commission
Sanford Airport Authority

General Counsel
Board of Directors
President and Chief Executive Officer

Director of Special Affairs
Incident Commander/Law Enforcement

Vice President of Vice President of Finance/CFO & Vice President of Construction
Administration Airport Chief of Police Operations Management
Properties Airport Police & Dispatch

Airfield Maintenance Horizontal
Finance & Accounting

Human Resources Airport Operations & Safety Vertical
Information Technology
Airport Security Compliance & Renovation
Office Administration Access Control
Grant Administration
Aircraft Rescue/Firefighting Remodeling
Building Maintenance (ARFF
Public Information Officer


T.F. Green Airport
Board of
Directors
Manager
Audit Chief Auditor Manager of Exec.
President & CEO
& Financial Analyst Support Services
Manager
Audit
VP Public Affairs Sr Admin

Receptionist Admin Asst. TSS
& Air Service Marketing Asst.
Director
Human Resources
Community Air Service Mktg General Counsel
Relations TSS
Analyst

HR Manager Payroll Manager Lawyer Paralegal
Planning,
Emerg. Resp. Operations and
Sr. VP. Finance and Admin TSS II Engineering, and
Coordinator Maintenance
Environmental
VP
Commercial Corp. Chief Tech. VP Env Mgmt Capital Manager Manager Aeronautics GA AVP AVP Ops &
Fire Chief
Programs Controller Officer Sys Program Eng. Plng. Ins. (Landmark) Buildings Maintenance
Manager
AVP Comm. Proc. Senior IT P/T Airport Mgr
Mgr Env Prog Proj Mgr. Deputy Mgr Ops
Prog. Specialist Analyst Planner Buildings
Mgr Parking/ Airport Chief of Police
Ground IT Analyst Envn Proj Mgr Proj Mgr. Captains (4) Snr TSS Mgr Airfield
Planner
Trans.
Contr. Mgr Noise Prog
Finance Mgr. IT Analyst Captain P/T TSS TSS
Adm. Mgr CADD Op
Accounting Accounting IT Analyst TSS TSS Lt’s (4)
Accounting Accounting Inspector

Proj. Cont.
Grants/Contracts Mgr/DBE Badge Coord Badge Coord
Liaison Off.
Project Acct TSS

Harrisburg International Airport
Susquehanna Area Regional
Airport Authority
Executive Director
Deputy Executive Director


Deputy Director of Finance Deputy Director of PR Deputy Director of Planning
& Administration & Marketing & Engineering Deputy Director, Security
Ops, & Public Safety
Manager, Terminal Information
H.R. Manager Facilities, Parking, Technology
Accounting CXY, FCRA & GT Manager
Manager Utilities, & EGY Manager
Marketing & Water,/ Sewer Police Fire
Customer Svc Manager Chief Chief
Manager
Building
Part Time H.R. Assistant Maintenance
Accountant
Engineering Supervisor Information
Environmental Technology
Program Administrative
Property Customer Info/ Assistant Technicians
Manager
Manager Susquehanna
AR/AP Club Traffic
Custodial
CXY, FCRA Control Airport
Specialist & EGY QA
Manager Officers Operations
Specialists
Purchasing Maintenance Supply Baggage Handling
Agent Dispatch Supervisor System
Receptionist Manager
Custodial
(Contract)
Dispatch
Advertising Planning & Vehicle Operations
& Design Maintenance Assistant
Marketing Supervisor
Construction
Management Airfield
Maintenance CXY, FCRA,
Supervisor & EGY
Administration
Techs

Stewart International Airport
The Port Authority
Of New York & New Jersey
General Manager
Executive Business Manager

Administrative Support Specialist

Plant, Structures, & Airport Operations Properties & Business
Redevelopment Manager & Security Manager Development Manager
Resident Properties &

Program Airport Operations
Engineer Business Development
Manager & Security Manager
(As Needed)
AirportAirport
Operations
&Services
Security
Construction Manager
Project
Inspectors
Managers
(As Needed)
Mx. Services Ops Services Admin/Business

Manager Manager Manager
Project
Manager
Facility Systems Vehicle Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable,

Sr. an Jr.
Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Payroll, Properties & Leases
Operations Supervisors
Staff Staff Staff Receptionists P/T

3.2.2 Management Context
The Management Context is comprised of those aspects of the airport which directly relate to
airport management issues such as executive management spending authority, minimum standards,
procurement, capital improvement program, capital projects management, and overall budget. For
consistency in reporting, the Study Team utilized the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA)
Compliance Activity Tracking System (CATS), Report 127 for each comparable airport. None of the
comparable airports utilized participated in the most recent benchmarking survey completed by the
Airports Council International – North America.
The original terminal constructed at Lehigh Valley International was built in the 1970’s, with major
reconstruction and expansion occurring in 1996 and minor renovations occurring in 2000. Capital
Improvement Projects are handled by on-site staff in conjunction with assistance from consultants
for larger projects, with smaller projects handled entirely in-house.
Lehigh Valley International has a tiered procurement structure, with any procurement item under
$10,000 only needing three quotes and taking approximately 1-2 days from quote to purchase. Any
item greater than $10,000 must go to bid and items greater than $15,000 requires Board approval.
For those items that are required to go through the bid process, the Authority uses an average 30-
day bid period, with a one-week period following for proposal selection and final approval.
Minimum standards are in place at Lehigh Valley International, and are primarily a function of the
flight schools. The last update of the minimum standards occurred approximately 10 years ago.
As reported by the FAA, LVIA had $8.3 million in unrestricted financial assets in 2007 with
operating expenses of $15.5 million equating to an expense ratio of approximately $36.40 per
enplaned passenger. As reported by the Airport, their 2007 Rate Base to Airlines was $14.15 per
enplaned passenger.
The first airport terminal at Milwaukee was constructed in 1955, with reconstruction, expansion and
rehabilitation projects occurring in 1984, 1990, and 2007. Minimum standards were established in
1966, and are amended as needed with no “wholesale” updates. Other than for emergency purposes,
the Airport Director is allowed to spend as-needed, as long as it is approved within the annual
budget. Variances need to prior approval. Capital improvements are primarily managed by
Milwaukee staff, in conjunction with consultants on an as-needed basis.
As reported by the FAA, Milwaukee had $110.9 million in unrestricted financial assets in 2007 with
enplaned passenger.
The terminal facility at Orlando Sanford International was originally built in the 1940’s, and was
renovated in 2001. Minimum standards are in use at the Airport, with the last update occurring in
1996 and more updates anticipated in 2007. The spending authority of the Airport CEO varies, with
no set limit on spending before needing Board authorization. The entire procurement process takes
an average of 45 days to occur, and the Airport CEO has the authorization to spend the money on
the project or item so long as there is money in the Airport budget. Capital Improvement Projects
are managed by the Authority staff (primarily planners and engineers), in conjunction with
consultants on larger projects.
As reported by the FAA, Sanford had $3.8 million in unrestricted financial assets in 2007 with
operating expenses of $7.2 million equating to an expense ratio of approximately $7.30 per enplaned
passenger. The Airport’s Rate Base to Airlines was not available.
The original terminal was dedicated in 1931, and was completely remodeled in 1996. Minimum
standards are in use for certain activities, and it was not known when the last update occurred.
Board approval is required for any expenditure $50,000 or greater, and the procurement process
takes approximately 30 days. Capital improvements are primarily managed by RIAC staff, in
conjunction with consultants on an as-needed basis.
As reported by the FAA, Providence had $41.5 million in unrestricted financial assets in 2007 with
enplaned passenger. The Airport’s Rate Base to Airlines was not available.
In 1968 what was Olmstead Air Force base was decommissioned and Harrisburg International
Airport began commercial service utilizing the existing facilities, which were remodeled over the
years. However, in 2001 a brand new terminal was constructed. Harrisburg is currently in the
process of redeveloping their minimum standards. The Executive Director has a spending limit of
up to $50,000, with Deputy Directors allowed between $5,000 and $10,000. Capital improvement
projects are primarily managed by airport staff in conjunction with consultants as needed.
As reported by the FAA, Harrisburg had $2.1 million in unrestricted financial assets in 2007 with
enplaned passenger.
Stewart International Airport (Newburgh, New York)
The original terminal at Stewart International Airport was constructed shortly after the airport was
decommissioned as a military installation in 1970. In 1997 the terminal was reconstructed to the
existing facility, with a redesign occurring in 1998. There are no spending authority limitations;
however expenditures must fall within the approved budget. Capital improvements are managed by
a combination of PANYNJ and consultant staff.
As reported by the FAA, Stewart had $42.7 million in unrestricted financial assets in 2006 (2007 was
not available as a result of the transition of the Airport from a private firm to the PANYNJ) with
enplaned passenger. The Airport’s Rate Base to Airlines was not available.
A summary table of the unrestricted financial assets and the operating expense comparisons can be
found below in Table 3.3. A summary table of the comparable airports management comparison can
be found in Table 3.4.
Table 3.3 – Comparable Airports Financial Comparison

Unrestricted Total Total Airline Rate
Annual Operating
Financial Expense Per Expense Base Per
Airport Enplanements Expense
Assets Enplaned Per Enplaned
(rounded) ($ Million)
($ Million) Passenger Employee Passenger
2007
Lehigh Valley $ 8.3 427,000 $ 15.5 $ 36.401 $ 120,155 $ 14.15
Harrisburg 2.1 643,000 14.0 21.75 116,667 14.65
Milwaukee 110.9 3,751,000 46.2 12.21 231,000 4.61
Providence 41.5 2,500,000 28.8 11.52 155,675 N/A
Sanford 3.8 986,000 7.2 7.30 130,909 N/A
Stewart5 42.7 455,000 6.2 39.43 114,814 N/A
Notes:
1. LVIA’s Total Expense per enplaned passenger is higher as a result of providing various revenue generating services that are not provided
by the comparable airports with the exception of Stewart.
2. N/A = Not available.
3. None of the comparable airports for this study participated in the most recent Airports Council International –North America (ACI-NA)
Benchmarking Survey.
4. Expense includes all operating expenses. It does not include non-operating expenses such as interest expense, etc.
5. SWF is 2006 data. 2007 was not available.
Sources:
1. Airline Rate Base information provided directly by each airport.
2. Federal Aviation Administration – AAS-400 Compliance Activity Tracking System (CATS), Report 127.
3. FAA Calendar Year Enplanements – Compiled from Air Carrier Activity Information System (ACAIS).
Table 3.4 – Comparable Airports Management Context
Airports
Lehigh Valley
International
International
International
International
International
(Providence)
T.F. Green
Harrisburg
Orlando
Mitchell
General
Sanford
Stewart
Minimum
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Standards
Less than
$10,000 – 2
30 Day 30 Day 30 Day
Procurement Days; 30 Day
Varies Average Average Average
Cycle More than Average Cycle
Cycle Cycle Cycle
$10,000 – 4
Weeks
Executive
management
As Director:
Board Board
Approved $50,000 As Approved
Spending Approval Approval
by the Varies Deputy by the
Authority Over Over
Budget Directors: Budget Only
$15,000 $50,000
Only $5,000 -
$10,000
Staff with Staff with Staff with Staff with Staff with Staff with
CIP
Consultants Consultants Consultants Consultants Consultants Consultants
Management
As Needed As Needed As Needed As Needed As Needed As Needed
Built: 1940
Built: 1961
Built: Built: 1955 Remodeled: Built: 1970 Built: 1970
Remodeled:
Terminal 1970’s Expanded: 2001 New New Terminal:
1996
Facilities Remodeled: 1984, 1990, New Terminal: 1997
Improvemen
1996 & 2007 Garage: 2004 Redesign: 1998
ts: 2008
2007
3.2.3 Operational Context
The Operational Context is comprised of those aspects of the airport which relate directly to the
Fixed Base Operations (FBO) and airline operations, airside/landside airport operations, contract
services, and FAA services, among others.
Currently, eight airlines operate out of Lehigh Valley International serving 12 destinations. All ticket
counter, baggage, and gate areas utilize Common Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE), allowing and
airline to enter service at the Airport by simply connecting into the computer systems with limited to
no upfront modifications required. As a result, Lehigh Valley International has operating agreements
with the airlines for the space they use that are approved by Board resolutions. Fixed Base Operator
(FBO) services are all provided by the Authority at LVIA and Queen City Airports, including
fueling, aircraft maintenance, as well as ground handling for all airlines. Braden Airpark is operated
under contract by Moyer Aviation. No self-fueling is allowed at Lehigh Valley International. The
Air Traffic Control Tower is FAA-staffed and provides 24-hour service. There are no contracted
services at Lehigh Valley International, all services including parking, janitorial, operations, and
security are handled within the Authority organization.
General Mitchell International Airport currently has eleven airlines that serve 47 destinations.
Ticketing areas are exclusive use, while baggage and gate areas are common use. There is one FBO
located at each of the Airports operated by the County. The County handles all operational needs,
with the exception of parking services, which are handled by a contract company. The Air Traffic
Control Tower (ATCT) is staffed by FAA personnel, and provides service on a 24 hour, 7 day a
week basis.
Orlando Sanford International is home to five airlines that serve an average of 35-40 destinations,
depending upon the time of year, as their leisure traffic tends to be highly seasonal. The use of
ticketing, baggage, and gate areas are common use throughout the terminal for all five airlines. In
addition there are two Fixed Base Operators at Orlando Sanford International, both of which are
operated under a management contract in place with TBI Management. This management contract
covers all of the daily on-site operational and management needs of the Airport Authority, including
operations, maintenance, ground handling, janitorial services, and the Fixed Base Operators. The
ATCT is staffed by FAA personnel, and provides limited hours of service from 6:30am until 11pm.
Providence currently has 10 airlines that serve 24 direct destinations. The use of gates and ticket
counters are exclusive use, with baggage areas as common use. There are two FBO’s located at
Airport and a single FBO operator at each of the GA airports. RIAC handles all of the operational
needs of the Airport, and operational needs at the GA airports are handled by the FBO. The ATCT
is FAA staffed, and provides limited hours of service from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm.
Harrisburg International Airport is currently served by seven airlines that serve 13 direct
destinations. Ticket counters and baggage offices are exclusive use, gates are preferred use, and
baggage claim is common use. The operational needs at the Airport are primarily handled in-house,
with parking and janitorial services contracted out. There is a single FBO at each of the airports. In
addition, operations needs at the GA facility are contracted out. The ATCT is FAA staffed, and
provides service on a 24 hour, 7 day a week basis.
Stewart International Airport (Newburgh, New York)
Stewart International Airport currently has four airlines serving five destinations. The operational
needs of the Airport are contracted out to a private company. There are two FBOs at the Airport.
The ATCT is a contract tower, and provides service on a 24 hour, 7 day a week basis. Stewart
recently underwent a transition from a private company under the FAA’s Privatization Pilot
Program to being operated by the PANYNJ. Many of their operational needs are currently under
review for their efficiency and effectiveness.
A summary table of the comparable airports operational comparison can be found in Table 3.5
below.
Table 3.5 – Comparable Airports Management Context
Airports
Lehigh Valley
International
International
International
International
International
(Providence)
T.F. Green
Harrisburg
Orlando
Mitchell
General
Sanford
Stewart
No. of
1 1 2 2 1 2
FBOs
FBO Authority Private Private Private Private Private
Ownership Ownership Ownership Ownership Ownership Ownership Ownership
Services
Full Service Full Service Full Service Full Service Full Service Full Service
Provided
No. of
8 11 5 10 7 4
Airlines
No. of
12 47 35-40 24 13 5
Destinations
Ticket Ticket Ticket Ticket
Counters & Counters & Counters & Counters &
Common Bag Bag Bag Bag
operational
and All Areas: Offices: All Areas: Offices: Offices: Offices:

Exclusive Common Exclusive Common Exclusive Exclusive Exclusive
Use Areas All Other All Other All Other All Other
Areas: Areas: Areas: Areas:
Common Common Common Common
ATC
FAA FAA FAA FAA FAA Contract
Staffing
Limited Limited
24 Hour 24 Hour Hours: Hours: 24 Hour 24 Hour
ATC Hours
Service Service 6:30 am – 6 am – Service Service
11 pm 11 pm
MDT:
Parking ,
ABE &
Janitorial,
Contracted JVU: None Daily Daily
Snow
Services N43: Daily Parking Operational None Operational
Removal
(1)(2) Operational Needs Needs
CXY: Daily
Needs
Operational
Needs
(1) Daily Operational Needs: Includes operations, parking, janitorial, & maintenance
(2) JVU: Queen City Airport N43: Braden Airpark CXY: Capital City Airport
3.3 Human Resources
This section reviews the general conditions of employment of the Lehigh Northampton Airport
Authority (LNAA). Research of the current policies and procedures of LNAA was conducted and
obtained through:
Telephone calls and exchange of emails to the Deputy Director of Administration at LNAA
provided much of the information.
Reviews of LNAA printed matter including the “LNAA Policies and Procedures for Non-
Bargaining Unit Employees” as well as the “LNAA Policies and Procedures for Union
Employees” and the various bargaining agreements currently in place. Additionally, the Airport’s
website was also available for review.
Assessment of LNAA’s Policies and Procedures Manual for Non – Bargaining Employees and
other related policies which included employment, hours and compensation, employee benefits,
safety, conduct and discipline, employee relations and various pertinent appendices of the
manual.
Examination of LNAA’s organization chart, employee salary schedules, employment application,

job vacancy notices, and benefit packages offered to employees.
The specific methodology of this survey will be discussed under Section 3.3.2 “Compensation and
Benefits Survey”. Unless otherwise stated, the analysis and recommendations within this report are
based upon information obtained during the months of October and November 2008. The
assessment was to determine (a) if the human resources practices at LNAA meet generally accepted
practices, and (b) if these practices are comparable to those of airports of similar size.
3.3.1 Human Resources Practices and Policies
The focus of the assessment was to determine:
If the LNAA’s human resources infrastructure is adequate,

If the employment practices meet generally accepted human resources practices, and
If these practices are comparable to the practices of airports of similar size.
Acceptable policies are in place to handle the selection, management, discipline and termination of
employees.
Currently there is no dedicated human resource staff to directly oversee the human resources
operation at LNAA. The Deputy Executive Director is the chief negotiator for union contracts and
has overall responsibility for the Human Resource function and there is a Director of
Administration reporting to him, as well as a HR and Accounting generalist who provide staff
support. In the event of an increase in the number of Airport employees, a more formal human
resources structure may need to be established to meet the needs of the Airport employees.
A review of all documents relating to LNAA employment that was provided by staff was completed.
The majority of these policies and procedures meet generally acceptable standards. A detailed
analysis of the publication, Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority Policies & Procedures Manual reveals a
few items that may need to be addressed in order to comply with acceptable practices, and to reduce
potential risk. While these recommended revisions are minor in scope, they are included below for
consideration:
The Policy Manual Purpose (Section 1.1) should include the following statements:
o “This Policy and Procedure manual supersedes any Policy and Procedure manuals
previously issued and thus any manual previously issued is hereby revoked.”
A page should be included which documents an acknowledgement of receipt of the manual by

the new employee. The signed copy can be filed in an appropriate file. The signed document
will also indicate understanding of “at-will” employment.
The Manual should indicate an effective date. This would enable the management team an
opportunity to keep track of changes and revisions.
Although there is mention of a “Personnel Manager” throughout the manual, there is no such
position listed on staff. Management staff may wish to use alternative titles for consistency
purposes.
There are different dates of enrollment for employee benefits. Given the little or no turnover
experienced at the Airport in recent years, this may not create any concern. However,
management staff should consider enrolling all new employees in the benefit plans (especially
health and welfare) using the same waiting period, i.e., first of the month following employment
or other alternative.
Similarly, in Section 4.22, mention is made of a Severance plan which employees may join after
one year of service. There is no description in the Benefit section for this particular plan.
Discussions with Airport staff confirmed that there are no difficulties with recruitment and retention
of Airport employees.
The overall turnover rate for full-time employees at LNAA was reportedly 2% in 2006. Discussions
with the staff at LNAA indicated that they did not track turnover in 2007 and 2008 because it is so
low. This initial information suggests that there appears to be little difficulty with LNAA recruiting
and retaining employees. A more comprehensive industry comparison utilizing information from
the airports in the survey will be discussed in the next section.
3.3.2 Compensation and Benefit Survey
The comparable airports’ Human Resources departments were contacted to complete a

Compensation and Benefits Survey. Surveys were sent via e-mail and were followed up with
telephone calls and e-mails. A copy of the survey instrument is included in the Appendix of this
report. All five airports identified for this study completed the survey instrument.
Key Survey Findings

The comparison survey with the five responding airports show that the airports ranged in size from
54 to 221 employees, with the average number of employees equal to the number of employees for
LNAA (LNAA’s 129 positions compared to the survey sample average of 129 employees). The
turnover rate for LNAA was appreciably below others and, in fact has not been tracked over the
past two years.
The average fringe benefit rate of the survey respondents was approximately 25.65%, substantially
lower than the LNAA reported fringe rate of 37%. Further review of the specific fringe benefits
offered by the airports indicated that LNAA’s practice of “employer pay all” for employee benefits
to be the principal reason for the variance. Other benefits, such as retirement, leave, and
miscellaneous benefits were generally comparable to benefits offered by the other responding
airports.
LNAA reported lower than average salary increase than any of the other responding airports in the
survey. LNAA’s average increase (non-union staff) was 2.30% compared to an average of 3.45% for
three respondents.
The wage comparison section of the survey suggests that LNAA’s salary ranges are competitive
since turnover has been nil and the spread between range minimums and maximums are within the
generally accepted guidelines of 80% of midpoint as minimum and 120% of midpoint as maximum.
3.3.3 Survey Results
Number of Employees
At the time of the survey, LNAA had 129 employees. Based on the number of employees on staff,
LNAA ranked the fourth smallest of the five airports included in the survey (Figure 3.1). Data
obtained on Orlando Sanford was obtained through their website.
Figure 3.1 – Number of Employees
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
AVERAGE 129
Milwaukee 221
AIRPORT
Providence 184
Lehigh Valley 129
Harrisburg 109
Sanford 77
Stewart 54
0 50 100 150 200 250
Annual Fringe Benefit Cost

Fringe Benefits are non-payroll benefits that employers provide their employees. Not only do fringe
benefits include health insurance, but also programs to provide financial security and to improve
quality of life. An employer’s Fringe Benefit Rate is normally calculated by adding the annual costs
of all of benefits and presenting that as a percentage rate compared to overall payroll costs. For
example, a Fringe Benefit Rate of 25% could be interpreted to mean that for every one hundred
dollars ($100) paid to an employee through payroll, the company pays an additional twenty-five
dollars ($25) in fringe benefits.
Five of the six participating airports responded to the question regarding their Fringe Benefit Rate.
Information regarding General Mitchell International Airport was obtained from the Milwaukee
County website (staff at this airport is employed by Milwaukee County). Of the five (including
LNAA) their average rate was 25.65%. LNAA’s rate was significantly higher, at 37% as reflected in
Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2 – Annual Fringe Benefit Cost
FRINGE BENEFIT RATE
AVERAGE 25.65%
Milwaukee 39.00%
AIRPORT
Lehigh Valley 37.00%

Providence 23.00%
Harrisburg 20.00%
Sanford 9.25%
Stewart 0.00%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
Turnover Rates
The annual turnover rate of an organization reflects the number of employee separations divided by
the average number of employees throughout the year.
LNAA’s annual turnover rate for 2006 was estimated to be 2%. According to the Deputy Executive
Director, turnover was so low, that it has not been tracked in recent years. Turnover for the year
2007 at three other airports ranged from 3.4% (Providence) and 5.0% (Harrisburg) to 18.75%
(Sanford).
Pay Increases
Respondents were asked if pay increases to their employees were based on merit (performance),
based solely on cost of living adjustments, or based on a combination of performance and cost of
living. LNAA employee pay increases are based on a combination of merit and cost of living
increases. One of the airports (Sanford) reported that their pay increases were based solely on cost
of living adjustments. The other airports reported that increases were based on a combination of
both.
Figure 3.3 reflects the pay practices of the airports and provides the average annual increase for each
airport in 2007. LNAA reported an average pay increase of 2.3%, slightly less than the average of all
other respondents.
Figure 3.3 – Pay Increases
AVERAGE PAY INCREASE
AVERAGE 3.6%
Harrisburg 5.0%
AIRPORT
Providence 3.5%
Stewart 3.5%
Milwaukee 3.0%
Sanford 3.0%
Lehigh Valley 2.3%
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00%
3.3.4 Benefits
Health Care Benefits

The Health Care portion of this section asked specific questions regarding the types of health care
insurance offered and the amount of premium shared by the employer and the employee for four
tiers of coverage (single, employee + child, employee + spouse, full family coverage). As not all
respondents answered these questions in there entirety, only the employer cost of single coverage
and the number of plans offered could be adequately compared. Figure 3.4 shows the types of
health care plans offered by the participating airports. LNAA offers a PPO plan, with a low
deductible.
Figure 3.4 – Health Care Plans
PPO PPO High Ded POS

Airport HMO
80/20 90/10 PPO 70/30
Total Plans Offered
Sanford N/A
Providence 1 1
Harrisburg 1 1
Milwaukee 1 1 2
Lehigh Valley 1 1
Stewart 1 1
Definitions:
PPO 80/20 – Preferred Provider Organization in which the Plan pays 80% of usual and customary services after deductible
PPO 90/10 - Preferred Provider Organization in which the Plan pays 90% of usual and customary services after deductible
HMO – Health Maintenance Organization
High Deductible PPO – A Preferred Provider Organization with a high deductible (usually $3000 or higher)
POS – Point of Service Plan
The employer share of single coverage premium is shown in Figure 3.5. Three of the airports report
that they provide and pay for 100% of single coverage for their employees. LNAA is the only
airport that pays 100% of all benefits regardless of family/employee coverage levels.
Figure 3.5 – Employer Portion of Single Health Insurance Coverage
EMPLOYER PORTION OF SINGLE HEALTH

INSURANCE COVERAGE
AVERAGE 96%
Lehigh Valley 100%
AIRPORTS
Sanford 100%
Harrisburg 100%
Providence 95%
Stewart 90%
Milwaukee 90%
84% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98% 100% 102%
3.3.5 Other Insurance Benefits Offered
Figure 3.6 compares the other types of insurance benefits offered by the airports in addition to the
Health Care benefits. LNAA does not offer short-term disability as compared with four of the five
respondents.
Figure 3.6 – Other Insurance Benefits Offered
Type Lehigh Valley Milwaukee Sanford Providence Harrisburg Stewart
Dental Insurance X X X X X X
Life Insurance X X X X X X
Optional Life X X X X X X
Short Term Dis. X X X X X
Long Term Dis. X X X X X
Vision Insurance X X X X X
Leave Benefits
LNAA offers its employees paid leave through vacation, sick leave, personal time off, holidays,
bereavement and other standard time off programs. In comparison to the other airports that
reported this data, LNAA is in line with a standardized form of vacation practices. Three of the five
airports provide some form of personal time off program of 3 days off (exceptions: Providence and
Sanford).
Figure 3.7 – Leave Benefits

Paid Hours
Paid Hours Paid Hours Paid Hours
More than 15
Airport 1<5 yrs/service 5<10 yrs/service 10<15 yrs/service
yrs/service
Lehigh Valley 80 120 160 172
Milwaukee 80 120 160 200
Sanford 80 80 120 120
Providence 80 120 144 224
Harrisburg 56 80 120 208
Stewart 120 152 216 216
Other paid leave benefits provided by LNAA are comparable to the benefits of the other survey
respondents. In addition, LNAA provides a “parental leave” to eligible employees which provide a
paid benefit of five days.
Figure 3.8 – Other Paid Leave Benefits

Lehigh
Type Milwaukee Sanford Providence Harrisburg Stewart
Valley
Bereavement 4 days 3 days 1-5 days 3 days 3 days 3 days
Holidays 10 9 11 10 9 11
Jury Duty Yes As needed As needed As needed As needed As needed
Military Yes Yes 17 10 10 As needed
Financial/Retirement Benefits
LNAA offers a 457 “Deferred Compensation” plan and a Defined Benefit Pension plan (with
vesting after 5 years). In addition some type of Severance plan is available to employees after a one-
year waiting period is met. The comparison of LNAA with the other airports surveyed is shown in
Figure 3.9 below.
Figure 3.9 – Financial/Retirement Benefits

Lehigh
Valley
401(k)–no match X
401(k)–with match 414(h) X
Pension Plan X X X
Section 125/FSAs X X X X X
Incentive Stock
X
Options
457 Plan X X X X X
Profit Sharing X
State Retirement
X X (TRANSFERS)
System
Other Miscellaneous Benefits

Other Miscellaneous Benefits provided by the airports in the survey are presented in Figure 3.10.
Figure 3.10 – Miscellaneous Benefits

Lehigh
Valley
Tuition
X X X X X
Assistance
Career
Counseling
Matching
Charitable
Contributions
Gym
X
Membership
Food Services/
subsidized
cafeteria
Legal Assistance
Free/
Discounted
Uniforms
Milestone
rewards (yrs of X X
service, etc.)
Discounted
X
event tickets
Employee
X X X X X
Assistance Plan
Parking
Allowance /
free parking
Smoking
X X
Cessation
3.3.6 Compensation
Based on the ability to compare across organizations that have various definitions and duties, the
following seventeen positions were selected to be compared in the Compensation section in the
survey. Figure 3.11 shows the results of this survey.
Figure 3.11 - Compensation

Lehigh
Position Milwaukee Sanford Providence Harrisburg Stewart
Valley
$38,518
Accountant I $36,562 $39,197 N/A
(midpoint)
$49,385
Accountant II $50,458 N/A $72,854 $55,000 N/A
(midpoint)
Airport Attorney N/A $110,755 N/A $160,684 N/A
$83,750
Airport CFO $93,202 $95,773 $160,684 $90,000 N/A
(midpoint)
$78,574 $100,542
Airport Engineer N/A $96,282 $80,000
(midpoint) (midpoint)
Airport Ops $63,991
N/A $54,187 $29,000 N/A
Specialist (midpoint)
Airport Police
$40,997
Officer (non- $39,197 $61,081 $36,000 N/A
supervisory)
Assistant Director of $97,682 $100,542
N/A $80,000
Airports (midpoint) (midpoint)
Chief – ARFF $69,789 $64,034 $60,006 $89,876 $62,400 N/A
$24,710
Custodial Worker I N/A N/A
$39,198
Custodial Worker II N/A N/A
$167,338
Director of Airports $148,000 $212,500 $135,000
(midpoint)
Driver/Operator II –
Air Rescue $34,973 $39,197 $40,775 $41,000 N/A
Firefighter
Deputy Director $64,804
$111,286 N/A $90,000 N/A
General Aviation (midpoint)
$47,038
Flightline Specialist N/A N/A
(midpoint)
$47,038
Flightline Supervisor N/A N/A
(midpoint)
$47,038
Fuels Supervisor N/A N/A
(midpoint)
As indicated in Figure 3.11, midpoint salary information was utilized for Lehigh Valley and Stewart.
Since specific salary was not available at the time of this study for many positions, data was provided
as a range, from which the midpoint salary data shown was calculated. For LNAA, salaries of union
employees (ARFF/Police/Custodial) were derived from the rates given in the union agreements.
The salary for the Director of Airports position was taken from LNAA Board meeting information.
In addition, based upon a review the non-union salary ranges currently in place at LNAA, it appears
that the salary program is in a competitive position as compared to the other airports that
participated in this survey.
Collective Bargaining Structure(s)

As indicated by Figure 3.12, four the five reporting airports are located in states having high union
representation. The exception to this is SFB, which is in the Southeast region.
The data indicates that non-union employees enjoy the same level of salaries and benefits provided
to those of the various unions. This is especially true at LNAA/ABE where 37% of the staff is
covered by three collective bargaining agreements and the remaining 63% of the non-represented
employees is provided the same benefit structure.
Figure 3.12 – Collective Bargaining Structures
AIRPORT NONUNION % UNIONIZED% TOTAL STAFF
Lehigh Valley 63% 37% 129

Milwaukee 19% 81% 221
Sanford 100% 0% 77
Providence 22% 78% 184
Harrisburg 90% 10% 109
Stewart N/A N/A 54
AVERAGE 41% 59% 122
3.3.7 Comparison to Counties
After completion of the comparable airports analysis, the Study Team felt that an examination of the
benefits offered by LNAA compared to those benefits that are offered to Lehigh County employees
would provide a local perspective to the study. Figure 3.13 below compares the benefits offered by
both entities in 9 areas.
Figure 3.13 – Benefits Comparison of LNAA to Lehigh County
Entity
LNAA Lehigh County
Single - $15/Payroll by Employee
Medical 100% of Premium Emp/Child - $33.73/Payroll by Employee
Insurance Paid by LNAA Emp/Spouse - $35.73/Payroll by Employee
Family - $55.82/Payroll by Employee
Single - $2.21/Payroll by Employee
Dental 100% Paid Emp/Child - $12.71/Payroll by Employee
Insurance By LNAA Emp/Spouse - $12.71/Payroll by Employee
Benefit Type
Family - $24.32/Payroll by Employee

Prescription 100 % Paid by LNAA $18.97/Payroll by Employee
Vision Single - $.30/Payroll by Employee
100% Paid by LNAA
Coverage Family - $4.29/Payroll by Employee
Retirement Yes No Data
Deferred
Yes No Data
Compensation
Life
Yes No Data
Insurance
Short Term
No No Data
Disability
Long Term
Yes No Data
Disability
3.4 Summary
While there are various items identified by the Study Team that can improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of LNAA, overall the facility compares favorably to the airports chosen for this Study.
The information presented in this Section will be utilized throughout the remaining analyses
completed as part of this effort and be incorporated into the overall Findings and Recommendations
found in Section 6.
4.0 AIR SERVICE ANALYSIS
As part of this Airport Management Study, a task was developed to assess air service development
activities at LVIA. By way of the collection and synthesis of various data, an evaluation was
performed of the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Airport’s air service development
approach. Besides an in-depth interview with the Authority’s Executive Director and the Director of
Business Development, the following air service related documents were obtained directly from
LVIA:
Plane Talk newsletter for Fall 2008

LVIA incentive program
2009 budget worksheet for the LVIA Business Development Department
Flight guide for July – September 2008
Report from mall kiosk for 8/16/08 – 9/11/08

LVIA Air Service Assessment (March 2008)
Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority New Board Member Orientation 2008
Resolution Establishing Air Transportation Company Rates and Charges and Operating
Requirements at Lehigh Valley International Airport
Marketing and Business Development 2007 – 2008: community outreach and business
opportunities
Airport monthly traffic reports: December 2007 – May 2008
Airline communication status report for 2008
Jangle Media recommendation for Allegiant Air service to Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Air service presentations:
o American Eagle at company headquarters (June 2007)
o American Eagle at Network 2008 (March 2008)
o AirTran at JumpStart 2008 (June 2008)
o JetBlue at JumpStart 2008 (June 2008)
Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Air Service Analysis – Page 4-1
Due to the sensitive nature of air service development, these data and information will not be
published in this document, although they will be referred to for purposes of overall program
evaluation.
4.1 Analysis of Interview with LVIA
As a member of the Study Team, TranSystems Corp. conducted an interview with the LNAA
Executive Director and LVIA’s Director of Business Development (The Director) on October 29,
2008, in the Authority’s conference room. The interview covered budgets, air service and marketing
reporting structure, carrier meetings, carrier correspondence, air service consultant use, air service
conference attendance, relationships with local organizations and corporations, the Small
Community Air Service Development Program, incentive programs, and advertising. The following
provides a summary of the information discussed in each of these categories.
Budgets
During the interview, the Business Development Department’s budget for 2009 was reviewed as
well as the budgeting process. No line items in this budget appeared excessive and costs for
items such as professional services (air service consultant), training/seminars and business travel
were aligned with what would be expected at a similar-sized airport. LVIA appears to be doing a
good job managing its marketing, advertising and air service development costs.
Part of the discussion centered on the kiosk at the Lehigh Valley Mall. It was pointed out that
the kiosk costs as much as a billboard. In the Study Team’s opinion, the kiosk does a better job
of advertising all available air service at LVIA as opposed to one individual service being
marketed on a billboard.
Reporting Structure
The Director of Business Development, reports directly to LVIA’s Executive Director and has
two direct reports, a Coordinator for Business Development and an Events Coordinator, who is
essentially the full-time employee responsible for the mall kiosk. This structure is similar to other
airports of comparable size in the U.S.
The Director has responsibility for air service development, marketing, public relations, LVIA’s
website and the volunteer program. This is typical for airport employees in a similar position at
other airports as well. In some cases, a dedicated public relations position is also used.
Airline/Carrier Meetings
LVIA meets with airlines at their headquarters for air service development purposes an average
of 3-4 times per year. This is in line with other airports of similar size and air service needs.
The Director attends nearly all airline meetings with occasional attendance by the Executive
Director. A consultant accompanies them 75% of the time and always if there is something
significant to discuss. LVIA will always bring along the appropriate consultant if certain air
service analyses need to be explained to the airline. This shows a prudent use of the Airport’s
business development budget.
LVIA also brings along Board Members to airline meetings when appropriate, and only when
there is a specific need for that person to contribute to the meeting. The Airport realizes that it’s
best to keep the travel group small when visiting with airlines.
As expected, given the size of LVIA and its proximity to Newark and Philadelphia, the Airport
expends a small percentage of resources (staff time and budget) pursuing cargo service.
The Airport spends roughly 40% of its resources pursuing new service from incumbent carriers,
50% targeting new carriers (i.e. American, Southwest, and other Low Cost Carriers) and 10%
discussing new service with scheduled charter carriers.
Carrier Correspondence
The Director keeps in contact with airline planners on a regular basis via e-mail, phone or
meetings at headquarters or conferences. News of corporate relocations, corporate expansions
and other pertinent articles are sent to airlines in an effort to keep LVIA on the top of mind.
Some airports rarely communicate with airlines and thus fall to the bottom of the pile when
airlines are evaluating new service.
Upon reviewing the Airport’s airline communication status report for 2008, the Study Team
concludes that LVIA is communicating with the right airlines, not communicating with
inappropriate airline targets, and is talking to the right people at the airlines being targeted for
new or expanded service.
Air Service Consultant Use
LVIA utilizes the services of multiple air service development consultants as opposed to
concentrating all efforts with one consultant. The Airport has in the past, selected consultants
by asking the target carrier whom they recommend or researching which consulting firm has had
recent success with the target carrier. The Study Team recommends an approach that would hire
one consultant for the following reasons.
o If a consultant is faced with allocating scarce resources amongst various clients, those
Airports that are most loyal will get the lion’s share of that consultant’s attention. This
remains applicable to client business development, identification of target airline
opportunities, and ad-hoc data analysis/retrieval.
o Any time an airport utilizes a new consultant, that consultant has to spend time analyzing
the market, understanding trends and generally spending time learning the client. This could
be time and money better spent on pursuing new service and analyzing potential
opportunities. So, every time LVIA chooses to utilize a new consultant, the new consultant
is compensated for work done by the previous incumbent firm.
o The Study Team encourages airports, especially those of LVIA’s size, to concentrate their
efforts with one consulting firm who can become experts on their market rather than
splitting the pie amongst several who have the budget and resources to become merely
familiar with the market. This can be accomplished via the Request for Proposal (RFP) or
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process and 1-3 year contracts so the Airport does not
feel locked-down with any one consulting firm for an extended period of time. Splitting
consulting work amongst multiple firms generally only works successfully for very large
airports that may have firms concentrate on different geographical regions of the world or
in multiple airport aviation systems where consultant work can be distributed by individual
airport.
Air Service Conference Attendance
LVIA attends the annual JumpStart and Network conferences to meet with airlines regarding
service from new carriers and additional capacity from incumbent carriers. This makes sense
for an airport of LVIA’s size and air service needs/challenges. The Airport correctly
acknowledges that it would be inappropriate for it to attend the Global Routes conference
and other international focused conferences.
The Director attends air service conference meetings both individually and with a consultant.
Relationships with Local Organizations and Corporations
The Lehigh Valley Economic Development Organization (LVEDC) has participated in

airline service development meetings in the past. However, the Greater Lehigh Valley
Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) reportedly provides little to no support for air service
development efforts. This is surprising as Chamber of Commerce organizations are typically
eager to assist with air service development projects, especially those in smaller-sized
communities.
The Lehigh Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) is also helpful and even assists
the Airport with placing reverse marketing in destination cities. As another show of support,
the CVB uses Airport collateral for purposes of marketing visitors to the Lehigh Valley.
The Executive Director and the Director are well aware of the various Chamber, economic
development and CVB organizations present in the area and both serve on multiple boards
or committees.
The Airport has attempted to forge relationships with local companies, but most have
contracts to fly from Newark Liberty International and Philadelphia International Airports
and are satisfied with these options. The Airport does maintain a list of corporate travel
managers and some will provide general information only. Some companies have LVIA as
part of their airline contracts and some do not. In today’s volatile environment, airlines want
to know where local corporations travel, which airlines they have contracts with and, most
importantly, would these travel managers change travel purchasing habits with new nonstop
service. Some airlines will even go as far as requesting written confirmations or even
financial guarantees to show that business travelers will use new nonstop service if it is
offered. LVIA thus has a hard time delivering local business community travel dollars to
prospective airlines, and it is not for a lack of trying.
LVIA has also reached out to the Lehigh Valley Partnership with no success. This could
potentially be another entrée to the local business community. The Airport reports that the
organization has not responded to requests for air service development support.
Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP)
LVIA has submitted grant proposals several times to this U.S. DOT program.
Many other small PA airports other than LVIA have been awarded a grant through this
program. In 2008, State College PA was a recipient.
Local community support and funding is vital to securing a grant under this program. With
the most recent application in 2008, no support was offered to LVIA by local governments
and/or corporations and therefore LVIA was not able to submit a competitive grant
application.
Incentive Program
LVIA has an innovative incentive program that the airlines reportedly embrace.
The program is straightforward and airlines know what is being offered without having to
engage in negotiations or back-and-forth discussions with the airlines. Having the plan laid
out like this helps an airline understand exactly what it will receive from LVIA in terms of
support, whereas other airports are vague regarding their incentives. This also makes it easy
in terms of route planning since the airline has all the information up front.
Some may argue that the levels of marketing assistance are on the high side but the Airport
has illustrated in the plan how the Airport still generates positive cash flow after providing
the marketing assistance for new service.
This incentive program also provides marketing assistance for increases in capacity
(seats/frequencies) for existing service. This is a unique offering at LVIA as most airports
do not offer incentives for increases in capacity. Such an incentive will help LVIA compete
for scarce airline capacity.
LVIA places any advertising generated via the incentive program with its own ad agency to
take advantage of volume discounts. The Airport controls the media plan, ad placement and
creative design but does accept input from the airline. LVIA has in the past allocated the
funds directly to the airline to spend at its discretion but now controls all spending since
airlines never were able to devote the appropriate resources and market new routes
effectively in the area.
LVIA has the capability to provide ground handling for carriers and can provide it at a
discount as part of an incentive package. This significantly reduces the cost, risk and effort
required for a carrier to start service at LVIA. In fact, Allegiant has no employees at the
Airport whatsoever which provides the airline a sustainable low operating cost in the long-
term. This is opposed to other incentives which reduce operating costs during the ramp-up
period only.
Advertising
The mall kiosk is undoubtedly one of the more unique and innovative marketing ideas the
Study Team has come across. Understandably, it was a controversial idea for the Board to
embrace for a number of reasons. Given the high utilization of the mall amongst the local
population, the ability to generate awareness of nonstop service options even while not
staffed and the opportunities to drive direct ($6/reservation flows back to LVIA) and
indirect (additional Passenger Facility Charges (PFC), parking revenue, concession revenue,
etc.) economic benefits for the Airport, the Study Team believes it is a beneficial part of the
Airport’s overall marketing program. If expansion is indeed possible to other area malls for
similar costs, the Study Team would encourage the Airport to do so.
The Airport participates in many community outreach and business development activities
which constitute cost effective means of advertising LVIA’s presence and service offerings.
The Airport often takes advantage of opportunities to partner with airlines to offer free
tickets as trade for marketing air service to the community.
The Airport’s newly developed newsletter is attractive, well-designed and does an effective
job of marketing available service at LVIA. It is distributed to a list of 24,000 passengers as
well as airline route planners. This is an effective tool for keeping route planners apprised of
developments at LVIA and making sure LVIA is staying on their radar screens.
LVIA is one of the few airports in the U.S. that still publishes a printed flight guide and
normally we would encourage an Airport to discontinue such a publication. But, since LVIA
is in a constant battle with significant passenger leakage to EWR and PHL, this is another
useful tool for marketing available nonstop and connecting service from the Airport.
4.2 Comparison to Peer Airports
Table 4.1 on the following page shows how LVIA and the peer airports responded to queries
regarding air service and marketing. The questions related to staffing, budgets, incentives, consultant
use, visits to airline headquarters, advertising and marketing.
For the purposes of this analysis, the actual airport names have been disguised since air service
development is a competitive business and the other airports were advised that names would not be
revealed in this report. These “peer” airports are not the comparable airports reviewed in Chapter 3
of this report. This table should be used for information purposes only as every airport has a
different set of competitive circumstances and inappropriate benchmarks can lead to improper
conclusions.
4.1 – Air Service Comparison with Peer Airports

Question LVIA Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3
What department does air service development fall Business Marketing Marketing & PR Public Affairs & Air
under? Development Service Marketing
Who has responsibility for air service development? Director of Business Deputy Director, Marketing & PR VP of Public Affairs
Development Marketing & Public Manager & Air Service
Relations Marketing
What other responsibilities does that person have? Public relations, Airport Marketing, Marketing, public Corporate Comm.,
marketing, community public relations, relations, special External Affairs,
relations, tours, charity airport info/visitor events, media Media relations, Gov't
events center, frequent flyer relations, noise & Affairs, Community
lounge & airport customer service Affairs, PR,
clerical staff Advertising, Mktg
How many direct reports does that person have? 2 12 (6 Full-Time & 6 3 (4th is approved but 3
Part-Time) not filled)
How much does the Airport budget for advertising $500,000 $400,000 $400,000 $396,000
every year?
Does the Airport issue a newsletter? Yes Yes. In electronic Yes Yes. E-newsletter
format only.
If so, how often is it published? 4/yr 8-9/yr 6/yr Every 2-3 months
Is it distributed to airline network planners? Yes No. It is sent to To those that Yes
frequent flyers, airport subscribe with their e-
board members, mail address
Chamber of
Commerce, regional
businesses and all
others who sign up an
email address.
Does the Airport produce a printed timetable? Yes No. Electronic, online No No, electronic (.pdf)
version only.
Do you use a consultant for air service development Yes Yes Yes Yes
work?
If so, how many different consultants do you work 2 1 1 (not including 1
with? consultant for data
only)
What is your average annual budget for air service $25,000. Budget is $20,000 - $25,000. $60,000 $85,000-$100,000
consultants? revisited mid-year and Figure is based on
can be revised need, if more
upwards if necessary. opportunities arise
$50,000 or more could
be spent. If no
opportunities exist in a
year it could be less
than $20,000
How often do you visit carriers at their headquarters? 3-4/yr 2-3/yr 1-2/yr 1/yr for each carrier
If so, do consultants travel with you to these meetings? Yes, 75% of the time Yes, 60% of the time. Yes Yes, on an as-needed
basis
Who else attends them on behalf of the Airport? Executive Director, Executive Director No one else President/CEO
sometimes board
members
Which of the annual air service conferences do you JumpStart & Network Jumpstart JumpStart & Network JumpStart & Network
attend?
Do you have a formal air service incentive program? Yes No. Incentives vary No, but considering Yes
depending on the one. Current ULA
situation. does not permit.
If so, what do you offer carriers for new service? $5 per seat marketing No type of incentive is Frequency of service
funds in year 1, can off the table. and markets served
also waive other fees will determine waiver
and discount handling of costs and marketing
assistance.
What do you offer carriers for additional service on Same No set incentive Depends on proposed
existing routes? package. level of service.
Do you actively pursue cargo service? No Very occasionally, but No Not currently, but it is
lately no. something we are
targeting
Do you actively pursue scheduled charter service? 10-15% of time & No No Yes
resources
4.3 Summary and Conclusions
LVIA is indeed in a unique position – geographically positioned between two major air service hubs
(as well as international gateway airports) with significant passenger leakage to both. In the Study
Team’s opinion, the Airport’s approach to air service development is for the most part appropriate
for LVIA’s size and competitive position. The Business Development Department is visiting the
right air carriers with the appropriate frequency, achieving the right mix of consultant use and in-
house utilization of resources, and the Airport has a good understanding of where to allocate its
resources for marketing and advertising purposes. And finally, LVIA is challenged due to the
relationships among local corporate, chamber, and government organizations regarding air service
development for the Lehigh Valley Region.
The Study Team recommends the following areas be pursued to enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of air service development initiatives:
1. Develop a Strategic Marketing Plan

2. Better Integrate Regional Economic Development Initiatives with Overall Airport
Marketing and Communications
3. Community Support of Small Community Air Service Development Grant Applications.
4. Work with One Air Service Development Consultant.
These air service observations and recommendations are incorporated into the study’s overall
recommendations in Section 6 of this report.
5.0 ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS
Throughout their development, airports in the United States have traditionally been operated by
municipal or state governments on a non-profit basis. Their operational funding is typically
characterized as “airside” (landing and handling fees, gate rentals, etc.) and “landside” (revenue
derived from concessions, rental cars, and other aviation and non-aviation leases). Typically a
portion of capital program funding comes from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the
form of grants, the collection of Passenger Facility Charges (PFC’s) on ticketed airport passengers,
and through the issuance of tax-exempt revenue bonds which usually rely on monies collected from
airline lease agreements as payment to bondholders.
However, over the last 20 years, this relatively easy to understand model has become ever more
complex. First, many communities have acknowledged that not only do their airports represent a
necessary transportation infrastructure, but also that the airport is a major contributor to jobs and
positive economic impact to the communities they serve. Second, revenue and funding sources
necessary to maintain and improve an airport have become more difficult to understand and
manage. The introduction of the Passenger Facility Charge Program in the late 80’s by the FAA, and
the reliance by airports on “Letter of Intent” allocations from the FAA in support of large multi-
year capital improvement programs are prime examples. Finally, the airline industry has evolved a
great deal over recent years. The industry is more competitive than ever before and airlines are not
only able, but expected to, enter and exit markets more readily than in the past, making capital
improvement and financial planning ever more challenging.
As a result of needing to be more responsive to these changes in the industry, many municipalities
seek ways to organizationally position their airports to be as responsive to the free marketplace as
possible. This often includes assessing and changing their airport governance model, and finding
ways to attract highly qualified airport managers that possess the skills necessary to manage today’s
complex airport operating environment.
Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Organizational Analysis – Page 5-1
5.1 National Governance Models
Nationally, airports are typically operated in one of three governmental settings. They include:
The direct operation by government;

The operation by government with policy oversight advice by commissions, advisory boards,
or authorities; and
Through contract operation.
For discussion purposes, these models are referred to as the Government, Policy Oversight, and
Privatization Models, respectively. The Government Model, which tends to lack public policy input
on a regular basis, is generally used by municipalities that operate only smaller general aviation
facilities. The Policy Oversight Model is by far the most popular model followed by airport owners
today and indeed it is the model followed by Lehigh and Northampton Counties. The Privatization
Model, which usually involves the outsourcing of day-to-day management and operations of an
airport, but whereby the municipality often retains policy control, is only practiced at a few airports
nationally and with mixed results.
Under the Policy Oversight Model, the challenge for airports is to achieve the right mix of public
policy input while maintaining policy control, minimizing bureaucracy and allowing the airport to
function as close to a business as possible. Only when these three factors are brought into balance
with each other will organizational effectiveness be optimized.
5.2 National Organization of Operations Models
Once an airport’s governance model is set, it is airport management’s role to craft the airport
organization in response to that model. Like governance models themselves, organization of a
department or office to manage airport operations also comes in many forms. In large part, the
specific structure depends on the size and type of airport(s) to be managed. As an airport grows in
size, so too does the need to provide greater departmentalization with more specialized tasks.
However, it must be recognized that each organization must be tailored to meet the needs of
operating the specific airport in an efficient, effective, safe and secure manner. Generally speaking,
airports and corporations are organized by the following methods1:
Simple or Line – a simple or line organization is a top-down structure with the airport
manager overseeing all employees. This structure is usually seen at general aviation and small
commercial service airports.
Functional – a functional organization structures activities around the types of tasks being
conducted at the airport. For example, tasks would be grouped by Department as in the
Administration Department, Operations Department, etc. This structure is usually seen at
larger airports, while smaller airports sometimes utilize a mix of functional and simple
organizations.
Divisional – a divisional organization has self-contained units that operate independently of

each other. This type of structure is usually seen in a municipal environment with the airport
being a division within the overall structure of the municipal system. For example, Airport
Division, Parks and Recreation Division, Highway Division, etc.
Conglomerate – a conglomerate organization structures activities around independent

business units with their own cost centers. For example, General Electric is organized in a
conglomerate manner with numerous independent businesses. This type of organization is
not usually seen in the airport environment.
Matrix – a matrix type organization utilizes a functional type structure that encompasses a
project type approach. For example, an operations officer would functionally report to the
Operations Department while being a member of the project team for a new terminal with
the role of providing operations insight while the terminal project is being designed and
built. While this type of structure creates multiple reporting lines, it does provide flexibility
to an airport that is growing or redeveloping.
Overall, a blend of the functional/matrix type organizational structures is very common at today’s
airports. This type of structure will be considered for analysis in comparison to the LNAA.
1 American Association of Airport Executives, Body of Knowledge Module 2, The Management Functions, 2004/2005.
5.3 Governance of the Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
The Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority (LNAA) is an autonomous, independent agency,

established under the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Act2, directed by a Board of Governors.
The three main governance areas reviewed in this management study include:
LNAA Board of Governors;

LNAA Reporting Structure; and
LNAA Organization Structure.
The review of these reporting structures was completed to help facilitate and understand the
different reporting lines both above and below the LNAA. The effectiveness and efficiency of these
reporting lines can play a significant role in the Authority’s ability to execute its mission and
objectives efficiently and effectively to promote, develop, and run the day-to-day operations of the
Airports.
The review of the governance of LNAA was completed through the following tasks. First, the Study
Team conducted a survey of Airport management and non-management employees, as well as
County Officials, members of the LNAA Administration and Board of Governors, and regional
representatives/stakeholders from the Lehigh Valley. Detailed results of the surveys were reported
in Section 2 of this report. In addition to the surveys, the Study Team met with members of the
Airport’s management staff as well as other stakeholders and users of the Airports.
5.3.1 LNAA Board of Governors
LNAA is governed by a Board of Governors. The Board consists of nineteen (19) citizens of the
United States whose qualifications conform with the requirements for members of Governing Board
of Municipal Authorities3; ten (10) appointed by the governing body of Lehigh County and nine (9)
by Northampton County. Each member serves for a term of five (5) years. The Board is empowered
to exercise all lawful municipal powers, with the exception of the power to tax, and is charged with
2 Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Act 53 Pa.C.S. §5601-5622.
3 53 Pa.C.S. §5610
establishing all Airport policies, and setting set rates and charges. As a political and financial
independent body, the Board is not required to officially report to the Counties.
The Board elects annually, from its members, a Chairman, Vice Chairman, and a Secretary-
Treasurer. The Board selects and employs under a contract an Executive Director. The LNAA
Bylaws Article XI, Section 4 describes the duties of the Executive Director as follows:
“Executive Director shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority. He shall report to the Board and shall
hold office at the will and pleasure of the Board or under such employment contracts or other terms the Board may
prescribe. He shall have general and active management of the business and affairs of the Authority, subject to the
policies of the Board. He shall see that all orders and resolutions of the Board are carried into effect and shall execute
all bonds or contracts under the seal of the Authority. He shall have General powers and duties of supervision and
management usually vested in the office of president of a corporation.”
Additionally, the Board appoints an Attorney-at-Law, admitted to practice before the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, to “have charge of the legal affairs and matters of the Authority and shall report to and be
directly responsible to the Board.”4
5.3.2 Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority Reporting Structure
The airport governance model currently employed by LNAA provides for direct oversight by the
Board of Governors with several Ad-Hoc Committees providing guidance on airport initiatives prior
to their presentation to the full Board. The following provides a brief overview on each of LNAA’s
reporting committee’s:
Business and Planning Committee – The Business and Planning Committee reviews all
business and planning matters, and recommends policy action to the full Board.
Finance Committee – The Financial Committee reviews the financial reports provided by
the Executive Director, annual audits, and any other reports required by State and Federal
laws. The committee regularly advises the full Board of the financial status of the Authority
and provides recommendations with regard to contracts, proposals, financial, and accounting
services.
Construction and Maintenance Committee – The Construction and Maintenance

Committee reviews all matters related to construction and maintenance of all Airport
facilities. It reviews bids for construction, equipment and capital improvements that exceed
the purchasing authority of the Executive Director, and makes recommendations to the full
Board.
Community Affairs Committee – The Community Affair Committee reviews all matters
relating to Airport relations with the public, local officials of neighboring communities, and
other governmental bodies that interact within the Authority.
Personnel and Law Committee – The Personnel and Law Committee reviews all labor
contracts, litigations, performance of Solicitors and Executive Director, as well as making
recommendations to the Board to fill staffing vacancies.
The Study Team observed the Construction and Maintenance Committee meeting held on
December 11, 2008 and the Board meeting held on December 16, 2008.
Figure 5.1 depicts the current Board internal Reporting Structure.
4 LNAA Bylaws Article XVI.1
Figure 5.1
Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority Structure
Board of Governors
Finance Committee Attorney-At-Law
Personnel & Law Committee Executive Director
Community Affairs Committee
Construction & Maintenance

Committee
Business & Planning

Committee
Source: Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority and The Study Team
5.3.3 Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority Organization
The LNAA is currently organized in a hybrid fashion, employing departmental and line type
organizational characteristics. As depicted, LNAA is a relatively multilevel organization having an
Executive Director assisted by a Deputy Executive Director that oversees the management of
Braden Airpark, seven (7) senior management staff and three (3) other direct reporting positions that
include the following:
Director of Administration;
Director of Engineering and Construction;
Director of Finance and Budgets;
Director of Public Safety;
Director of Business Development;
Director of LVIA Aviation Services;
Systems Director;
Airport Planner;
Senior Project Manager; and
Superintendent of Maintenance.
Other major areas that fall under the direct reports to the Execute Director include:
Special Assistant to the Executive Director

Assistant to the Deputy Executive director
Braden Airpark (FBO)
The LNAA also has direct control over its own Police Division, which acts independently from
other local law enforcement, and as well as over its own Fire Division, which staffs and operates the
Airport Rescue and Fire-Fighting stations and equipment.
Day-to-day operations at Queen City Airport are managed by a Line Operation Manager who
reports to The Director of LVIA Aviation Services. Operations and day-to day activities at Braden
Airpark are currently managed by the Moyer Aviation Fixed Based Operator (FBO) under a four (4)
year lease. The FBO Manager reports directly to the Deputy Executive Director of Operations at
LVIA.
Figure 5.2 depicts the current LNAA Organizational Chart.
Board of Governors
Legal Counsel
Executive Director
Deputy Executive Director Special Assistant to the

Executive Director
Assistant to the Deputy
Executive Director

Braden Airpark
Director of Director of Finance Airport Senior Project Director of Director of Superintendent Director of LVIA Systems
Administration & Budgets Planner Manager Public Safety Bus. Devlpmt of Maintenance Aviation Services Director
Business Dev.
Coord Systems
Admin Asst. Tech.
Assistant
Superintendent Properties Planner Project Superintendent of
H.R. Acct.
Ground Trans. Manager Generalist Engineer Engineer Maintenance
Clerk Airline Services
Terminal Srvcs Clerk
Business Dev. Manager
Mgr.
Maintenance (25)
Land Aqui. Accounting
Clerk Police Division Fire Division Comm Center
Specialist
Parking Supervisor Airline Services
Attendants Passenger Custodial Supervisor Manager Clerk
Services ATOstation
Mgmt
Figure 5.2 – LVIA Organization Chart
Custodians (18)
Passenger Services Coord.
FBO LineOps
Mgr. Line
Techs
Passenger Cour.
Services (25) Hgr
asst
FBO LineOps
Mgr.
Desk
Accounting Mgr.
Reps
QC LineOps Line
Mgr. Techs
Organizational Analysis – Page 5-9

5.4 Organizational Analysis
The Study Team’s review of these three organizational areas indicates that improvements to the
efficiency and effectiveness of them can be made. This includes the Board of Governors and the
organizational structure of the LNAA. These two areas are discussed below.
5.4.1 LNAA Board of Governors
As discussed earlier, the LNAA Board of Governors consists of 19 members, ten (10) appointed by
Lehigh County and nine (9) appointed by Northampton County. Both Counties are the
incorporating municipalities of the Authority. It is the Study Team’s observation that the 19
members is high considering the size and responsibility of the Authority and in relation to
comparable airports and airport authorities in general across the United States.
While a larger Board can provide a diverse set of member backgrounds that can contribute to
various agenda items, it can often lead to a mix of engaged, partially engaged, and not engaged
Board members, essentially having a smaller active Board within the established Board. Also, the
larger the Board, the greater the chance of overlapping backgrounds. In addition, it can lead to
trouble obtaining a quorum which is needed to vote on matters. Further, the Study Team was
surprised to see no participation by the incorporating counties in an ex-officio manner. While the
Authority is not required to report back to the Counties at this time, direct participation on the
Board by the Counties will help improve communication and relationships with regional
stakeholders.
Further, it was observed that much of the Board’s work is done at the Committee level, often
leaving the regular Board meetings for approving Committee recommendations. This type of
structure is not uncommon at airports, but a large Board leaves various members that cannot
possibly participate in all of the Committee meetings even if they are all open to the public. Most
Board members have schedules that will not allow them to participate in more than 2 to 3 airport
related meetings a month, which is already a heavy demand. A smaller Board would increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of this committee structure, and by its nature lead to more engaged
Board members.
And lastly, a smaller Board would place less of an annual burden on the incorporating counties in
finding and appointing qualified Board members that have the appropriate amount of time available
to adequately address and serve the needs of the governing body and organization.
5.4.2 LNAA Organizational Structure
Generally speaking, the Study Team found no major problems with how LNAA is currently
operated, but it did identify several areas for improvement. A review of the organizational structure
indicates that its current configuration is not leading to the most effective use of staff resources and
talent to be fully effective. In addition, the Study Team observed that all operational aspects of the
organization appear to be in good order, while there could be some improvement with stakeholder
relations that could be related to how the organization is currently structured.
General management theory suggests that three to five direct reports is an effective level at the top
of an organization. The Executive Director through the Deputy Executive Director currently has
seven Director level reports and three other direct reports for a total of ten reports. While the Study
Team understands there is a history as to why the structure has evolved to its current shape, this
structure is not the most efficient and effective for LNAA and is not clear to those outside of the
Authority. For stakeholders outside of the Authority, this can lead to confusion on who is in charge
and responsible for what activities. This was reinforced through the findings of the survey and
interview process of this effort that indicated many stakeholders were often sent to various
Departments before getting the answer they were looking to obtain.
While the Study Team did not identify problems with regard to the core competencies of the senior
management of LNAA, there is room for improvement in the organizational model. The current
structure is complex and out of balance with the needs of an Authority this size. Many of the direct
reports have various levels of subordinate staff reports.
The Study Team found ambiguity of reporting lines and delegation of responsibilities is a result of
several factors not uncommon at Authorities like LNAA. These include the operational nature of
the division of responsibilities, and management’s efforts to accommodate issues with regard to the
disparity in salary classifications, staff talents and capabilities, and perhaps concerns regarding the
delegation of responsibilities.
To address these issues and position the Authority for growth, the general structure shown below
may be more conducive to organizational effectiveness.
Executive Director
Business
Administration Finance Development
Engineering Operations
5.5 LNAA Departmental Analysis
During the stakeholder interviews that were conducted in September and October 2008 direct
reports to the Executive Director/Deputy Executive Director were asked about their staffing,
duties, perceived efficiency and effectiveness of their respective departments, and the organizational
structure as a whole. Generally, most of the information obtained during these interviews indicated
that many of the staff feel the organization is efficient and effective. Many of them cross department
lines to assist and effectively operate in a matrix type format, as well as some staff having multiple
responsibilities that cross departmental lines.
Overall, there were no major departmental issues uncovered as they are currently organized, but
there is always room for improvement as indicated in the previous section. This section outlines
each of the organizations major departmental areas as depicted in the current organizational chart, as
well as their general efficiency and effectiveness given the context of the Study Team’s observations
of the organization as a whole.
5.5.1 Administration
The Administration Department is responsible for all of the Airport’s properties, land acquisition,
noise relocation program, parking and ground transportation programs, terminal services (valet,
wheel chairs, etc.), insurance, departmental coordination, special events, risk management, human
resources (shared with Finance and Budgets), and general support of the other Airport departments.
As currently organized, the Department encompasses a broad range of activities with 10.5 FTE and
35 part-time staff. It was reported to the Study Team that the existing structure is effective because
of the current staffing.
The interview team did ask why some of the Administrative functions (valet, wheel chair, terminal
services, etc.) are not handled through third-party contracts. The Department indicated that the
Authority provides those services to maintain quality, control, and to keep costs in line. With that
said, considering the diverse nature of the Department’s activities and inline with what the Study
Team sees at comparable airports around the country, LNAA should periodically review this
practice to see if it is the most effective. Other airports have successfully contracted out these
services, maintained quality through lease provisions while reducing overall cost to the organization.
5.5.2 Finance and Budget
The Finance and Budget Department provides financial support for all other Departments,
including assistance with grants and project cost estimates, in addition to the traditional role of
budgets, audits, and financial statements. The Department has good working relationships with all
other Departments and work together to develop annual budgets. After they are developed with the
Departments, they are reviewed with the Executive and Deputy Executive Director’s; the Executive
Director then takes the full budget proposal to the Finance Committee where it is reviewed and then
presented to the full Board for adoption.
Currently, the Authority maintains separate cost centers for each of the three airports with LVIA
having specific cost centers for various functional areas in line with most airports of LVIA’s size.
The Department is continually looking to improve the functionality and efficiency of its accounting
system and is working with a consultant on a periodic basis to make these improvements as needed.
Recent improvements have included the ability to streamline the budget process with more efficient
report generation capabilities.
A recent change in the Department moved an accounting staff member from LVIA Aviation
Services over to the Finance Department. This was done to improve the integration of these
functions and is reported to be working out well.
5.5.3 Engineering and Construction
The Engineering and Construction Department consists of a single engineer responsible for: all
necessary engineering; prioritizing AIP grant applications; the environmental process from design to
permitting; development of Request for Proposal’s (RFP) for construction projects; and is in charge
of all construction-related duties from construction management to project closeout. The
organization chart shows an Engineering Technician position, but this is currently shown as vacant.
The Department is managing 25 active projects.
This Department was lead by the current Deputy Executive Director that previously included the
Senior Project Manager and Airport Planner positions as shown on the current organization chart.
This is not an effective and efficient method of managing the Airports on-going capital programs.
Many airports will departmentalize all of these activities including dedicated staff to handle planning,
environmental, engineering and project management activities. Further, as discussed later in this
section, the Airport Planner has various airport duties some of which are not related to airport
planning.
Given the anticipated terminal improvement program that the Authority is considering over the next
few years, it would be best for LNAA to place these positions back under the leadership of one
Director of this Department that would house all Airport Planning, Environmental, Engineering,
and Project Management functions.
5.5.4 Public Safety
The Public Safety Department is responsible for the Airport’s police, fire fighting, and Airport
communications center. LVIA has no dedicated operations department; these functions are shared
amongst multiple LNAA departments. The Department is also responsible for all badging and
fingerprints of new board members. The police and fire departments are direct Airport staff, and are
not affiliated with the local law enforcement or fire departments. In addition, the police and fire
departments are unionized under a collective bargaining agreement. The Department works with
local municipalities of all three airports in securing mutual aid agreements for emergency and
security response purposes. They also conduct table top emergency planning exercises with these
agencies as required by the FAA under the Airport’s FAR Part 139 Operating Certificate.
The lack of a dedicated Airport Operations Department was observed by the Study Team and
should be addressed. Otherwise, no major issues were brought to the attention or observed by the
Study Team.
5.5.5 Business Development
The Business Development Department is responsible for media relations, community relations, air
service development, marketing, the Airport kiosk located at the Lehigh Valley Mall, Airport
involvement at community events within a 50 mile radius, and the Airport’s recently launched
newsletter campaign. Many of the functions of this Department were reviewed in Section 4 of this
report and are not repeated here.
The Study Team observed that this Department may not have enough dedicated resources to
effectively accomplish the goals and activities of an airport the size of LVIA. In addition, the
Department lacks a dedicated Public Relations staff member that could assist in the overall
marketing/branding of the Airport and help to improve the Airport’s image and relationships with
local stakeholder groups. In the past, it has been reported that public relations was shared among
staff in the Business Development Department and the Executive Director’s office.
5.5.6 Maintenance
The Maintenance Department includes the Airport’s Maintenance Division as well as the Airport
custodians. The maintenance personnel are unionized under a collective bargaining agreement.
In general, no issues with maintenance were observed by the Study Team. Most participants in this
study complemented the safe operating conditions of the airfield, especially during winter weather
operations when the airfield is able to stay open while most surrounding airports need to close. In
the northeast, this is attractive to both existing and potential tenants and users of the facility.
Similar to the terminal services under the Administrative Department, the interview team observed
that the custodial services are not handled through third-party contracts. The Authority has again
indicated that it provides those services to maintain quality, control, and to keep costs in line. With
that said, considering the diverse nature of maintenance activities and inline with what the Study
Team sees at comparable airports around the country, LNAA should periodically review this
practice to see if it is the most effective. Other airports have successfully contracted out these
services, maintained quality through lease provisions, while reducing overall cost.
5.5.7 LVIA Aviation Services
The LVIA Aviation Services Department is responsible for all FBO services, including ground
handling for airlines, aircraft deicing and maintenance services, and fueling operations at LVIA. The
Department is responsible for the maintenance of the Airport’s fuel farm, and an AvGas points
program offered through a national service provider where participants gain credit for using their
branded facilities and can redeem for discounts, merchandise, etc. Additionally, the Aviation
Services Department provides management oversight and FBO services for the Queen City Airport.
The Department consists of 55 non-union staff, 6 of whom are managers and 8 are maintenance
staff that work under the FAR Part 145 Repair Station certificate.
LVIA Aviation Services offers comprehensive services to the users of LVIA and Queen City
Airport. While there are some airports across the country that utilize this model, it is rare that a
Repair Station is included. Most airports do not want to take on the risk management associated
with this type of activity.
Under this situation, and allowed by the FAA, the LNAA currently maintains their exclusive right to
provide these services. And again, the Authority has indicated that they provide these services to
maintain quality, control, and to keep costs in line. While the Department does attend national level
marketing conferences like the National Business Aviation Association and is linked in to a national
fuel program, most airports find that these services are more efficient and competitive for their
tenants if they are contracted out. Further, with the proper minimum standards in place to allow for
competitive and fair conditions, and as market conditions permit, the potential exists for more than
one business competing to provide these services at the Airport. The Study Team will again
recommend LNAA periodically review this practice to see if it is the most cost effective and efficient
choice for the Authority to continue. These services can be competitively requested through an RFP
type process and can range in terms from 5 to 30 years dependent on the needs of the Airport and
usually the level of capital investment a business would make in the facility to operate.
5.5.8 Non-Departmental Positions
Senior Project Manager – The Senior Project Manager position is currently a direct report to the
Deputy Executive Director. As indicated, this is a result of maintaining a reporting structure with the
Deputy Executive Director, but should be corrected to fall back under the Engineering and
Construction Department. This position is responsible for managing large capital improvement
projects and is essential with a large scale project in the near future for LVIA.
Airport Planner – The Airport Planner is responsible for all planning duties including the AIP
program and the Airport Master Plan (ALP). Additionally, the Airport Planner provides oversight
of Airport Operations with respect to Part 139, which sets forth the standards for safety compliance
at commercial service airports in order to maintain the Airport’s FAA certification. In addition, the
Airport Planner is responsible for the noise program at LVIA, including the sound insulation
program, land acquisition, noise monitoring, and the handling of noise complaints. As mentioned
earlier, this position has various job duties that cross functional lines. The planning duties should be
rolled under the Engineering and Construction Department, and Operational duties should fall
under the Operations (Public Safety) Department.
Systems Director – The Systems Director is responsible for all of the Authority’s Information
Technology (IT) needs, including computer hardware, software, intranet and internet. As a general
rule of thumb, this activity usually falls under the Administrative and Finance Departments at
airports. To aide in reducing the number of direct reports and to increase the integration of
improving accounting technologies, the Study Team will recommend the Systems Director be folded
into the Finance Department.
This page intentionally left blank.
6.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Prior to developing final recommendations with regard to the effectiveness and efficiency of the
day-to-day management of the LNAA, the Study Team conducted a SWOT analysis (Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) with the key management staff of the Authority. This
exercise was performed for two reasons. First, to engage the management staff in what it thinks are
the strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats facing the department, and second, to confirm the
findings of the Study Team during its previous efforts in terms of identifying management issues
including the collection of relevant airport data, survey and stakeholder participation, holding
interviews, and performing the comparable airports and operational analysis.
A SWOT helps organizations to capitalize on their strengths while identifying potential

opportunities. In addition, this process also identifies organizational weaknesses and threats. The
various items identified by the participants in a SWOT analysis usually have the consensus of the
participants, which for the purposes of this Study, were used to reinforce or support the Findings
and Recommendations made in this Study.
The following discusses the basic components of a SWOT Analysis and then presents the results of
the SWOT conducted for this Study. Following the results of the SWOT, overall findings and
recommendations with regard to the management of the LNAA are provided.
6.1 SWOT Components
When using SWOT as an analytical tool, Strengths and Weaknesses are considered internal to the
organization whereas Opportunities and Threats are usually external to the organization.
Strengths (internal) represent competitive advantages, for example:

What are the Authority’s primary advantages?
What does the Authority do well?
What do other people see as the Authority’s strengths?
Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Findings and Recommendations – Page 6-1
Weaknesses (internal) represent organizational barriers or limitations:

What can be improved? What is done poorly?
What should be avoided?
What could be done more effectively/efficiently?
If you could change one thing, what would it be?
Opportunities (external) represent a favorable situation and should be able to answer:

What good opportunities are open to the Authority?
What trends could the Authority take advantage of?
How can the Authority turn its strengths into opportunities?
Threats (external) represent potentially damaging external forces, for example:

What obstacles does the Authority face in performing its mission?
What weaknesses threaten the success of the Authority?
What trends could have negative impact on the organization?
6.2 SWOT Results
The SWOT Analysis was held with Authority management staff on November 6, 2008. Most of the
Authority’s key management staff participated with the session being facilitated by the Study Team.
Also in attendance were representatives of the Board and Lehigh and Northampton Counties.
To facilitate the session, SWOT participants were presented a primer on the SWOT Analysis
workshop (i.e. What it is? How it works?). Initially, Authority participants were reluctant to
participate in the Strengths and Weaknesses portion of the workshop suggesting that they did not
want to characterize Strengths and Weaknesses of the Authority because there might be a liability in
doing so. The primer helped to alleviate the misconception that the SWOT would discuss detailed
information versus higher level, strategic information that the SWOT is intended to identify. After
presenting the primer and a discussion on the strategic nature of the SWOT workshop, most
participants actively engaged in the identification of LNAA’s SWOT which resulted in the following:
STRENGTHS
1. LVIA Airport Convenience (In and Out, Rental Car, Parking Rates)
2. Efficient Operations Particularly in Winter Weather
3. Queen City Airport – FAA 2006 Airport of the Year Award
4. Noise Compatibility Plan, Land Acquisition, and Sound Insulation Programs
5. Municipal Authorities Act
6. Efficient Bid Process and Purchase Power
7. Intergovernmental Agreements and Authority’s Willingness to Work with Surrounding
Communities, Established Communication Channels
8. Aviation Summit (Being Organized to Foster Community Integration)
9. Terminal Improvement Program
10. Nineteen (19) Member Board of Governors Provides Diverse Backgrounds and Skill Sets
11. Authority Staff Support of Board and Board Committees
12. Open House for Corporate Tenants
13. FBO Operations and Ground Handling Services – Revenue Generators
14. Kiosk in the Lehigh Valley Mall
WEAKNESSES
1. Nineteen (19) Member Board – Mix of Participation of those Engaged and Not Engaged
2. Inability to Foster Community Integration
3. Regional Identity Related to the Lehigh Valley
4. Need for Terminal Improvements
5. Airport Noise Issues
6. Cattassaqua School District Tax Issues and Community Relations
7. All Hangars are Full
OPPORTUNITIES
1. Economic Asset to the Region and Surrounding Communities
2. More Focused Role on Public Relations
3. Significant Passenger Base
4. Corporate and Community Financial Support of Air Service Grants/Initiatives
5. Work with Communities to Develop Common Interests to Use LVIA
6. New Corporate Entrants to the Lehigh Valley

7. LVEDC Business Retention Interviews
8. Hassel Factor of Using Newark and Philadelphia International Airports
9. Ability to Relieve New York/New Jersey and Philadelphia Metropolitan Areas
10. Global Reach of Close Proximity to International Gateway Airports
11. Corporate Tenants (NBAA Participation, Congestion at Teterboro and Morristown
Municipal Airports, Among Others).
THREATS (CONSTRAINTS)
1. State Aviation Sales and Use Tax
2. Regulations (FAA, EPA, TSA, Others)
3. FAA and State Aviation Funding Inadequacies
4. Authority’s Inability to Financially Subsidize Air Service (FAA Regulation)
5. State of the Economy and Fuel Prices
6. Airline Consolidation Efforts and Asset Utilization
7. Lack of Regional Identity
8. No Regional Air Service Development Committee
9. Competition with Newark and Philadelphia Airports – Airfare Differences
10. Community Options of Newark, Philadelphia, Lehigh Valley – Hard to get Involvement
from Local Community/Corporations
11. Corporate Travel Contracts and Loss of Corporate Travelers from Region
12. Commercial Flying Conditions – Lower Capacity and Full Flights
13. Community Perceptions – What Airlines Control vs. What Airports Control
14. Limited Direct/Non-Stop Flights, Most Through Hub Airport
15. Political Pressure to Close Queen City Airport
While the areas identified above are not all inclusive, they represent an overall snap-shot of how the
Authority perceives its own SWOT given the existing operating environment. As a result of the
SWOT analysis the Study Team noted that many of the areas identified by management in the
SWOT analysis were consistent with what the Study Team identified through the stakeholder survey
and interview process reported in Section 2 of this Study.
6.3 Summary
Over the course of the past six months, the Study Team conducted various Study elements to gauge
the efficiency and effectiveness of the Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority. The main goal of
this effort was to identify observations of current policies and practices and provide
recommendations to further increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization.
Below is a listing of the Study’s key findings and recommendations.
1. Finding: The Counties should be doing more in the process of selecting Board
appointees to provide effective communication between the Board and the Counties.
Recommendation: Currently, there is no criteria or measures against which Board candidates

are screened and selected. Board appointees are given their orientation by Airport
Administration which should continue. The Counties should provide an introductory briefing to
new appointees to allow them to understand their mission and role on the Board, as well as to
communicate effectively with the Counties. Further, each County should consider funding the
continuing education needs of the Board members. This is currently done by Airport
Administration and may pose a possible conflict of interest in some cases.
2. Finding: LNAA should position the Airport to be more competitive in the marketplace.
Recommendation: LNAA should work to generate appropriate revenue streams and lower
operating expenses as much as possible. Based on financial information from the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), LVIA was the highest among comparable airport operating
expenses in 2007. It is important to keep in mind that LVIA is on the higher end of this because
they choose to maintain all airport services by the Authority, thus increasing their operating
expenses, but also generating the revenue to support those expenses. For example, their FBO
operating costs are included in the FAA numbers, while none of the other comparable airports
provide FBO services directly. Also, expenses at airports the size of LVIA are a function of
economies of scale. (i.e. there is a certain level of fixed costs regardless of the passenger base, as
the passenger base grows those fixed costs do not proportionally increase.) Based on available
information from the comparable airports, LVIA is competitive with regard to their Airline Rate
Base at $14.15 per enplaned passenger, while Harrisburg is at $14.65 in 2007.
To be competitive in the marketplace, the Study Team recommends that LNAA focus on
reviewing revenue/economic development opportunities and minimizing expenses to the extent
possible, the following are areas to focus on as a starting point:
a. LNAA should maximize economic development opportunities. Currently, it was

reported to the Study Team that all aircraft hangars at LVIA and Queen City Airport are
full. To the extent practicable, the Authority should continue their capital development
program and capitalize on the need for more hangar space. Multiple options could be
pursued, including: private hangar development, Authority development, and Authority
development with partial capital assistance through grants. All three possibilities should
be evaluated. Further, this effort will help to reduce any market share loss of aircraft to
other surrounding airports because space was not available at either of the Airports.
b. LNAA provides the Fixed Base Operator (FBO) functions at LVIA and Queen
City Airports. While the Authority reports that it has unsatisfactorily utilized a contract
FBO in the past who did not meet the demands of the Authority, LNAA should
reconsider the competitive benefits of contracting out the FBO services for Lehigh
Valley International and Queen City Airports. All of the comparable airports reviewed
contract out these services. The following are just some of the benefits that can be
realized:
- Integration into a national marketing network of the FBO.

- Private investment, freeing LNAA funds for other development use.
- Buffer the perception that the Authority holds a monopoly by the users.
- Opens the potential/ability to have more than one FBO at LVIA when
demand warrants.
Utilizing the Request for Proposal (RFP) process, the Authority would demand certain
performance measures as it relates to the activities proposed. In addition from a financial
perspective, this will also allow the Authority to conduct an “Apples to Apples” analysis
and pro-forma comparison of Lehigh Valley Aviation Services with the proposers.
3. Finding: LNAA should have a comprehensive Strategic Plan in place.
Recommendation: LNAA should develop a Strategic Plan. Strategic Plan’s are dynamic in
nature and help to focus an organization on achieving the Plan’s goals set at the onset. The lack
of a Plan can often lead an organization to make decisions without the benefit of a long-range
perspective. The Plan can also aide in the communication and incorporation of goals from
surrounding governmental and community organizations as well as provide a method to measure
performance at the end of given period of time. A Strategic Plan for LNAA should consider the
following in the development of a Plan, among others:
- Conduct a Situational Analysis (Economy, Industry, Security, Etc.)

- Develop Strategic and Tactical Goals (Customer Service, Economic
Development, Competition, Community Relations, Etc.)
- Develop Departmental Objectives (Board, Finance, Air Service, Leasing,
Capital Projects, Etc.)
- Develop a Performance Measurement System
The strategic planning process can help to identify strategies to obtain goals that LNAA may be
considering. For example, items that are appropriate to consider in a Strategic Plan are:
- LNAA’s strategic goals for the next year; Five years.

- Departmental Objectives.
- Areas to reduce operating expenses.
- Utilization of third-party contract services.
Depending upon the skill set of staff, the development of these Plans can be done in-house,
utilize an outside consultant, or a combination of both.
4. Finding: As part of the Strategic Plan, LNAA should develop a standalone Marketing
Plan.
Recommendation: LNAA should develop a standalone Marketing Plan to aide in the

development and implementation of various initiatives the Authority is pursuing. This Plan
should involve participation from surrounding governmental, corporate, and community
organizations.
The Plan should identify marketing strategies to achieve desired goals. For example, items to
consider in a Marketing Plan are:
- Formation of a Regional Air Service Development Committee. Possible

participants could include: Lehigh and Northampton Counties; the Lehigh
Valley Partnership; Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corporation;
Lehigh Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau; Chambers of Commerce from
the passenger catchment area.
- The marketing message. Currently, LNAA markets the air service being
provided at LVIA. Since the survey indicated most users like the convenience
LVIA offers, strong consideration should be given to marketing the Airport’s
convenience, especially in the outlying areas of the catchment area that
compete heavily with Philadelphia and Newark.
- The Airport’s identity. During the Study process, many reported that there are
conflicting messages among Airport users with respect to the Airport’s
recognition or identity. Consideration should be given to developing a
consistent “brand” name for the Airport. Perhaps the FAA’s three letter
designator of ABE needs to be changed to LVA, LEV, LVI or something else
to enforce the regional identity that the Airport needs. In addition, an effort
should be made to work with the airlines to announce arrivals as “Welcome to
the Lehigh Valley” as opposed to various messages reported to the Study Team
such as “Welcome to Allentown”, “Welcome to Allentown, Bethlehem,

Easton”, Etc.
- A marketing plan can also help to set the stage for successful air service grants
from the Small Community Air Service Development Program. To be
successful in obtaining these grants, the application must show as much
financial support as possible from the corporate, community and governmental
agencies in the Airport’s service area. A comprehensive marketing plan
developed with input from a Regional Air Service Development Committee
would provide the understanding and justification for financial support.
Depending upon the skill set of staff, the development of these Plans can be done in-house,
utilize an outside consultant, or a combination of both.
5. Finding: LNAA should be reorganized to provide a strategic focus for the Airport and
enhance efficiencies in its operation and development.
Recommendation: The current Authority organization has various reporting lines to differing
levels of responsibility, all reporting to the Deputy Executive Director. With 129 employees, 22
are identified as being a supervisor, director, or manager. This translates to a ratio of 1
management position for every 6 employees. Also, both the Executive Director and Deputy
Executive Director positions are currently carrying operational responsibilities. Further, the
Study Team observed that all of the staff interviewed appear to be qualified and that the current
organizational structure seems to have evolved based on the available talent at LNAA and not
necessarily the most efficient and effective structure.
The organization of LNAA should be streamlined to reduce the number of Departments

reporting to Executive Management. A simplified organization as discussed in Section 5 and
shown on the next page should be considered.
Executive Director
Business
Administration Finance Development
Engineering Operations
In addition, the Executive Director position should be more focused on policy development and
implementation as well as the external management of the LNAA, while the Deputy Executive
Director position should focus on the operational needs of the Authority.
LNAA should also consider the following organizational improvements:
a. Responsibilities for planning, engineering and construction should be under one

Department. While the Study Team understands the recent history behind the
Engineering and Construction Department being organized as a result of the Deputy
Executive Director’s previous responsibilities, this Department should be reorganized to
contain all related positions and activities. Given airports various environmental
regulatory hurdles, an Environmental Planner position should be considered for
inclusion in this Department. Since LNAA is moving forward with a Terminal
improvement program, expeditious consideration should be given to undertaking this
Departmental reorganization. This reorganization should also help to bring focus on the
need to develop more aircraft hangars at Authority airports as well as other capital
development needs.
b. Public relations should be a dedicated function working directly with the

Executive Director. While Section 4 found that the Business Development
Department is focusing on the right areas with regard to Air Service, the Department is
overburdened with public relations/affairs type activities. In addition, the Department
has utilized multiple consultants for air service development support.
A dedicated public relations position should be created within the Business

Development Department reporting directly to the Executive Director. This will further
enhance the role of the Executive Director to focus on external Authority activities and
relationships including more regular outreach to corporations and executives to use

LVIA for corporate travel, especially the top 5 to 10 Fortune 500 companies in the
Region. Assistance from the County Executives may be needed to reach the right
business executives.
The recommended restructuring will allow the Department to better focus on Business
Development in general, not just air service related development. Consideration should
also be given to creating a Properties Representative that will help to aide in the non-air
service related business development, marketing and leasing activities.
And lastly, the use of one air service development consultant is recommended to help
reduce the “learning curve effect” every time a new firm is utilized, thereby reducing the
cost of those services. This can be done through a competitive RFP process and may
include the firm that assists in developing LNAA’s Marketing Plan.
c. A dedicated Operations Department to enhance the operational efficiency and

safety of the facilities. Operational activities are currently spread among various LNAA
Departments. A focused Operations Department should be considered and could
potentially include the following functions:
- Public Safety (Police, Fire, Communications)

- Airport Operations (LVIA, Queen City and Braden Airpark)
- Maintenance
- Lehigh Valley Aviation Services
d. The functions of the Systems Department would be better served reporting to a

Department rather than Executive Management. The Systems Director is currently
identified as a direct report to Executive Management. The Systems Director and related
direct reports should be integrated into the Finance Department. While this will ease the
number of direct reports to Executive Management, it will also aide in the continued
effort to upgrade the Authority’s budgeting and financial reporting systems.
6. Finding: The LNAA Board of Governors is large for the size and scope of its Mission.
Recommendation: Consideration should be given to reducing the size of the Board of

Governors from 19 to 11 members resulting in: 6 from Lehigh County and 5 from
Northampton County. As this is implemented, the goal would be for each County to have one
appointment annually with the exception of Lehigh County having two appointments in the fifth
year. Further, each County should consider designating the County Executive or representative
as an Ex-Officio voting member as one of the 11 Board members. This will aide in the
communication between the County and Authority, while not over burdening the Authority.
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Glossary of Terms
II. Stakeholder Survey Questionnaire
III. Comparable Airports Contact Information
IV. Comparable Airports Discussion Framework
V. Human Resources Survey Questionnaire
VI. Air Service Survey Questionnaire
VII. Comparable Airports 2007 Operating and Finance Data
Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Appendix Table of Contents – Page 1
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ABE - The 3-letter designator for Lehigh Valley International Airport assigned to the airport by the
Federal Aviation Administration.
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (AIP) – FAA program that is the primary source of
funding for airport projects as grants. This funding is provided at specific levels, with the funding
priority based on the airport’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT) - A facility providing airport traffic control
service to an airport and its associated airspace area.
ATC - AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE - A service provided for the purpose of
promoting the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic, including airport, approach, and
enroute air traffic control services. ATC is provided by the Federal Aviation Administration.
BASED AIRCRAFT - An aircraft permanently stationed at an airport by agreement between the

airport owner (management or FBO) and the aircraft owner.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) – The Capital Improvement Program provides

a schedule of development for the proposed projects identified in an Airport Master Plan.
COMMERCIAL AIRPORT – An airport designated as having the primary function of providing

commercial airline service to the overall community.
COMMON USE – Those areas within an airport that are utilized by airlines on a first-come, first
serve basis.
ENPLANEMENT - A revenue passenger boarding an aircraft.
EXCLUSIVE USE - Those areas within an airport whose use is limited to a single airline, usually
through a contract with the airport owner/operator.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) - A branch of the federal government

under the Department of Transportation responsible for the regulation and safety of airports and
airspace in the United States
FIXED BASE OPERATION OR FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO) - A sales and/or service
facility located at an airport, or the person who operates such a facility.
GENERAL AVIATION (GA) - All civil aircraft and aviation activity except that of the certified
airlines and military operations. GA includes corporate flying and private flying (recreation or
personal).
GMIA - General Mitchell International Airport.

Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Glossary of Terms – Page 1
LNAA – Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority.
LVIA – Lehigh Valley International Airport
MDT - The 3-letter designator for Harrisburg International Airport assigned to the airport by the
MINIMUM STANDARDS – A set of standards that ensure a safe, efficient and adequate level of
operations and services offered to the public. Minimum standards are not required, but are strongly
encouraged, by the FAA and are included as a part of the aeronautical service provider’s lease with
the airport owner/operator.
MKE - The 3-letter designator for General Mitchell International Airport assigned to the airport by
the Federal Aviation Administration.
PVD – The 3-letter designator for T.F. Green Airport assigned to the airport by the Federal
Aviation Administration.
PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE (PFC) – Program that allows for the collection of fees for
every enplaned passenger at commercial service airports. These funds can be used for FAA-
approved projects that enhance safety, security or capacity; reduce noise; or increase air carrier
competition.
SFD – The 3-letter designator for Orlando Sanford Airport assigned to the airport by the Federal
Aviation Administration.
SWF – The 3-letter designator for Stewart International Airport assigned to the airport by the
SWOT – A strategic planning method to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats of a business and identifying the internal and external factors that are favorable or
unfavorable to achieving the business’ objectives.
RELIEVER AIRPORT - An airport designated as having the primary function of relieving

congestion at a commercial airport and providing more general aviation access to the overall
community.
Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Glossary of Terms – Page 2

Online Surveys | Zoomerang Page 1 of 1
Lehigh Valley International

Airport Survey
Lehigh and Northampton Counties have commissioned a study being done by The Louis
Berger Group to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the Lehigh Valley International
Airport functions, to promote economic development opportunities and to provide
recommendations to improve and/or enhance air service to the region. This survey is one of
several tasks in the study and is designed to assist the Team in understanding the current
perceptions of airport employees, the community, and various stakeholders.
You will note that the survey questions provide an option for additional comments. Additional
comments are indeed encouraged as they will help the Team to best understand specific
issues and concerns.
Your identity in taking this survey will remain confidential. That is, the results of the survey
will be compiled in an aggregate form in the Team’s report provided to Lehigh and
Northampton Counties.
Thank you in advance for your participation.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Donald T. Cunningham, Jr John Stoffa
Lehigh County Executive Northampton County Executive
Online Surveys | Customer Satisfaction Surveys | SMS Mobile Surveys | Online Panels
Copyright © 1999- 2008 MarketTools Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Help
http://app.zoomerang.com/Create/preview/survey-intro.zgi?p=WEB2288V4R5X8K&store=1 10/9/2008
Zoomerang Page 1 of 4
Lehigh Valley
International
Airport Survey
1 In regards to the Lehigh Valley International Airport, how would you

classify yourself? (Pick one, choose the most appropriate description).
Board of Governors Member

Airport Management Employee
Non-Management Airport Employee
Regional Executive, Airport Stakeholder or Non-Airport Employee
2 What is your perception of Lehigh Valley International Airport?
A valuable economic asset

Just another mode of transportation
An unnecessary asset
No opinion
3 Comments on question 2
4 From an economic perspective, how would you rate the importance of

aviation growth in the city/county?
Very important
Somewhat important
Not important
6 How well do you understand the Airport’s organizational/management

structure?
I fully understand it
http://app.zoomerang.com/Report/print_survey_body.zgi?ID=L23JGJXJYWM2 1/8/2009
Somewhat understand it
I do not understand it at all
8 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
development of Lehigh Valley. How well do you feel the Authority
satisfies this mission?
The Authority is effective in satisfying the mission

The Authority is only somewhat effective in satisfying the mission
The Authority is ineffective in satisfying the mission
I do not have enough involvement or exposure allowing me to
respond
10 Have you used the Lehigh Valley International Airport for business
and/or leisure travel over the last 5 years? If no, skip to question 18.
Yes
No
11 When did you travel? Select all that apply.
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
12 How often have you used the airport in the last five years?
Less than 10
10-30
More than 30
13 Please list some of your typical travel destination airports from Lehigh
Valley in the last five years.
14 As an Airport user, how well does the Lehigh Valley International Airport
meet your air travel needs?
Meets all of my air travel needs very well

Meets some of my needs but the airport needs improvement to
satisfy them all
Does not meet my needs very well
I do not use Lehigh Valley for my air travel needs
16 Since the year 2004, how would you rate the state of air service at
Lehigh Valley?
Unchanged in recent years

Air service has improved
Air service has worsened
17 What do you think are some of the factors that have contributed to this?
18 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
20 What do you like/dislike about the current state of communications

between the Community and/or Region and the Airport Authority?
21 In your opinion, are the relationships between the Airport Authority and
Stakeholders positive so as to promote good working relationships?
Yes
No
Somewhat, but more effort is needed in this area
23 Given your exposure to the airport, what improvements are needed at

the airport to improve its efficiency and effectiveness? If “none”, please
state as such.
Survey Page 1
COMPARABLE AIRPORTS
CONTACT INFORMATION
1. Mr. C. Barry Bateman

Airport Director
General Mitchell International Airport
5300 South Howell Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53207
414.747.5331
bbateman@mitchellairport.com
2. Mr. George Speake

Vice President, Maintenance and Operations
Sanford Airport Authority
1200 Red Cleveland Blvd.
Sanford, Florida 32773
407.585.4006
gspeake@osaa.net
3. Ms. Patty Goldstein

Vice President, Public Affairs and Air Service Marketing
Rhode Island Airport Corporation
2000 Post Road
Warwick, RI 02886
401.737.4000 ext. 272
PGoldstein@pvdairport.com
4. Mr. Scott Miller

Vice President, Public Affairs and Air Service Marketing
Harrisburg/Susquehanna International Airport
One Terminal Drive
Middletown, PA 17057
717.948.3900 ext. 4620
ScottM@saraa.org
5. Ms. Diannae Ehler

General Manager
Stewart International Airport
1180 First Street
New Windsor, NY 12553
845.564.7200 ext. 604
dehler@panynj.gov
Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Contact Information – Page 1
COMPARABLE AIRPORTS
DISCUSSION FRAMEWORK
ORGANIZATION
Please describe the organizational structure of the airport/Department.

How many staff does the Department/Airport have?
Does this include all employees (other agency employees, contract employees, and/or on-site
consultants)?
Is there a board or commission? How are members selected? How often do they meet? Are they
advisory only in nature or do they take formal actions?
What types of decisions go before the board or commission?
Can we obtain copies of your Organization Charts?
Do you report to a city council or other municipal/county/state body or individual? Is that
person elected or appointed?
How is the Airport Manager hired (selected or appointed)? What is the process? Is the Airport
Manager under an employment contract?
MANAGEMENT
What is the primary way that the airport is financed (e.g. bonds, user fees, etc.)?
Are there Minimum Standards in place? When were they last revised?
What is the procurement process? How long does it routinely take for the entire process?
How is capital projects managed? Directly or indirectly? Through the use of Consultants? What
about construction phases?
When was the terminal built and last expanded? Describe the general consulting process for the
project.
OPERATIONS
How many Fixed Base Operators are located at the airport? Are there any FBO’s that are run by
the airport? What services do they offer?
Who performs airline fueling services?
How many airlines operate at the airport? How many destinations do they serve?
Do you have common or exclusive use agreements with airlines for gates/ticket counters/FIDS?
ATC Services:
o Are the Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCT) operated by the FAA, or are they
operated as a Contract Tower?
o ATCT continuous operation or limited hours?
Does the airport directly handle day-to-day operational needs (e.g. security, maintenance,
operations, cleaning), or are they contracted services? What other services are contracted out?
Does the airport operate the parking lots or does it use a parking firm?
Do you rely on the delivery of services from other departments or sister government agencies
(grounds keeping, for example)? How are those interagency agreements structured?
Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Discussion Framework – Page 1
HUMAN RESOURCES SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

AIRPORT NAME:
CURRENT NUMBER OF FTE'S:
Types of Health Insurance Plans Offered
Total Plans
PPO 80/20 PPO 90/10 HMO HIGH DED. PPO POS 70/30 Offered
Definitions:
PPO 80/20 – Preferred Provider Organization in which the Plan pays 80% of usual and customary services after deductible
PPO 90/10 - Preferred Provider Organization in which the Plan pays 90% of usual and customary services after deductible
HMO – Health Maintenance Organization
High Deductible PPO – A Preferred Provider Organization with a high deductible (usually $3000 or higher)
POS – Point of Service Plan
2008 EMPLOYER (%) contribution of Health Care insurance costs:

Single:
Employee/spouse
Employee/child(ren)
Family
Other Insurance Benefits Offered
Type Employer Pays All Employee Pays All Shared

Dental Insurance
Life Insurance
Optional Life
Short Term Dis.
Long Term Dis.
Vision Insurance
Other
2008 TOTAL BENEFIT COST as a Percent (%) of Payroll:
Paid Time Off
Paid Hours Paid Hours Paid Hours Paid Hours

1<5 yrs/serv 5<10 yrs/serv 10<15 yrs/serv More than 15
yrs/service
Vacation
Sick
Other
Other Paid Leave Provided
Type Number of Days

Bereavement
Holidays
Jury Duty
Military
Other
Financial/Retirement Benefits
Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Human Resources Survey Questionnaire – Page 1
AIR SERVICE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

1. What department does air service development fall under?
2. Who has responsibility for air service development?
3. What other responsibilities does that person have?
4. How many direct reports does that person have?
5. How much does the Airport budget for advertising every year?
6. Does the Airport issue a newsletter?
7. If so, how often is it published?
8. Is it distributed to airline network planners?
9. Does the Airport produce a printed timetable?
10. Do you use a consultant for air service development work?
11. If so, how many different consultants do you work with?
12. What is your average annual budget for air service consultants?
13. How often do you visit carriers at their headquarters?
14. If so, do consultants travel with you to these meetings?
15. Who else attends them on behalf of the Airport?
16. Which of the annual air service conferences do you attend?
17. Do you have a formal air service incentive program?
18. If so, what do you offer carriers for new service?
19. What do you offer carriers for additional service on existing routes?
20. Do you actively pursue cargo service?
21. Do you actively pursue scheduled charter service?
22. What percentage of your passengers leak to other airports?
23. What does your Airport do to try and mitigate leakage?

Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Air Service Survey Questionnaire – Page 1
FAA: AAS-400: CATS: Report 127 Page 1 of 2
Operating and Financial Summary
Airport: LEHIGH VALLEY INTL LocID: ABE Year: 2007 Enplanements:
As of 11/13/2008 03:53:10 PM
Date Filed: 06/26/2008
Date Modified: 06/26/2008
Aeronautical Operating Revenue Non-Operating Expenses
1. Landing Fees $ 2,899,304 1. Interest expense $ 3,108,626
2. Terminal/International arrival area rental or other charge $ 3,086,116 2. Other $ 110,748
3. Apron charges/tiedowns $ 305,247 Total $ 3,219,374
4. FBO revenue: contract or sponsor-operated $ 922,181
5. Cargo and hangar rentals $ 2,540,261 Depreciation $ 5,692,329
6. Aviation fuel tax retained for airport use $0
7. Fuel sales net proffit/loss or fuel flowage fees $ 2,944,658 Net $ 6,286,983
8. Security Reimbursement $ 212,371
9. Misc. $ 14,732
Reporting Year Proceeds
10. Other $0
1. Bond Proceeds $0
Total $ 12,924,870
2. Proceeds from sale of property $0
3. Other contributed capital $0
Nonaeronautical Operating Revenue 4. Other $0
1. Land and non-terminal facilities $ 350,844 Total $0
2. Terminal - food and beverage $ 142,219
3. Terminal - retail stores $ 85,253
Reporting Year Expenditures for Projects
4. Terminal - other $ 184,314
1. Airfield $ 1,726,250
5. Rental cars $ 1,688,456
2. Terminal $ 1,030,188
6. Parking $ 5,414,916
3. Parking $0
7. Misc. $ 181,122
4. Roadways, rail, and transit $0
8. Other $0
5. Other $ 4,370,126
Total $ 8,047,124
Total $ 7,126,564
Nonoperating Revenue
Reporting Year Debt Payments $ 4,051,092
1. Interest income - restricted and non-restricted $ 818,802
2. Grant receipts $ 7,004,508
Indebtedness at End of Year
3. Passenger Facility Charges $ 1,899,903
1. Bonds $ 53,169,853
4. Other $ 46,200
2. Loans $ 2,215,218
Total $ 9,769,413
3. Other $ 2,912,501
Total $ 58,297,572
Operating Expenses
1. Personnel compensation and benefits $ 8,845,625
Net Assets $ 150,144,259
2. Communications and utilities $ 1,562,651
3. Supplies and materials $ 633,812
Restricted Financial Assets
4. Repairs and maintenance $ 419,160
1. Restricted debt service reserve $ 2,909,328
5. Contractual services $ 1,871,632
2. Restrictions for renewals and replacements $ 1,000,000
6. Insurance, claims, and settlements $ 583,728
3. Other restricted financial assets $0
7. Misc. $ 157,874
8. Other $ 1,468,239 Total $ 3,909,328
Total $ 15,542,721
Unrestricted Financial Assets including cash $ 8,295,463
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: The information collected on this form facilitates the submission of operating and financial summary data. Section 111(b) requires the
Secretary of Transporation to issue a simplied format for reporting data applicable to Airports to assist in public understanding of airport finances and to provide information concerning
the amount of revenue surplus, the amount of concession-generated revenue, and other information required by the Secretary. The burden for each response is estimated to be 5 hours.
Responses are required to obtain a benefit. No assurance of confidentiality is given. Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number. The OMB control number associated with this collection is 2120-0569.
file://V:\project\JQ%202478%20-%20LVIA%20Airport%20Management%20Study\Comparable%20Air... 2/19/2009
Airport: HARRISBURG INTL LocID: MDT Year: 2007 Enplanements:
As of 11/13/2008 04:00:27 PM
2. Terminal/International arrival area rental or other charge $ 6,471,422 2. Other $ 1,055,440
3. Apron charges/tiedowns $ 1,362,257 Total $ 12,533,953
5. Cargo and hangar rentals $ 358,207 Depreciation $ 10,349,952
7. Fuel sales net proffit/loss or fuel flowage fees $ 298,877 Net $ 1,841,051
8. Security Reimbursement $ 17,467
9. Misc. $0
10. Other $ 15,000
1. Bond Proceeds $0
Total $ 12,043,951
2. Proceeds from sale of property $ 14,411
1. Land and non-terminal facilities $ 357,998 Total $ 14,411
2. Terminal - food and beverage $ 109,600
1. Airfield $ 599,008
5. Rental cars $ 3,532,978
2. Terminal $ 249,264
6. Parking $ 6,141,424
3. Parking $ 27,669
7. Misc. $ 30,025
4. Roadways, rail, and transit $ 155,222
8. Other $ 567,984
5. Other $ 88,034
Total $ 11,051,363
Total $ 1,119,197
Reporting Year Debt Payments $0
1. Bonds $ 181,542,977
4. Other $ 2,913
2. Loans $ 15,123,688
Total $ 15,614,151
3. Other $ 5,939,174
Total $ 202,605,839
Operating Expenses
Net Assets $ 99,855,327
4. Repairs and maintenance $ 1,254,737
2. Restrictions for renewals and replacements $ 418,321
3. Other restricted financial assets $ 2,841,495
7. Misc. $0
8. Other $0 Total $ 13,018,003
Total $ 13,984,509
Airport: GENERAL MITCHELL INTL LocID: MKE Year: 2007 Enplanements:
As of 11/13/2008 03:57:12 PM
8. Security Reimbursement $0
9. Misc. $0
10. Other $ 2,212,432
1. Bond Proceeds $ 26,546,703
Total $ 21,435,309
3. Other contributed capital $ 5,311
1. Land and non-terminal facilities $ 431,513 Total $ 26,552,014
2. Terminal - food and beverage $ 2,174,837
3. Terminal - retail stores $ 1,519,631
1. Airfield $ 2,950,644
5. Rental cars $ 7,307,351
2. Terminal $ 24,245,910
6. Parking $ 26,936,691
3. Parking $0
7. Misc. $0
4. Roadways, rail, and transit $ 1,641,989
8. Other $ 1,390,982
5. Other $ 7,264,660
Total $ 40,416,411
Total $ 36,103,203
1. Interest income - restricted and non-restricted $ 4,153,286
1. Bonds $ 190,170,129
4. Other $ 453,437
2. Loans $0
Total $ 17,412,975
3. Other $0
Total $ 190,170,129
Operating Expenses
Net Assets $ 131,267,683
3. Supplies and materials $ 2,399,535
7. Misc. $0
8. Other $ 9,213,637 Total $ 20,328,046
Total $ 46,178,824
Airport: THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN LocID: PVD Year: 2007 Enplanements:
As of 11/13/2008 04:11:23 PM
4. FBO revenue: contract or sponsor-operated $0
5. Cargo and hangar rentals $0 Depreciation $ 15,725,115
9. Misc. $ 454,116
10. Other $ 24,380
1. Bond Proceeds $0
Total $ 22,858,757
2. Proceeds from sale of property $ 112,586
3. Other contributed capital $ 18,821
1. Land and non-terminal facilities $ 1,453,908 Total $ 131,407
2. Terminal - food and beverage $ 1,036,138
1. Airfield $ 14,613,007
5. Rental cars $ 6,539,947
2. Terminal $ 55,397,656
6. Parking $ 11,335,509
3. Parking $ 1,062,125
7. Misc. $ 502,745
8. Other $ 1,055,430
5. Other $ 18,748,228
Total $ 23,341,778
Total $ 91,199,026
1. Interest income - restricted and non-restricted $ 6,583,508
1. Bonds $ 321,526,033
4. Other $ 5,968,826
2. Loans $ 774,654
Total $ 48,089,842
3. Other $ 2,698,983
Total $ 324,999,670
Operating Expenses
Net Assets $ 188,318,614
7. Misc. $ 172,682
8. Other $ 1,197,975 Total $ 162,793,386
Total $ 28,800,691
Airport: ORLANDO SANFORD LocID: SFB Year: 2007 Enplanements:
As of 11/13/2008 04:04:30 PM
1. Landing Fees $ 903,928 1. Interest expense $ 432,802
2. Terminal/International arrival area rental or other charge $ 662,423 2. Other $0
3. Apron charges/tiedowns $ 109,868 Total $ 432,802
4. FBO revenue: contract or sponsor-operated $ 1,806,893
7. Fuel sales net proffit/loss or fuel flowage fees $ 309,827 Net $( 4,096,883)
9. Misc. $0
10. Other $ 59,721
1. Bond Proceeds $0
Total $ 4,145,871
1. Land and non-terminal facilities $ 2,290,549 Total $0
2. Terminal - food and beverage $0
3. Terminal - retail stores $0
4. Terminal - other $0
1. Airfield $ 16,081,791
5. Rental cars $ 347,170
2. Terminal $0
6. Parking $ 47,829
3. Parking $ 2,183,997
7. Misc. $ 158,775
8. Other $ 508,034
5. Other $ 11,654
Total $ 3,352,357
Total $ 20,960,493
2. Grant receipts $0
1. Bonds $0
4. Other $0
2. Loans $ 16,413,871
Total $ 1,639,061
3. Other $0
Total $ 16,413,871
Operating Expenses
Net Assets $0
2. Communications and utilities $ 404,057
1. Restricted debt service reserve $0
2. Restrictions for renewals and replacements $0
3. Other restricted financial assets $ 58,788
7. Misc. $0
8. Other $ 546,640 Total $ 58,788
Total $ 7,200,265
Airport: STEWART INT'L LocID: SWF Year: 2007 Enplanements:
As of 11/13/2008 04:07:54 PM
1. Landing Fees $ 82 1. Interest expense $0
2. Terminal/International arrival area rental or other charge $ 161 2. Other $0
3. Apron charges/tiedowns $0 Total $0
4. FBO revenue: contract or sponsor-operated $0
5. Cargo and hangar rentals $ 151 Depreciation $0
7. Fuel sales net proffit/loss or fuel flowage fees $ 157 Net $( 451)
9. Misc. $0
10. Other $0
1. Bond Proceeds $0
Total $ 551
Nonaeronautical Operating Revenue 4. Other $ 497
1. Land and non-terminal facilities $0 Total $ 497
2. Terminal - food and beverage $0
3. Terminal - retail stores $0
4. Terminal - other $0
1. Airfield $0
5. Rental cars $ 270
2. Terminal $0
6. Parking $ 654
3. Parking $0
7. Misc. $ 347
4. Roadways, rail, and transit $0
8. Other $0
5. Other $0
Total $ 1,271
Total $0
1. Interest income - restricted and non-restricted $2
2. Grant receipts $0
3. Passenger Facility Charges $ 356
1. Bonds $0
4. Other $0
2. Loans $0
Total $ 358
3. Other $0
Total $0
Operating Expenses
1. Personnel compensation and benefits $ 192
Net Assets $0
2. Communications and utilities $1
4. Repairs and maintenance $0
1. Restricted debt service reserve $0
5. Contractual services $0
2. Restrictions for renewals and replacements $0
6. Insurance, claims, and settlements $ 15
3. Other restricted financial assets $0
7. Misc. $ 1,319
8. Other $ 27 Total $0
Total $ 2,631
Unrestricted Financial Assets including cash $0
THE Louis Berger Group, INC.
www.louisberger.com
A Member of the Berger Group

BUKU Airport Management Study

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

BUKU Airport Management Study

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Final Report

Airport Management Study

Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority

County of Lehigh and

THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................... See Separate Document

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1-1

SECTION 2 – STAKEHOLDER SURVEY ....................................................................................... 2-1

SECTION 3 – COMPARABLE AIRPORTS ANALYSIS .............................................................. 3-1

SECTION 4 – AIR SERVICE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 4-1

SECTION 5 – ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 5-1

SECTION 6 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................ 6-1

1.1 Study Scope

1.2 Study Process

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

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

1. General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee, WI)

Organizational Evaluation – The Study Team performed an organizational evaluation to review

1.3 Document Outline

 Section 1 – Introduction. Provides an introduction to the study presenting the study’s

 Section 3 – Comparable Airports Analysis. Identifies the basis on which comparable

 Section 6 – Findings and Recommendations. Provides a summary of the SWOT analysis

Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Introduction – Page 1-4

1.4 Key Project Staff

Lehigh & Northampton Counties – February 6, 2009 Introduction – Page 1-5

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

2.0 STAKEHOLDER SURVEY

 Survey participants level of understanding of the Airport’s organizational structure;

2.1 Survey Results

The survey was opened and

Ninety-two (92) survey

Figure 2.1- Results of Question 1

In regards to Lehigh Valley International Airport, how

Regional Executive, Airport

Non-Management Airport 10%

Airport Management 15%

Board of Governors Member 31%

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

Figure 2.2- Results of Question 2

What is your perception of Lehigh Valley International Airport?

Just another mode of 8%

A valuable economic 90%

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

Figure 2.3- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 2

What is your perception of Lehigh Valley International Airport?

Non-Management Airport 100%

Airport Management 100%

Board of Governors 100%

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

Figure 2.4- Results of Question 3

From an economic perspective, how would you rate the importance

Somewhat important 21%

Very important 79%

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

Figure 2.5- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 3

From an economic perspective, how would you rate the importance

Non-Management Airport 100%

Airport Management 100%

Board of Governors 73% 27%

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

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Figure 2.6- Response to Question 4

How well do you understand the airport organizational/management

Somewhat understand it 38%

Section 1 – Introduction. Provides an introduction to the study presenting the study’s

Section 3 – Comparable Airports Analysis. Identifies the basis on which comparable

Section 6 – Findings and Recommendations. Provides a summary of the SWOT analysis

Survey participants level of understanding of the Airport’s organizational structure;

Atlanta, GA Las Vegas, NV

Too few airline options

Rank (based on enplanements);

Proximity to a large hub airports (e.g. Philadelphia International Airport);

General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee, WI);