Airport Operator Options for Delivery of FBO Services (2018)

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.

10 CHAPTER TWO LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR FBO MODEL SELECTION CHOICES FOR DELIVERY OF FBO SERVICES Airport sponsors that are nearing the end of long-term fixed base operator leases have options for delivery of these services going forward. This chapter will discuss the main local consid- erations that go into deciding how best to provide fueling, flight continuation services, maintenance, and concierge services, and will address real estate leasing and development options as well as rates and charges. Three approaches highlight the ways airport sponsors provide FBO services: (1) a traditional lease, (2) contract manage- ment of airport FBO facilities, and (3) direct performance of FBO services by the airport. Each option has many variations that depend on the extent of airport-owned FBO assets and private development. Traditional Lease This traditional FBO arrangement is used at many airports. With a traditional lease, the FBO develops and operates the FBO business enterprise. The operator invests its capital and develops GA facilities. At many larger airports, the airport sponsor has no direct investment in FBO facilities or equipment. The FBO alone is responsible for the financial commitment and profit or loss. However, at smaller airports, the airport sponsor may own all or many of the FBO facilities, including a terminal, hangars, and maintenance facilities, and may not expect a private FBO to construct its own facilities. In these instances, the airport sponsor leases the facilities to the FBO, usually in a short- or medium-term lease (5 to 10 years with renewal options). In situations where an FBO builds or purchases private hangars or a terminal facility, usually a longer-term traditional lease is used to allow the FBO to amortize its investment. A traditional lease typically requires that the airport sponsor solicit an FBO by a competitive process. Frequently a sponsor will issue a request for information to gauge whether FBOs are interested in bidding and meeting airport requirements for the FBO. If sufficient response is received, the sponsor will then prepare a detailed request for proposal (RFP) and select an FBO in accordance with the sponsor’s procurement process. For incumbent FBOs, an airport sponsor can negotiate a new lease at the end of the term; however, in practice many airports will solicit a competitive bid for the FBO lease. The lease approach is perhaps the most common way to provide FBO services. However, for smaller airports that sell less than 100,000 gal of aviation fuel per year and experience competition from other nearby airports, airport sponsors are con- sidering contract management or self-operation of FBO services. Contract Management Contract FBO management is an arrangement in which the airport sponsor selects an FBO to provide management and operational services using equipment or facilities owned by the airport. This arrangement is similar to parking management contracts employed by many commercial airports. The FBO provides expertise, management, and labor, then operates within a financial agreement (often fixed-price plus performance bonus). The contract manager has no capital invested in facilities or equipment. The airport sponsor takes financial responsibility for the FBO operation and maintains control of the level of service and price points. Contract management also requires a competitive RFP process. Contract management of FBO services is part of a larger trend to engage private management companies for different airport functions. Both Appleton International Airport and Chattanooga International Airport use contract managers for FBO Business Models • Traditional lease • Contract management • Airport-operated proprietary exclusive

11 airport-owned FBO facilities. The Rhode Island Airport Corporation has contracted for management of all services and operations at its general aviation airports. Management agreements for FBOs typically are shorter term than a traditional lease where an FBO is investing in the airport. Not all third-party FBOs are interested in working as a contract manager of airport facilities if they can participate directly in real estate development on an airport. However, for small airports that own the FBO facilities and aircraft hangars, a management contract is an alternative to evaluate and compare with a shorter-term traditional lease. Airport sponsors that are considering self-operation can also compare the merits of a contract manager with airport self-operation. Airport-Operated FBO via Proprietary Exclusive In this instance, the airport sponsor exercises the right to self-perform all FBO and GA services. The airport furnishes all facilities, employees, and equipment and is responsible for capital investment, all start-up costs, and ongoing operations and maintenance expenses. The airport sponsor shoulders all the risk and retains all the rewards. The airport is the sole provider of fuel and other aeronautical services such as into-plane fueling. FBO staff must be the airport sponsor’s employees and the door is closed to an additional FBO. An airport sponsor’s decision to self-operate FBO services does require an evaluation of how the airport’s governing struc- ture can affect FBO operations. The following are important questions to consider: 1. Can the self-performing FBO hire and fire staff without going through the governing body’s HR process? It is impor- tant to be able to fire and hire as needed without lengthy delays. 2. Do the airport sponsor’s policies and enabling legislation permit the airport, as a self-performing FBO, to pay market wages (minimum wages and competitive benefits) in contrast to governmental wages (living wages plus governmental HR benefits)? 3. Does the airport sponsor’s HR program have features that would allow part-time employees? 4. Does the airport sponsor have concerns about its employees coming in direct contact with aircraft? Does the airport sponsor self-insure a portion of its liability? If a portion is self-insured, how will airport operation of an FBO affect self-insurance costs? 5. Will the airport sponsor’s budgeting and procurement procedures make it possible to order fuel and other aviation products as needed? 6. Is the airport sponsor willing to accept responsibility and liability for fuel system management and fuel quality? 7. Will state and local laws permit an airport sponsor to form a limited liability corporation or foundation to address some governance issues that would affect self-operation of an FBO? Several airports—such as Paige Field, Naples Municipal Airport, Springfield-Branson National Airport, Sugar Land Regional Airport, and Fort Wayne International Airport—operate their FBOs as proprietary exclusive facilities.

12 Models Compared TABLE 5 FBO DELIVERY OPTIONS COMPARED FBO Delivery Options Traditional Lease Contract Management Self-Perform Relationship of Parties Independent lessee Independent FBO management con- tractor with limited agency NA Risk and Control Passed to operator Assumed by airport Assumed by airport Justifiable Duration of Lease or Operation The commercial amortization period on the minimum capital investment, not to exceed 30 years 5 to 10 years Indefinite On-Airport Competition Open to additional operators Open to additional operators Exclusive proprietary rights Business Plan and Budgets Responsibility of lessee FBO management contractor pre- pares a business plan and annual contract year budget that must receive airport sponsor approval Airport developed Decision Making About FBO FBO lessee Airport sponsor Airport sponsor FBO Expertise FBO lessee Management contractor Airport recruits and hires FBO manager FBO Staff FBO recruits and trains staff Contractor recruits and trains staff Public employees recruit and train staff according to HR rules or on a special basis; potential for cross utilization Capital Investment Operator responsibility; sometimes airport sponsor invests Airport sponsor Airport sponsor Revenues Revenues to operator less rents, fuel flowage, and percentage of gross receipts to airport sponsor Fixed management fees to operator plus incentive bonuses in contract; residual to airport Revenues to the airport sponsor Costs to Airport All costs borne by operator except potential infrastructure improve- ments provided by airport All costs assumed by airport unless management contract stipulates spe- cific maintenance requirements All direct and indirect costs borne by the airport Insurance Requirements FBO insures both property and oper- ations; if airport sponsor property is included, insurance responsibilities negotiated in lease Airport sponsor insures property, and management contract insures operations Airport sponsor insures both property and operations FBO Promotion and Business Development Joint FBO and airport responsibility Primarily airport unless marketing specified in terms of contract Airport responsibility, possible joint marketing with fuel sup- plier; can use FBO ground han- dling for air service recruitment or retention Sources: Adapted from Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Authority, AAAE Airport FBO Ownership Workshop, April 2016, and Michael G. Monroney & Associates. EVALUATING FBO OPTIONS For most airports, many local factors must be considered when deciding how to deliver FBO services. For the smallest air- ports, self-operated FBOs or self-service fueling facilities may be the only option. At the other end of the spectrum, the largest GA airports may support multiple private FBOs that are will- ing to make substantial capital investment in airport facilities. The middle range of airports presents choices for the delivery of FBO services. This section highlights the factors an airport sponsor might consider when contemplating a new FBO lease or self-opera- tion. The evaluation is grouped into five sections: Local Considerations • History of FBO services at the airport • Analysis of airport internals • Regional competitive factors to consider • Important macro factors • Aviation community considerations

13 • History of FBO services at the airport • Analysis of airport internals • Regional competitive factors to consider • Important macro factors • Aviation community considerations History of FBO Services at an Airport The history of FBO services at an airport is extremely important to inform future options. Has the airport engaged a third- party operator(s) to perform FBO services in the past? If so, what were the experiences in terms of levels of service, increases or decreases in activity, financial returns to the airport, and the ability of the FBO to meet its contractual obligations to the airport sponsor? If the airport sponsor operates the FBO, commercial self-service fueling facility, or both, an evaluation of results along the same lines is appropriate. This retrospective analysis will help to gauge the size of the airport’s market and customer base and provoke a discussion about expectations and objectives that would drive a different approach. Analysis of Airport Internal Factors ACRP Report 77: Guidebook for Developing General Aviation Airport Business Plans (Aviation Management Consulting Group, Inc. et al. 2012), offers a detailed assessment platform for evaluating airport activity, facilities, and services, particularly chapter 6 of the report. However, an airport’s internal factors are critical when assessing options for delivery FBO services: 1. Airport runway lengths 2. Fuel sales volumes 3. GA activity levels 4. Airport facilities and services 5. Customer base 6. Financial performance 7. Governance, labor rates, and propensity to self-operate 8. Status of primary documents, leases, and contracts Airport Runway Lengths Airport runway lengths can serve as a proxy for the types of aircraft that use an airport. An improved surface runway of 4,000 ft is generally the minimum needed for most turboprop and small jet aircraft operations (Enticknap and Jackson 2012). Airports with shorter runways are likely to serve the smaller piston engine aircraft. Based on the AC-U-KWIK listings of U.S. FBOs, only one airport, Albert Whitted, with a runway length of 3,677 ft, is operated by a large network FBO, in this case Sheltair. Of the small network FBOs (three to five loca- tions), six of the 92 listed operate on airports with runways less than 4,000 ft. Short runway lengths suggest that the delivery of FBO services at these airports likely is provided either by the airport or by a single-location, independent FBO. Airport Analysis • Airport runway lengths • Fuel sales volumes • GA activity levels • Airport facilities and services • Customer base • Financial performance • Governance, labor rates, and propensity to self-operate • Status of primary documents, leases, and contracts

14 Fuel Sales Volumes Fuel sales are not the revenue producer they once were, but they are still used as an important measure of FBO scale. Although no hard rules of thumb can be applied, sales of Jet-A fuel are a strong indicator of third-party FBO viability. FBOs with at least 500,000 gal of annual Jet-A sales could be an acquisition target for a network FBO (Enticknap and Jackson 2012). An airport with 200,000 to 250,000 gal of fuel sales may have difficulty attracting capital investments by a third-party FBO, and many airports that sell less than 200,000 gal of Jet-A and 100 of low-lead fuel per year are self-operated. Table 6 provides a summary template to track fuel sales. TABLE 6 ANNUAL FUEL SALES (GALLONS) – 10-YEAR HISTORY 100 LL Jet-A Total 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Source: Prepared by KRAMER aerotek inc., 2017. GA Activity Levels A major consideration for the delivery of FBO services is the mix of aircraft based at the airport and aircraft movement trends. Table 7 provides a template to evaluate these trends. Airports collect this information and submit it to the FAA, where it is incorporated into the 5010 database, also known as the Airport Master Record. The 5010 records include information about services and facilities available (e.g., beacons, lights, wind indicators), based aircraft, operations, and runway data. An airport operator could use the 5010 database to compare other similar airports. TABLE 7 HISTORY OF AIRPORT ACTIVITY 2007 2012 2017 Based Aircraft Piston Turboprop Jet Helicopter Aircraft Operations Local Itinerant Total Operations Source: Prepared by KRAMER aerotek inc., 2017.

15 Airport Facilities and Services Taking into account existing facilities, level of services, and current FBO management model are important precursors to an evaluation of alternative FBO management models. Table 8 presents a template to summarize the availability and manage- ment of current FBO functions. TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF FBO FACILITIES/SERVICES AND CURRENT MANAGEMENT Not Available on Airport Airport Owned and Operated Contract Management FBO Operator Owned or Leased Specialized Aviation Service Operator Airport Ground Lease to Private Developer and Operator GA Terminal Hangars Bulk Hangars T-Hangars Individual Hangars Fuel Services Storage Tanks Self-Service Facility Fueling Trucks Aircraft Maintenance Cargo Charters Concierge Services Flight Continuation Services Flight Training Rental Cars Source: Prepared by KRAMER aerotek inc., 2017. Customer Base The profile of GA activity, facilities, and services offered will help to identify the airport’s customer base. ACRP Report 28, “Marketing Guidebook for Small Airports,” proposed open ended inquiry statements to help an airport identify its customer base and articulate goals for new airport customers: • Our most important customers are... • We stand out from the competition because... • Our airport is known for... • We are great at... • We want our customers to be... • We strive to... • Our community would like... Understanding the customer base makes it possible to compare what is offered at the airport versus what customers might want at the airport. (See Figure 6 for an example.)

16 FIGURE 6 What airport customers and tenants may want. Source: Prepared by KRAMER aerotek inc., 2011. Financial Performance One important reason to consider other options for the delivery of FBO services is improved financial performance. Evaluating the airport’s financial performance over the past 5 years will establish a sound basis for comparing alternatives. Table 9 offers a sample table to summarize a 5-year history of operating revenues and expenses at the airport. Note that a line is included for administrative overhead. Airport sponsors sometimes support the administration of airports from other municipal or authority cost centers. An overhead factor should be included in the analysis to ensure it will be accounted for when comparing alternative methods of delivering FBO services. Table 9 also can be used to compare the financial performance of other similar airports. TABLE 9 AIRPORT OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENSES, 5-YEAR HISTORY 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Percent Change Operating Revenue Fuel Flowage FBO Rents and Conces- sion Fees Other GA Revenue Total Operating Revenue Direct Operating Expenses Salaries and Benefits Contracted Maintenance Supplies and Materials Utilities Insurance Other Expenses Total Direct Operating Expenses Administration Expense Allocation Gross Profit (Loss) Before Capital Improvements Source: Prepared by KRAMER aerotek inc., 2017.

17 Governance, Labor Rates, and Propensity to Self-Operate Governance considerations are important when evaluating options for the delivery of FBO services. Airport sponsors oversee the airport. These sponsors may be an airport authority, a municipality, or a county. Boards, commissions, and city or town councils will oversee airport policies, planning, budgets, leases, and capital expenditures. These groups will ultimately decide whether to use an FBO lease or a management contract, or pursue self-operation of the FBO services. Some governing bodies place a premium on airport self-sufficiency and entrepreneurship. Consideration of self-operating the FBO often stimulates extended discussions about the merits of public or private provision of FBO services. The FBO business is a highly competitive and margin-sensitive industry. At some GA airports, the sponsor has offered aircraft hangars and fuel at below-market rates to attract business. When an airport elects (or has no choice) to self-operate FBO services, FBO staff will be subject to the same employment pay scales and public employment rules as the airport sponsor. Labor and start-up costs are key considerations when an airport sponsor elects to exercise its proprietary exclusive rights. To address potentially higher labor costs and hiring flexibility, some airports have formed limited liability corporations (LLCs) to handle FBO services. However, when an airport sponsor forms a separate legal entity such as an LLC, it is no longer eligible for proprietary exclusive rights. Status of Primary Documents, Leases, and Contracts An analysis of airport internals also includes a review of the airport’s primary documents (minimum standards, leasing policy, rules and regulations, rates and charges, and subordination clauses) as well as current leases and contracts. Each of these primary documents sets the standards for airport tenants and operations and establish the airport’s business environment. The primary documents establish the basis for new tenants to enter the airport, set out the rules and regulations for operat- ing at the airport, and establish lease rates and fees. Many airport sponsors have adopted minimum standards to set level of service, an application review process, and qualification requirements for operators that want to or are engaged in commer- cial aeronautical activities at the airport. For qualified new entrants, minimum standards also provide a justification to allow market access and increase competition at the airport. Minimum standards can help airport sponsors avoid accusations that the airport is arbitrary and discriminatory in not permitting an unqualified individual, firm, or corporation to lease land and set up an operation. Minimum standards protect existing operations and provide a basis to turn away unqualified FBOs and specialty operators. Because of the changing activity levels at GA airports in the United States, all primary documents should be reviewed every 5 years to ensure requirements reflect current levels of activity at the airport and demand for aviation services. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5190–7, “Minimum Standards for Aeronautical Activities,” offers guidance on reviewing and updating minimum standards. In addition to reviewing and updating the primary documents, airport sponsors may direct staff to review current leases and contracts for hangars, airport-owned improved property, and ground leases to identify expiring agreements and confirm that rates are consistently applied, are specific to each airport situation, and reflect market rates for similar property at com- parable airports. Regional Competitive Factors to Consider Most GA airports operate within a competitive region where aviation businesses and airport users have choices about price, services, and location. Consequently, options offered at nearby airports can affect a sponsor’s decision about the level of FBO service, providers, pricing, and target customers. Regional competition can extend across many functional and service areas of an airport’s offerings: • Similar airport customers • Hangar availability, lease terms, rental rates • Fuel prices

18 • Specialized services such as flight training, maintenance, and charter aircraft • Terminal amenities • Customs and border protection An airport that is reviewing current offerings or contemplating a change can conduct an opportunity assessment to deter- mine saturation levels for GA services and facilities in the area and to identify underserved customers. This type of assess- ment would include an analysis of GA activity in the region, strengths and weaknesses of competitors, and “the extent to which consumers are content with the level of service provided by the competition” (Wells and Chadbourne 1994). Important Macro Factors A number of macro considerations also are shaping demand for GA facilities and services. Although individual airports may not be able to control macro factors, they will influence an airport’s ability to attract and retain its customers. Among the most significant macro considerations for GA airports are the following: • Aircraft design and size. As aircraft become more fuel efficient, in-transit fueling patterns have changed. Furthermore, the redesign of wingspans and aircraft hulls are affecting required dimensions for hangar space and door sizes. • Mobile technology. The use of mobile applications to prepare flight plans, monitor weather conditions, and check fuel prices has enabled pilots and dispatchers to fine-tune route plans in transit and has reduced demand for flight continu- ation services at FBO terminals. • Social media. Pilots are heavy users of social media and frequently comment about airport facilities and services. In this sense, social media is a way for airport operators to check customer satisfaction and post fuel prices and airport news. • Aviation demographics. Much has been written about the aging demographic of GA pilots and substitution of other, less costly forms of recreational activity. Although an uncontrollable factor for airport operators, demographic trends are important considerations for long-term airport development initiatives and marketing plans. • Competing modes of travel and recreation. General and business aviation compete with commercial service, and auto- mobile and rail travel. Modal shifts happen constantly and are highly sensitive to trip length, convenience, price, and generational preferences. • The economy. Aviation is famous for its sensitivity to economic conditions and outlook. The GA market responds to the purchasing power of its participants. Volatility in income, profits, savings, availability of credit, and fuel prices will affect discretionary spending in this sector. Aviation Community Considerations Last, but important, an airport is supported by its tenants, GA users, airport stakeholders, and the community at large. If an airport sponsor is contemplating a different option for the delivery of FBO services, members of the aviation community will want to participate in discussions about the provision of FBO services. SELECTION OF THE FBO BUSINESS MODEL The most frequent changes for the delivery of FBO services are • Airport takes over FBO functions • Airport owns GA facilities and decides whether to adopt a contract management model or lease the facilities to a private FBO • FBO lease has expired and the airport sponsor engages in a new procurement process Selecting the appropriate model involves evaluating local considerations and conversations with airport stakeholders, deci- sion makers, and experts. This section highlights five steps to selecting an FBO model: 1. Assemble the FBO decision team. Steps to Select an FBO Model • Assemble the FBO decision team. • Prepare a SWOT baseline for each viable option. • Compare the financial pro formas and implications of each option. • Consider intangible factors. • Select the model to pursue.

19 2. Prepare a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) baseline for each viable option. 3. Compare the financial pro formas and implications of each option. 4. Consider intangible factors important to the situation. 5. Select the model to pursue. Assemble the FBO Decision Team The first step in selecting an FBO model is identifying the team that will participate in the FBO model selection. Figure 7 iden- tifies the potential members of the FBO decision team and their involvement in a number of tasks. For a larger airport author- ity, much of this expertise may reside in house. However, even larger airport authorities may hire independent consultants to assist with this decision. For some GA airports and nonhub, small, and medium hub airports, soliciting outside expertise also may benefit the search. For airports looking to recruit an FBO provider, an independent expert may help to ensure the nonexclusive treatment of bidders, a fair evaluation of pricing, proposed quality of service, and adequacy of proposed staffing. Assembling a multidiscipline team offers many benefits, including: • Subject matter expertise that does not exist in the organization, or that is needed for a specified period of time • Knowledge of alternative models for providing FBO services • Solutions to specific challenges and situations • Validation of ideas that have already been created in the organization • Assessment of different evaluations and points of view • Facilitation of ideas and solutions with other team members • Implementation of approaches that enhance airport management flexibility • Access to a network of GA industry contacts • Introduction and implementation of new ideas and approaches • Understanding of the range of alternatives to address FBO issues • Experience with a variety of leasing outcomes • Optimization of financial returns • Assurance of a high standard of service for GA users that is equal to other similarly situated airports Prepare a SWOT Baseline for Each Viable Option The purpose of a SWOT analysis is to evaluate actual and perceived strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the existing situation and potential options (Figure 8). The results of a SWOT analysis will serve to document the airport team’s understanding of each FBO delivery option that is in contention. Strengths are FBO services and facilities that are excellent airport assets, comparable to competitive airports. “Strengths need to be preserved, built on, and leveraged” (Aviation Management Consulting Group, Inc., et al. 2012). Weaknesses are aspects of FBO performance that either are not accomplished particularly well or hinder or prevent desired outcomes. Weaknesses need to be addressed and remedied. Opportunities are new activities, services, or approaches that could help the airport realize its strategic objectives for FBO services. Opportunities are uncovered by an analysis of local considerations and by studying changes within the GA industry, the marketplace, or the community. Threats include external macro factors that could harm or undermine initiatives to solidify and improve an airport FBO’s performance. Threats need to be identified, managed, or mitigated. The SWOT process is useful going forward as a planning tool to review airport business objectives each year and fine-tune marketing and business objectives and strategies.

20 FIGURE 7 The FBO decision team. Source: Prepared by Michael G. Moroney & Associates. Note: NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act. Compare the Financial Pro Forma and Implications of Each Option The existing way that an airport provides its FBO services has certain revenue opportunities and costs associated with it. Each alternative option for the delivery of FBO services can be examined by preparing pro forma financials that will estimate start-up costs, including capital investments in facilities and equipment, revenue opportunities, estimated operating expenses, and administrative overhead. Table 10 illustrates a 5-year pro forma template. If the airport self-operates the FBO, all income and expenses would appear in the pro forma. If the airport pursued a contract manager, again all income and expenses would accrue to the airport sponsor and the sponsor would pay a management fee and incentive bonus based on performance. If the airport sponsor elected to pursue an FBO lease, then the negotiated terms would allocate revenues and expenses between the airport and the FBO and there would be no management fee and bonus. The pro forma financial template requires customiza- tion for each FBO delivery model considered. Consider Intangible Factors GA airports function as communities, each with their own culture and personalities. Airport sponsors also have different expectations for their airports depending on the market niche they serve, the degree of desired financial autonomy, their willingness to invest in airport facilities and services, and their propensity to delegate airport management or maintain tight controls. Many intangible considerations influence which FBO model is selected. These factors, while less quantitative, are important considerations when evaluating which approach offers the greatest value to tenants, GA users, the airport sponsor, and the local community.

21 TABLE 10 PRO FORMA FINANCIAL TEMPLATE Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Operating Revenue GA Fuel Flowage Hangar Rent GA Terminal Rent Ground Rent Concession Fees (or Total Income) on Other Rent and Services Other GA Revenue Total Operating Revenue Direct Operating Expenses Salaries and Benefits Training Contracted Management Fee Incentive Management Fees Contracted Maintenance Supplies and Materials Small Equipment and Software Marketing Utilities Insurance Other Expenses Total Direct Operating Expenses Start-Up Costs Administration Expense Allocation Net Profit (Loss) Before Capital Improvements Expenditures Source: Prepared by KRAMER aerotek inc., 2017. Select the Model to Pursue This chapter presents the many local and macro considerations that inform the selection of a model to provide FBO services. After evaluating the factors, the FBO decision team will make a recommendation to the airport’s governing body. The next steps of implementation will require specific objectives and an action plan. CONCLUSIONS Every airport exists in the context of special local considerations, regional competition, and macro factors that shape changes in the GA industry. This chapter summarizes many of the considerations that underpin an individual airport’s decision about how to provide FBO services and keep primary documents such as minimum standards up-to-date, specific, and relevant to a particular airport. This serious decision deserves careful evaluation. Once a choice is made, the airport sponsor will prepare a business strategy that supports the selected FBO model. The strategy will build on the airport’s strengths, be responsive to changes in the industry, and take advantage of new opportunities.