AVF 4740 Module 8 Final Project: Stakeholders in the Airport System at a County Airport Example

Many Hands on One Airport: Stakeholders in the Planning and Finances of Cumberland Bay Regional

Student Name

B.S.B.A. in Aviation Management, Thomas Edison State University

AVF-4740: Airport Management II

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

Many Hands on One Airport: Stakeholders in the Planning and Finances of Cumberland Bay Regional

Introduction

Airport managers rarely control the outcomes they are responsible for, a point Prather and Steele (2015) make about the many organizations that share an airport. Airlines decide whether to fly, the FAA decides on grants and approvals, the county decides budgets and neighbors decide whether to support or oppose growth. This paper examines how those stakeholders take part in the daily function of Cumberland Bay Regional, a composite county-owned airport, drawing on the blog entries and written assignments completed in this course.

Identifying Stakeholders

Mitchell et al. (1997) argue that a stakeholder draws more of a manager's attention the more of three features it holds: the ability to affect the organization, a claim that people see as rightful and a claim pressing enough to need action now. A group holding all three, which they call definitive, is attended to first.

Stakeholders in the Planning Phases

The master plan update showed stakeholders at every step. The FAA approved the forecasts and the airport layout plan. Airlines shaped demand, since one carrier's departure and another's arrival caused the forecasts to miss. Neighbors attended planning meetings and asked about noise from any runway changes. Kwakkel et al. (2010) argue that adaptive planning, with signposts and triggers, can reduce conflict because stakeholders can see what will cause the airport to act. At Cumberland Bay Regional, publishing the triggers for terminal expansion helped the county board and neighbors accept a plan that protects land without building on it yet.

The terminal expansion added contractors and the TSA, whose screening layout had to be approved, and it affected passengers and concessions during construction. The construction safety and phasing plan, discussed in the second blog entry, was in effect a stakeholder agreement about who could work where and when.

Stakeholders in the Financial Attributes

Revenue and Legal Obligations

The county's proposal to move parking revenue into its general fund showed the tension between two definitive stakeholders: the county as owner and the FAA as grantor. Federal revenue use policy (Federal Aviation Administration, 1999) decided the question, but the airport still needed a public relations plan for residents who saw the money as theirs.

Contracts and Rates

Airlines and tenants are stakeholders through contracts. The move to a compensatory agreement shifted financial risk from airlines to the airport, giving the airport more control over its surplus. Graham (2009) found that commercial revenues have become central to airport finances, and at Cumberland Bay Regional, parking, concessions and possible land development let the airport keep airline charges at cost. The rates and charges worked out in the third written assignment produced a cost per enplanement of about $11.40, a figure airlines compare across airports.

Funding

The runway funding plan relied on the FAA's grant, the state's share, passenger facility charges paid by travelers and airport funds. Each funder is a stakeholder with its own conditions. Brueckner (2003) and Green (2007) found links between air traffic and local economic growth, which gives local businesses and the county a stake in the airport's success beyond its own budget.

How Stakeholders Function Together

Three patterns stand out. First, salience shifts: neighbors move from dependent to definitive when noise rises, and airlines become urgent whenever a route is reviewed. Second, legal rules settle some conflicts, such as revenue use, but communication is still required. Third, money links stakeholders: airline rates depend on parking revenue, and parking revenue depends on passengers who depend on airlines. Amaeshi and Crane (2006) treat stakeholder engagement as a mechanism through which concerns such as environmental impact can enter aviation decisions, which suggests the airport should engage neighbors before conflicts become urgent rather than after.

Future Challenges

Module 8 asks about the future. Cumberland Bay Regional faces four challenges, each with stakeholders attached. Airline consolidation could reduce the number of carriers willing to serve small airports, making air service marketing even more important. Environmental expectations will grow, from PFAS cleanup to noise and emissions, raising neighbors' and regulators' salience. New aircraft types, including electric and hybrid aircraft for short routes, may bring new operators and new infrastructure needs such as charging. And federal funding levels may change, affecting the 90 percent share on which the airport's projects depend.

Recommendations: A Stakeholder Engagement Plan

First, a standing airport advisory group with representatives of airlines, tenants, neighbors, local businesses and the county should meet quarterly. Second, the airport should publish its planning triggers, rates and funding plans in plain language. Third, the airport should meet each airline twice a year and each major tenant once a year. Fourth, the airport should plan for the future challenges with its stakeholders, starting with a study of charging infrastructure that includes the fixed-base operator and the utility.

Limits of This Analysis

This study rests on a composite airport and on the course's own assignments, so its ratings of stakeholder power and urgency reflect judgment rather than survey data. A fuller study would interview representatives of each group, especially airlines and neighbors, and repeat the ratings after a major decision such as the terminal expansion to see how salience changed. It would also compare Cumberland Bay Regional with an airport run by an independent authority, since governance may change which stakeholders hold power.

Conclusion

Cumberland Bay Regional's planning and finances are shaped by many hands. Rating stakeholders by power, legitimacy and urgency explains who gets attention and when, and tracing them through the airport's decisions shows that planning, legal, contract and funding choices are all, in practice, agreements among stakeholders. Managing the airport well means engaging them early and openly, especially as future challenges raise new claims.

References

Amaeshi, K. M., & Crane, A. (2006). Stakeholder engagement: A mechanism for sustainable aviation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13(5), 245-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.108

Brueckner, J. K. (2003). Airline traffic and urban economic development. Urban Studies, 40(8), 1455-1469. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000094388

Federal Aviation Administration. (1999). Policy and procedures concerning the use of airport revenue. Federal Register, 64, 7696.

Graham, A. (2009). How important are commercial revenues to today's airports? Journal of Air Transport Management, 15(3), 106-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2008.11.004

Green, R. K. (2007). Airports and economic development. Real Estate Economics, 35(1), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6229.2007.00183.x

Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E., & Marchau, V. A. W. J. (2010). Adaptive airport strategic planning. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 10(3), 249-273. https://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2010.10.3.2891

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247

Prather, C. D., & Steele, R. N. (2015). Airport management. Aviation Supplies & Academics.