National Academies Press: OpenBook

Strategies for Reuse of Underutilized or Vacant Airport Facilities (2011)

Chapter: CHAPTER TWO Vacant and Underutilized Airport Facilities

« Previous: CHAPTER ONE Introduction
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO Vacant and Underutilized Airport Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strategies for Reuse of Underutilized or Vacant Airport Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14592.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO Vacant and Underutilized Airport Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strategies for Reuse of Underutilized or Vacant Airport Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14592.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO Vacant and Underutilized Airport Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strategies for Reuse of Underutilized or Vacant Airport Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14592.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO Vacant and Underutilized Airport Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strategies for Reuse of Underutilized or Vacant Airport Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14592.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO Vacant and Underutilized Airport Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strategies for Reuse of Underutilized or Vacant Airport Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14592.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO Vacant and Underutilized Airport Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strategies for Reuse of Underutilized or Vacant Airport Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14592.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO Vacant and Underutilized Airport Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strategies for Reuse of Underutilized or Vacant Airport Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14592.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER TWO Vacant and Underutilized Airport Facilities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Strategies for Reuse of Underutilized or Vacant Airport Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14592.
×
Page 14

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5 CHAPTER TWO VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED AIRPORT FACILITIES Each of the components of Figure 2 is described in the following sections. FUNCTIONAL OBSOLESCENCE A scan of any 20-year period since jet aircraft became preva- lent in the 1960s would demonstrate the extent of functional changes at airports. Passenger terminals are among the most transformed structures, reflecting advances in the scale of operations, aircraft, technology, and security. Terminals have expanded to accommodate mass air travel, connecting traf- fic, food and beverage services, retail, entertainment, wireless communication, passenger and baggage screening, and very large aircraft. Technological changes and environmental reg- ulations have altered building materials used, and the ADA set new standards for safety and access in public buildings. Each new advance or requirement set additional specifications for the next remodel, expansion, or update of terminals. After a while, it is hard for original architecture to keep pace with this rate of transformation. The story is similar for air cargo. It was not until the late 1950s that containers came into wide use and knitted together the trucking industry, air cargo, and ocean shipping to serve expanding global trade. The interface of surface, rail, and air transport of cargo came even later. FedEx began operations in 1973 and expanded internationally in the 1980s. Since that time, sorting facilities and cargo hubs have undergone tremendous technological and modal change. ROADMAP FOR REUSE Vacant facilities occur at airports for a variety of reasons. This chapter provides an overview of the circumstances that have led to vacancies and underutilized airport facilities. Figure 2 graphically describes the root causes and precipitat- ing events that can result in vacancies and the complexities that arise when the responsibility of upkeep and ownership falls unexpectedly on the airport sponsor. The left side of Figure 2 describes the conditions that often precede facility vacancies. The first is functional obsolescence that occurs because of a facility’s age or size or because new technology or regulatory requirements are expensive to retrofit. Functional obsolescence of a facility is usually anticipated, and the owner of the facility has a plan for expansion, modernization, or demolition. The second root cause of vacancy arises from tenant bankrupt- cies, mergers, and restructurings. Reuse of these types of facilities presents the greatest challenges to airport spon- sors because ownership responsibilities for these facili- ties are not anticipated. When a lease is rejected and the facility reverts to the airport, buildings are often in poor condition, costly to maintain, and new tenants are difficult to find. The right side of Figure 2 describes four reuse strategies that airports typically pursue. These are (1) find a replacement tenant, (2) adapt for reuse, (3) demolish, or (4) do nothing. FIGURE 2 Vacant facilities roadmap. (Source: KRAMER aerotek, inc., 2010.)

6 It is in this context that functional obsolescence outpaces typical depreciation schedules or master plans that address future needs in 20 to 30 years. At some point, both airlines and airports face the difficult decision about what to do with outdated facilities that no longer can operate efficiently in today’s environment. In several instances around the coun- try, the decision to demolish passenger terminals can be complicated by public interest to preserve iconic architec- ture. Passenger terminals such as Eero Saarinen’s TWA Flight Center and the original Pan Am Worldport (Figure 3) seem oddly out of scale and function for today’s expanded travel market. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) is working hard to integrate the TWA Flight Center into the passenger flow of JetBlue’s Terminal 5. But not all terminals with strong architectural elements will be preserved at John F. Kennedy International Air- port (JFK). Delta Airlines announced in August 2010 that it would demolish the Worldport in 2013 to make room for an expanded Terminal 4 and build a connector to its existing Terminal 2. Renowned architect I.M. Pei’s Terminal 6 at JFK is also slated for demolition. FIGURE 3 Original Pan Am Worldport at JFK (1960). (Source: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.) Airports in other parts of the United States also have addressed the functional obsolescence of their older termi- nals. Pittsburgh International built a new midfield terminal in 1992 to accommodate the US Airway’s hub and the new air mall. Southwest Florida International Airport also built a new midfield terminal complex, which opened in 2005. Both airports decided to demolish their former terminals. India- napolis International completed its new terminal in 2008; the airport authority has hired a consultant to recommend ways to recycle the former terminal and maximize revenues. INDUSTRY CHANGE Airlines, as the principal tenants of commercial service air- ports, have greatly influenced the build-out of airport proper- ties. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, network carriers sought to control markets and market share through extensive development of hub and spoke networks that crisscrossed the country. Some airports were dominated by a single carrier. At many airports, Majority in Interest (MII) clauses gave signa- tory airlines rights to approve or disapprove airport capital projects in exchange for airlines backing debt. However, starting in 1989, bankruptcies of major carri- ers resulted in (1) rejected leases on aircraft and buildings, (2) altered airport/airline operating agreements, (3) reduced networks, and (4) discontinued connecting hubs. Table 2 shows the extent of airline bankruptcies. During this period, United Airlines closed major maintenance centers in India- napolis and Oakland, and Northwest Airlines (NWA) did the same in Duluth and Atlanta. Eastern Airlines, Pan Am, Bra- niff International, and Trans World Airlines (TWA) ceased to exist. US Airways changed the status of Pittsburgh from a major connecting hub to a focus city. American Airlines shut down its San Jose, Nashville, and Raleigh–Durham hubs. It acquired the assets of TWA and dismantled the TWA hub at St. Louis. Delta has reduced flights at Cincinnati and Mem- phis. US Airways merged with America West; Northwest and Delta merged, and most recently, United Airlines and Continental merged. The challenges of vacated property through mergers and bankruptcies have also extended to general aviation airports. For instance, the Chapter 7 bank- ruptcy (liquidation) of Adam Aircraft resulted in vacant han- gars and research facilities at three general aviation airports. Airport revenues are highly dependent on both airlines and passengers. Figure 4 shows how important airline- and passenger-dependent activity (such as concessions, parking, and rental cars) contributes to the operating revenues at air- ports of all sizes. FIGURE 4 Operating revenues at U.S. airports. (Source: FAA CATS 127 Reports, 2009.) The dislocations that have occurred by changes in the rout- ing of connecting passengers have had a profound effect on air- port enplanements, both positive and negative. Table 3 tracks enplanements at U.S. connecting hub airports from 2000 to 2009. For all primary airports during this period, enplane- ments declined by 12.5 million (1.8%). Given the 2008–2009 recession, a modest absolute decrease in enplaned passengers is actually surprising. However, total change in enplanements

7 does not begin to describe how passenger flow in the United States has dramatically changed. Table 3 sorts connecting hub airports in the United States starting with airports that have experienced the largest absolute gain in enplaned passengers. New York’s JFK, Charlotte, and Denver are among the fast- est growing airports in the country, each growing in excess of 5.6 million enplanements (approximately 11 million total passengers) from 2000 to 2009. However, at the other end of the spectrum, St. Louis lost 9.2 million enplanements, Cincin- nati lost 6.0 million, and Pittsburgh lost 5.9 million. In these instances, the loss of more than 50% of enplaned passengers has had an enormous impact on individual airport revenues and the demand for services and aeronautical facilities. In response, each of these airports has consolidated gates, closed off whole or parts of concourses, and taken on responsibilities for baggage handling and other systems. REUSE STRATEGIES Airports faced with vacant aeronautical facilities typically either solicit proposals for reuse or undertake reuse studies to assess the physical condition of a building and existing systems (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, security, and fire suppression), environmental considerations, reuse options, and the cost for each option. If the tenant has vacated a prop- erty but is still paying rent, reuse assessments may be done as a joint venture if the tenant is willing. Reuse decisions typically fall into the following categories: • Replacement tenant, • Adaptive reuse, • Demolition, and • Do nothing. Replacement Tenant For specialized buildings such as hangars, maintenance, or cargo facilities, airports often take a hard look at the pos- sibilities of leasing some or all of the space to a tenant that would use the property for a similar purpose. This approach was taken at the former United Indianapolis Maintenance Center (IMC), a 217-acre campus with 1.7 million square feet of space. AAR Aircraft Services Inc. leased 750,000 ft2 of the IMC, including 10 of the 12 hangar bays. Most of the remaining space was subdivided and leased to other tenants. TABLE 2 NETWORK AND REGIONAL CARRIERS IN BANKRUPTCY AND OUTCOMES, 1989–2010 Date Regional Carrier Date Regional Carrier Mar-89 Eastern Air Lines (re-emerged) Jan-02 Sun Country Airlines (re-emerged) Sep-89 Braniff International (ceased operations) Jul-02 Vanguard Airlines (ceased operations) Oct-89 Presidential Airways (ceased operations) Aug-02 US Airways (re-emerged) Dec-90 Continental Airlines (re-emerged) Dec-02 United Airlines (re-emerged) Jan-91 Pan Am World Airways (re-emerged) Mar-03 Hawaiian Airlines (re-emerged) Jan-91 Eastern Air Lines (ceased operations) Oct-03 Midway Airlines (ceased operations) Mar-91 Midway Airlines (re-emerged) Sep-04 US Airways (re-emerged) Jun-91 America West Airlines (merged with US Airways) Oct-04 ATA Airlines (re-emerged) Nov-91 Midway Airlines (ceased operations) Dec-04 Aloha Airlines (re-emerged) Jan-92 Trans World Airlines (re-emerged) Sep-05 Delta Air Lines (re-emerged) Jun-92 Markair (re-emerged) Sep-05 Comair (acquired by Delta Air Lines) Sep-93 Hawaiian Airlines (re-emerged) Sep-05 Northwest Airlines (merged with Delta Air Lines) Apr-95 Markair (ceased operations) Oct-05 Mesaba Airlines (re-emerged) Jun-95 Trans World Airlines (re-emerged) Nov-05 Atlantic Coast Airlines (ceased operations) Aug-97 Air South (ceased operations) Jan-06 Independence Air (ceased operations) Oct-97 Western Pacific Airlines (ceased operations) Mar-08 Aloha Airlines (ceased operations) Feb-98 Pan Am World Airways (ceased operations/name sold) Apr-08 ATA Airlines (acquired by Southwest Airlines) Mar-99 Kiwi International Airlines (ceased operations) Apr-08 Skybus Airlines (ceased operations) Jun-99 Sunjet Int’l/Myrtle Beach Jet Express (ceased operations) Apr-08 Frontier Airlines (acquired by Republic Airlines) Dec-00 National Airlines (acquired by Delta Air Lines) May-08 Air Midwest (ceased operations) Dec-00 Allegiant Air (re-emerged) Oct-08 Sun Country (re-emerged) Jan-01 Trans World Airlines (acquired by American Airlines) Jan-10 Mesa Air (in bankruptcy) Aug-01 Midway Airlines (re-emerged) Nov-10 Gulfstream International (in bankruptcy) Source: KRAMER aerotek, inc. (2010).

8 Hillsborough County Airport Authority (HCAA) in Tampa also found a replacement tenant for a US Airways hangar vacated in November 2002. HCAA had to invest $400,000 into the property to repair the fire suppression system and meet safety codes. In 2008, PEMCO World Air Services leased the facility for large jet aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO). In August 2010, PEMCO dou- bled its space at Tampa by leasing another 161,500-ft2 han- gar, a former Delta facility. This hangar is the size of three football fields and is situated on 16.3 acres (see Figure 5). PEMCO wanted flexible parking arrangements within the hangar. As part of the lease terms, HCAA agreed to upgrade the hangar’s fire protection system, alarm system, and life safety. In addition, HCAA improved the mechanical, electri- cal, and plumbing systems before PEMCO’s occupancy. FIGURE 5 Arrival of first major carrier aircraft at the new Tampa facility; traditional water cannon salute. (Source: PEMCO.) Airports that pursue a replacement tenant strategy often have to maintain the vacated property until a tenant is TABLE 3 ENPLANEMENTS AT U.S. CONNECTING HUBS Hub Airports CY 2000 CY 2009 Actual Gain/Loss of Enplanements 2000–2009 Change (%) New York (JFK) 16,155,437 22,710,272 6,554,835 40.6 Charlotte 11,469,282 17,165,376 5,696,094 49.7 Denver 18,382,940 24,013,669 5,630,729 30.6 Atlanta 39,277,901 42,280,868 3,002,967 7.6 Houston Intercontinental 16,358,035 19,290,239 2,932,204 17.9 Philadelphia 12,294,051 15,002,961 2,708,910 22.0 Las Vegas 17,424,214 19,445,952 2,021,738 11.6 Washington Dulles 9,643,275 11,132,098 1,488,823 15.4 Seattle 13,875,942 15,273,092 1,397,150 10.1 Chicago Midway 7,059,520 8,253,620 1,194,100 16.9 Baltimore 9,675,681 10,338,950 663,269 6.9 Phoenix 18,094,251 18,559,647 465,396 2.6 Salt Lake City 9,522,344 9,903,821 381,477 4.0 Houston Hobby 4,354,609 4,087,524 (267,085) –6.1 Miami 16,489,341 16,187,768 (301,573) –1.8 Newark 17,212,226 16,659,441 (552,785) –3.2 Memphis 5,684,619 5,054,191 (630,428) –11.1% Kansas City 5,903,296 4,894,349 (1,008,947) –17.1 San Francisco 19,556,795 18,467,908 (1,088,887) –5.6 Minneapolis–St. Paul 16,959,014 15,551,206 (1,407,808) –8.3 Cleveland 6,269,516 4,704,329 (1,565,187) –25.0 Dallas–Ft. Worth 28,274,512 26,663,984 (1,610,528) –5.7 Detroit 17,326,775 15,211,402 (2,115,373) –12.2 Chicago O’Hare 33,845,895 31,135,732 (2,710,163) –8.0 Los Angeles 32,167,896 27,439,897 (4,727,999) –14.7 Pittsburgh 9,871,995 3,956,842 (5,915,153) –59.9 Cincinnati 11,223,966 5,194,214 (6,029,752) –53.7 St. Louis 15,288,493 6,084,070 (9,204,423) –60.2 Total Primary Airports 708,638,875 696,141,535 (12,497,340) –1.8 Source: FAA DOT/TSC CY 2000 and 2009, Air Carrier Activity Information System Database.

9 found. The cost to maintain and secure a property can be considerable. Adaptive Reuse Adaptive reuse (AR) is conventionally defined as the process of adapting old structures for new purposes. The following quotation describes AR in a more historical context: To prolong the period from cradle-to-grave for a building by retaining all or most of the structural system and as much as possible of other elements, such as cladding, glass, and interior partitions. ... The desire to preserve historical buildings and neighborhoods emerged in many Western countries out of various romanticist, nationalistic, and historicist streams. Today, the imperative to extend the life cycle of a structure is related to various sustainability goals: sprawl minimization, preservation of virgin materials, and energy conservation. Also, many Western cities are changing dramatically as industrial operations more often than not move to the South and the East leaving massive, sturdy buildings vacant. Institutional nature is also changing with many old hospitals, sanatoriums, military buildings, and even office blocks becoming redundant. AR becomes a means to revitalize urban life and declining neighborhoods (MIT Greening East Campus). Although adaptive reuse of facilities has its roots in urban redevelopment, its application at airports began largely as historic preservation projects to integrate significant archi- tectural elements into terminal modernization programs. PANYNJ is undertaking an adaptive reuse of Eero Saarin- en’s TWA Flight Center and integrating it into JetBlue’s new Terminal 5 (see Figure 6). Adaptive reuse has been accomplished at other airports. Springfield–Branson National Airport has converted its former passenger terminal into office space and a call cen- ter for Expedia Inc. and for the Missouri Army National Guard. Pittsburgh International Airport renovated a US Airways cargo facility into a jet bridge rehabilitation center. There are also many examples of adaptive reuse accomplished when closed military bases are reopened for public use. These examples are further described as case studies. FIGURE 6 TWA Flight Center and JetBlue Terminal 5 pans at JFK. (Sources: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and OBIT, Nov. 17, 2009.)

10 Nothing Done Some vacancies occur and because the tenant continues to pay rent, nothing is done. In these instances, airport spon- sors typically work with the tenant and the FAA to plan for reuse in the future. The city of Dayton and Dayton Interna- tional Airport (DAY) faced this situation when United Par- cel Service (UPS) closed its Menlo Facility and cargo hub. UPS owns the building and has a ground lease on 166 acres that will expire in 2020. DAY considered purchasing the building but opted to receive rent for the ground lease and market the property to one or several tenants. Ultimately, prospective tenants would negotiate with UPS and seek FAA approval for any nonaviation use because the property has access to the airfield. COMPLEXITIES OF REUSE OF AERONAUTICAL PROPERTY Reuse of aeronautical buildings comes with special chal- lenges to airport operators. The principal issues that influence reuse are— • Security; • FAA grant and obligation issues; • Airport/airline operating agreements; • Environmental regulations; • Technology changes; • Cost to maintain a building, cost to demolish, and cost to renovate (and who pays); • Market prospects for replacement tenants and alterna- tive uses; • Stakeholder support; and • Competition with off-airport sites. These issues are discussed briefly in the next sections. Security Most aeronautical facilities are located next to the airfield. In this context, potential reuse options must consider and address security issues, in particular, general access to all airside areas of the airport. Reuse that requires access to the airfield is the easiest from a security standpoint as a facility that is totally directed at the landside would require closing off access to the airfield and potentially a commitment of security resources to ensure that the property is an indepen- dent landside component of the airport. FAA Grant and Obligation Issues If an airport sponsor has accepted federal Airport Improve- ment Program (AIP) grants, it agrees that its prime obliga- tion is to operate the airport for the use and benefit of the public. Furthermore, the FAA also views the airport’s prime Demolition and Redevelopment Airports may decide to demolish a facility as the best approach to ready a property for redevelopment. A decision to demolish is made because— • The cost to maintain a facility is high, • The parcel is needed for another use, • Existing systems are highly specialized and/or outdated, • Access to the airfield needs to be limited and secured, • Environmental mitigation to remodel is extensive, • A low likelihood of reuse points to partial or full demolition, • The airport does not have the immediate capital to ren- ovate and demolition is the least costly option. In anticipation of opening its new terminal in 2005, Lee County Port Authority undertook an extensive terminal disposition evaluation at Southwest Florida International Airport (RSW) that included its main existing terminal, Concourses A and B, Concourse B extension, and the Inter- national Arrival Building (IAB). The evaluation involved inspection of all accessible building areas; mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems; underground utilities; hydrant pumping systems; safety and fire issues; and envi- ronmental hazards. Four options were considered: • Reuse of the entire facility; • Removal of the main terminal and Concourses A and B, reuse of the newer Concourse B Extension and the IAB; • Retention of the IAB, removal of everything else; • Demolition of all structures. For each option, the costs for demolition, construction, and renovation; modifications to mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems; ongoing maintenance; and roof repairs were estimated. Because the cost of system modifications was so high for reuse of the existing facilities, Lee County Port Authority decided to demolish all structures and prepare a ready and flexible site for a secure airside reuse (see Figure 7). FIGURE 7 Debris from the old Southwest Florida International Airport terminal. (Source: Michel Fortier, Naples Daily News.)

11 (RSW), signatory airlines did not want to share in the main- tenance costs of both a new and vacant old terminal. How- ever, at PIT, modified airline/airport operating agreements allowed for the airport’s demolition of the former terminal, and at RSW, an MII of the signatory airlines voted to approve a terminal project that included both construction of the new terminal and demolition of the old. Environmental Regulations Reuse of aeronautical property requires compliance with current environmental regulations that may include removal of asbestos, lead paint, and hydrocarbon contamination. It is not uncommon for terminal areas to have fuel lines and other utility corridors buried adjacent to an aeronautical property. Fire suppression systems for maintenance facili- ties, although appropriate for aircraft, would be dangerous if they remained in place for an adaptive reuse to, for example, office space. Technology Changes Increased use of information technology systems, advanced fueling systems, alternative fuels, passenger tracking, self- tagging and check-in, wireless communications, common- use baggage systems, and passenger transit are examples of technologies that can be expensive to retrofit into older buildings. Who Bears the Cost When airport building leases are rejected by tenants dur- ing bankruptcy, ownership usually reverts to the airport sponsor, which becomes responsible for maintenance and repairs. The costs to maintain a building without tenants can be considerable. Direct costs include maintenance and secu- rity personnel, materials and supplies, contracted services, utilities, and other repair and maintenance. There may also be indirect costs for taxes and insurance. In addition to upkeep costs, airport sponsors may incur the costs to remove environmental hazards and meet other building code requirements for an adaptive reuse. This might include modifications to plumbing, electrical, mechanical, and fire safety systems, as well as ADA access requirements. The costs associated with these modifications can make the economics of adaptive reuse unattractive from a cost–benefit standpoint. Competition from Off-Airport Sites for Nonaeronautical Tenants Nonaeronautical reuse on an airport does not always stack up well against comparable property off an airport. Ware- houses, multimodal logistics centers, and other transport- related activities that do not necessarily need airside access mission as aeronautics; therefore, an airport’s first obliga- tion is to manage its assets in the civil aviation interests of the public. It is important that all nonaeronautical uses of land contribute to, or financially support, the aeronautical mission of the airport. With regard to this overall mission, Grant Assurances 19 and 29 direct an airport sponsor to retain and operate aeronautical properties for aeronautical uses. A sponsor may consider using aeronautical property for nonaeronautical uses, after review and approval of the FAA, including a period for public comment. Grant Assur- ance 24 requires an airport sponsor to maintain a fee and rental structure that will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible. Grant Assurances 24, 25, and federal law require that airport sponsors that lease airport property for nonaero- nautical use receive no less than fair market value rents. With regard to specific FAA grant-funded improvements or equipment, a sponsor must operate and maintain the project or equipment for its full useful life. Grant-funded construc- tion or renovation projects are deemed to have a useful life not to exceed 20 years. Grant-funded equipment is deemed to have a useful life not to exceed 10 years. Land purchased with FAA grants is to be operated for airport purposes in perpetuity or until the sponsor receives specific release of its obligations from the FAA. In the case of a grant-funded building, the airport sponsor would need FAA approval for an alternative nonaviation use or for demolition. The FAA may impose conditions for the reuse or demolition of the building, including repayment to the FAA of its share of the undepreciated value of the building or the reinvestment of that value as the federal share of a new AIP-eligible airport improvement. Such repayment or reinvestment would not be necessary if the specific project had exceeded its useful life or if the reuse was for another AIP-eligible purpose. Because of FAA grant assurances and obligations, airport sponsors should consult with the FAA throughout the reuse process so that the FAA Airport District Office can follow an airport’s best efforts to secure a new aeronautical tenant before considering a mixed use or nonaeronautical use. Many airports consider interim uses (less than 5 years) for a vacated facility to continue a revenue stream and/or solidify a long-term plan. Airport/Airline Operating Agreements Numerous airports have signed agreements with “signa- tory” airlines that include MII clauses. These clauses typi- cally result in the airport losing the right to make fully autonomous decisions about capital expenditure programs by giving the signatory airlines a say on projects exceeding a certain dollar amount. Thus, where an MII clause exists, the disposition of older terminal buildings or other facilities may be influenced by the signatory airlines. In the cases of both Pittsburgh (PIT) and Southwest Florida International

12 Despite the many challenges of reuse, the case studies presented in the next chapter demonstrate some excellent examples of facilities that have been modified and placed back in service. have a much wider selection of properties off-airport that can be purchased outright (fee simple) or leased at a lower rental rate than aeronautical property.

Next: CHAPTER THREE Case Study Approach »
Strategies for Reuse of Underutilized or Vacant Airport Facilities Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Synthesis 25: Strategies for Reuse of Underutilized or Vacant Airport Facilities presents an overview of the issues surrounding the reuse of aeronautical facilities and terminals.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!