Airport Management Study
Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Prepared for:
County of Lehigh and County of Northampton
In Association With: Prepared by: THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC.
20 Corporate Woods Blvd Albany, New York 12211
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
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.
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
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.
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 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.
31% 15% 10%
44%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Board of Governors Member Airport Management
Employee Non-Management Airport
Employee Regional Executive, Airport
Stakeholder or Non-Airport Employee
In regards to Lehigh Valley International Airport, how
would you classify yourself?
Figure 2.2- Results of Question 2
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
90% 8% 2% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% A valuable economic asset Just another mode of
transportation No opinion An unnecessary asset
Figure 2.3- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 2
Question 3
Generally, Airports provide economic growth to communities in the form of jobs, tourism and business links. Question 3 asked the respondent to rate the importance of aviation growth in the city/county from an economic perspective. As Figure 2.4 on the next page indicates, nearly 80% of all respondents believe that aviation growth within the local area is very important. Notably, the cross tabulation chart shown as Figure 2.5 that follows, indicates that 100% of Airport employees who took part in the survey believe that from an economic perspective, aviation growth is very important. 100% 100% 100% 76% 19% 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Board of Governors Member Airport Management Employee Non-Management Airport Employee Regional Executive, Airport Stakeholder or Non-Airport Employee
What is your perception of Lehigh Valley International Airport?
Figure 2.4- Results of Question 3
Figure 2.5- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 3
73% 27% 100% 100% 71% 29% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Board of Governors Member Airport Management Employee Non-Management Airport Employee Regional Executive, Airport Stakeholder or Non-Airport Employee
From an economic perspective, how would you rate the importance of aviation growth in the city/county?
Very important Somewhat important Not important
79% 21% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Very important Somewhat important Not important
From an economic perspective, how would you rate the importance of aviation growth in the city/county?
The next two survey questions related to the 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
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.
54% 38% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% I fully understand it Somewhat understand it I do not understand it at all
How well do you understand the airport organizational/management structure?
Figure 2.7- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 4
A review of the comments on Question 4 indicated that some respondents feel the management structure is overly complicated in the sense that there exist too many tiers of management. Respondents also stated that there may be opportunities for management to integrate more closely with Non-Management employees.
Question 5
Survey question 5 addressed whether or not the Airport Authority is effective in satisfying its core mission. As the figure on the following page shows, over 42% of all respondents believe that the Authority is effective in satisfying the mission, while 10% believe that the Authority is ineffective in satisfying the mission.
67% 27% 7% 86% 14% 60% 40% 33% 52% 14% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Board of Governors Member Airport Management Employee Non-Management Airport Employee Regional Executive, Airport Stakeholder or Non-Airport Employee
How well do you understand the airport organizational/management structure?
Figure 2.8- Response to Question 5
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.
42% 46% 10%
2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
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 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
Figure 2.9- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 5
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
47% 47% 7% 86% 14% 80% 20% 14% 62% 24% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Board of Governors Member Airport Management Employee Non-Management Airport Employee Regional Executive Airport Stakeholder or Non-Airport Employee
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 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
Figure 2.10- Response to Question 7
Question 8
Figure 2.11 on the following page depicts the frequency of travel among those respondents that have used Lehigh Valley for their air travel needs over the last five years. Nearly 70% of all respondents have used the Airport less than ten times and almost 15% of all respondents have used the Airport over 30 times. While we do not know the exact number of times those who have used the Airport less than 10, it can be said that the nearly 15% who have used the Airport more than thirty times in the last five years, use it an average of at least 6 times a year.
52% 80% 73% 64% 68% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004
Figure 2.11- Response to Question 8
Question 9
The survey requested that those respondents who have used the Airport in the last 5 years provide some typical destination airports. The most common destination airports provided by respondents included: Atlanta, GA Chicago, IL Charlotte, NC Cleveland, OH Columbus, OH Denver, CO Las Vegas, NV Los Angeles, CA Orlando, FL Pittsburgh, PA San Francisco, CA Question 10
The next chart, Figure 2.12 depicts the responses on how well the Lehigh Valley International Airport meets air travelers’ needs. Thirty three percent of respondents indicated that the Airport meets all of their air travel needs well. Two percent of respondents (one individual) indicated that Lehigh Valley was not used for air travel needs.
68% 18% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Less than 10 10-30 More than 30
Figure 2.12- Response to Question 10
Comments provided in response to this question suggest that respondents feel that Philadelphia and Newark provide cheaper, more direct flights. However, there was consensus among travelers, noting satisfaction with the convenience provided at Lehigh Valley. Regarding the level of service, some indicated through comment that the level of service at Lehigh Valley exceeds that of Philadelphia and Newark.
Question 11
Survey question 11 asked the opinion of the state of air service at Lehigh Valley since 2004. As shown in the results of the next question in Figure 2.13, in comparison to previous years, over 50% of respondents feel that since 2004, the state of air service has worsened. Twenty one percent feel that air service has improved while 26% of respondents believe that the state of air service at Lehigh Valley is unchanged in recent years.
33% 44% 21%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Meets all my air 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
As an airport user, how well does Lehigh Valley International Airport meet your air travel needs?
Figure 2.13- Response to Question 11
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.
26% 21% 52% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Unchananged in recent years Air service has
improved Air service has
worsened
Since the year 2004, how would you rate the state of the air service at Lehigh Valley?
Question 12
As shown in Figure 2.14, thirty-eight percent of respondents believe that the relationships between the Airport Authority and stakeholders are in fact positive and promote good working relationships. Forty-two percent feel that the relationships are somewhat positive but believe that more effort is needed in this area to more effectively promote good working relationships. Twenty percent believe that the relationships between the Authority and Airport Stakeholders are negative.
Figure 2.14- Response to Question 12
38% 20% 42% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No Somewhat, but more effort is needed in
this area
In your opinion, are the relationships between the Airport Authority and Stakeholders positive so as to promote good working
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.
Figure 2.15- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 12
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.
5 (29%) 1 (11%) 7 (37%) 6 (35%) 3 (18%) 2 (11%) 3 (18%) 8 (89%) 10 (53%) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Board of Governors Member Airport Management Employee Non-Management Airport Employee Regional Executive, Airport Stakeholder or Non-Airport Employee
In your opinion, are the working relationships between the Airport Authority and Stakeholders positive so as to promote good working
relationships?
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.
Figure 2.16- Response to Question 14
Of the 30% of respondents who believe that the Authority has not been effective in establishing effective communication, 80% of those respondents, as shown in Figure 2.17 on the next page, are either Regional Executives, Stakeholders, or Non-Airport Employees. Of those who believe that the Authority has established effective communication, the majority are either Airport Management Employees or Non-Management Airport Employees.
40% 31% 29% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No Somewhat, but more effort is needed in this area
In your opinion has the Airport Authority established effective communications with the business community/general public in a manner that is proactive and
Figure 2.17- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 14
Question 15
The last question of the survey asked: “Given your exposure to the Airport, what improvements are needed at the Airport to improve its efficiency and effectiveness?”
In general, comments to improve air service included: the need for more destination airports, competitive pricing, and an increase in the choice of airlines. A general suggestion to improve management and organization included possibly reducing the levels of management which may encourage better communication between management, stakeholders, airport employees, and the travelling public. 5 (26%) 2 (13%) 8 (57%) 6 (32%) 1 (7%) 3 (16%) 1 (7% ) 1 (7%) 5 (26%) 12 (80%) 4 (29%) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Board of Governors Member Airport Management Employee Non-Management Airport Employee Regional Executive, Airport Stakeholder or Non-Airport Employee
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?
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.
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
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.
3.1 – Comparable Airports Matrix U.S. Rank FAA Loc. ID City State Airp ort Nam e Hub Type CY 06 Enplanements CY 05 Enplanements % Change Lg. Hub Compet itor Dist. to Lar ge Hub (mi) Gover nance Structure System of Airp ort s/# 134 AB E A lle nt ow n PA Leh igh Val ley In te rn at io nal S 397, 603 419, 122 -5. 13% P hilad elphia New ark 72 78 Auth or ity Ye s / 3 49 MK E Milwa ukee WI Gen eral Mitc he ll In te rn at io nal M 3, 630,098 3, 602,536 16. 76% Ch ica go O’Hare 73 C ou nty Y es / 2 92 SFB San fo rd FL O rla nd o San ford In te rn at io nal S 915, 135 789, 795 15. 87% Orla nd o 33 Auth or ity No / 0 60 PV D Pro vi dence RI Th eo do re Franci s G reen A ir por t M 2, 588,992 2, 846,002 -9. 03% Bo st on L og an 62 Qu as i-St at e Y es / 6 108 MDT Harris burg PA H ar ri sb ur g In te rn at io nal S 577, 559 647, 468 -10. 80% P hilad elphia Bal tim ore W ash in gt on Leh ig h Val ley 110 97 92 Auth or ity Y es / 2 194 SWF Newb urg NY St ew art In te rn at io nal N 156, 638 199, 741 -21. 58% New ark JF K enne dy La Gu ardi a A lba ny 72 79 69 98 Auth or ity Y es / 6
Source: Federal Aviation Administration and Yahoo Maps.
3.2 Comparable Airports Overview
When making comparisons between airports, it is most useful to balance quantitative metrics, those things capable of being expressed numerically, and qualitative metrics, those things described in terms of quality or character. In an airport environment there are both numerous quantitative and qualitative metrics that can be considered. For this study, a framework was developed for use when contacting representatives of the comparable airports that included questions related to both qualitative and quantitative metrics in three key contexts:
Organizational;
Management; and
Operational.
A copy of this framework is provided in the Appendix. Contact information for key personnel including the Airport Directors and Human Resources Directors from each comparable airport was compiled and is also found in the Appendix. Initial and follow-up telephone interviews with each key person identified were conducted between August 15 and December 1, 2008. All five airports that were contacted were willing to participate and included the following airports:
General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee, WI);
Orlando Sanford Airport (Sanford, FL);
Theodore Francis Green Airport (Providence, RI);
Harrisburg International Airport (Harrisburg, PA); and
Stewart International Airport (Newburgh, NY).
The information garnered from the interviews is presented below within the three contexts of the framework identified previously (organizational, management, and operational). Organizational charts provided by each of the airports contacted are found at the end of this section.
3.2.1 Organizational Context
The Organizational Context is comprised of those aspects of the airport which directly relate to organizational structure and size, governing body, financing, etc.
Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh Valley International Airport (LVIA) is a FAA-designated regional commercial service airport to the Lehigh Valley area and it is part of a multi-airport system that includes two general aviation airports (Queen City Airport and Braden Airpark). LVIA is owned by both Lehigh and Northampton Counties, and is operated by the Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority (LNAA). The LNAA, which is an autonomous, independent agency, was established under the Pennsylvania Authorities Act and employs approximately 129 staff. Primary financing for Lehigh Valley International comes from a mix of Passenger Facility Charges (PFC), (currently at the maximum allowable $4.50), Authority-Issued Bonds, and user fees.
The Authority is directed by a Board of Governors, who is charged with making policy, approving budgets, setting criteria for contracts, and approving any contract or procurement item for more than $15,000. The Board consists of 19 members; 10 members are appointed from Lehigh County and 9 members are appointed from Northampton County and serve 5 year terms with no term limits. The Executive Director of Lehigh Valley International is hired by the Board and is a contract employee. While the terms of the contract may vary, it generally consists of a 4-year term with at least one automatic one-year renewal.
General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee, Wisconsin)
General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee) serves the commercial air service needs of the greater Milwaukee area in Wisconsin. It is part of a multi-airport system consisting of one commercial and one general aviation airport, Timmerman Airport.
Milwaukee is owned and operated by Milwaukee County, with an approximate staff of 200 personnel. Financing for CIP projects comes from a mix of user fees and AIP entitlement funds. The Airport is overseen by a 19-member County Board who are elected officials from the community at-large. The Board is responsible for setting policy and budget approval.
The Airport Director is an at-will employee of the County who is hired by the Director of Public Works, who then must get approval from the County Executive and then the County Board. The Airport Director must go through a performance review and approval from the County Board every 4 years.
Orlando Sanford International Airport (Sanford, Florida)
Orlando Sanford International Airport (Sanford) serves as a commercial reliever airport to Orlando International Airport, with a high percentage of its passengers coming from the leisure traffic market. It is a single airport that is owned by the City of Sanford financed primarily through AIP entitlement funds and user fees.
Orlando Sanford International is operated by the Sanford Airport Authority, which includes a staff of 55 people and a 9-member Board of Directors who are appointed by the Sanford City Commission to 4 year terms with no term limits. The Board is responsible for setting policy, budget approval, and the employment/hiring of the Airport CEO. The CEO is hired directly by the Authority, and is a contract employee of the Authority with a contract term of 3 years.
Theodore Francis Green Airport (Providence, Rhode Island)
Theodore Francis Green Airport (Providence) serves the commercial service needs of the state of Rhode Island, eastern Connecticut and northeastern Massachusetts, and is part of a multi-airport system that includes Providence and five general aviation airports: Block Island State Airport, North Central State Airport, Quonset State Airport, Westerly State Airport, and Newport State Airport/Robert F. Wood Airpark.
Providence is owned and operated by the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC), a quasi-independent agency, and is overseen by an Airport Board. RIAC employs 185 full and part time employees. Financing is through AIP and user fees.
The Airport Board consists of seven (7) members and is charged with setting policy, budget approval, and the hiring of the CEO. One Board member is appointed by the Mayor of Warwick, and six by the Governor of Rhode Island. The CEO is hired by the Board and is a contract employee of the Board.
Harrisburg International Airport (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania)
Harrisburg International Airport (Harrisburg) serves as a FAA-designated regional commercial service airport as a part of a multi-airport system that includes one commercial service airport and three general aviation airports: Capital City Airport, Franklin County Regional Airport, and Gettysburg Regional Airport, all serving central Pennsylvania.
Harrisburg is owned and operated by the Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority (SARAA), and is financed through AIP, Airport Revenue Bonds, and user fees. The Airport has 120 full and part-time staff. The SARAA Board consists of 15 members that are appointed by the respective elected officials for the counties of Dauphin, York, and Cumberland, and the townships of Fairview and Lower Swatara. Board members are responsible for setting policy, budget approval, and the hiring of the Executive Director. The Executive Director is an “at-will” employee of the Board, and is subject to annual performance reviews.
Stewart International Airport (Newburg, New York)
Stewart International Airport (Stewart) serves as one of four commercial service airports owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ). The system of airports owned by the PANJNY also includes Teterboro Airport, which serves as a general aviation reliever airport. This
system of airports serves the needs of southern New York, southwestern Connecticut and northern New Jersey (New York Metropolitan Area).
Financing for Stewart comes from a mix of AIP, PFC, and user fees. The Airport has a staff of approximately 54 full time staff, which is a mix of PANYNJ staff, private management and consultants. The PANYNJ Board of Commissioners consists of 12 members. Both New York and New Jersey appoint 6 members, which are subject to state Senate approval, with members serving 6-year overlapping terms. The Commissioners serve as public officials, are responsible for setting policy and budget approval for all of the transportation services that are covered by the PANYNJ. The General Manager is a direct at-will employee of the PANYNJ.
A summary table of the comparable airports organizational comparison can be found in Table 3.2 below and the airports’ organizational charts can be found on the following pages.
Table 3.2 – Comparable Airports Organizational Context Airports Lehigh Valley Intern ational Gen eral Mitchell Intern ational Orlan do Sanford Intern ational T.F . Gr een (Providen ce ) Harrisb ur g Intern ational Stewa rt Intern ational Single or Multi Airport System
Multi-Airport Airport Multi- Airport Single Airport Multi- Airport Multi- Airport
Multi-Number Of Full Time Staff 129 200 55 185 120 54 Governing
Body Authority Airport County Board Authority Airport Airport Board Airport Board
Board of Com- missioners Number Of Governing Officials 19 19 9 7 15 12 Official Selection Appoint- ment by County Executives Elected by the Public Appoint- ment by City Commission Appoint- ment by Warwick Mayor & RI Governor Appoint- ment by Counties & Townships Appoint-ment by States Term
Length 5 Years 5 Years 4 Years 5 Years 5 Years 6 Years
Term Limits No No No No No No organization Primary Financing User Fees, PFC, Authority Issued Bonds User Fees AIP Entitlement Bonds PFC AIP Entitlement User Fees AIP Entitlement User Fees Bonds AIP Entitlement PFC Investments AIP Entitlement
Li n e Te c h s Co u r. Hgr as s t
L
e
h
ig
h
Va
ll
e
y
In
tern
atio
n
a
l Airp
or
t
L e hi gh N o rt ha mpt o n A irpo rt A u th o rity Bo ar d o f Go ver n o rs Exec u ti v e Di re c to r Di rec to r of P ubl ic S a fe ty D ir e c tor o f F ina nce & Bu d g ets S e nior P roj ec t Ma n a ge r Di rec to r of m in is tr a ti o n Adm inistra tive Assist a n t Leg al Co unse l Sp e c ial A s si stan t to th e E x e c ut iv e D ir e ct or Ai rp o rt Pla n n e r D e pu ty E x e c u ti v e D ir e c tor A s si st a n t to t h e D e p u ty Ex e c uti v e D ir e ctor Brad en Airp ark Dire c to r o f Bu s. De v lp m t S upe ri nt e n den t of M a in te na n c e D ire ct o r of L V IA A v ia ti o n S e rv ic es Sy st e m s Di rec to r P roper ti es M ana ge r rk in g ts P a ss enger S e rv ic es ( 25) P a ss enger S e rv ic es Coo rd . Land A q u i. S pec ia li s t H. R. A c c t. G ene ra lis t A c co unt in g Cl e rk P lanner E ngi ne er P roj ec t E ngi neer Ad m in A s s t. Cl e rk C o m m Cent e r Fi re D iv is io n Po li ce Di v is io n B u s iness De v . Coor d B u s iness De v . Mg r. A s si st a n t S uper in tend en t o f M a in tenanc e M a in tenan c e (25) Cus todi al S upe rv is o r C u s tod ians (1 8) S y st e m s Te c h . Air lin e S e rv ic e s M anag e r FB O L in e O p s Mg r. Air lin e S e rv ic e s M anag e r AT O s ta ti o n Mg mt Cl er k Des k Reps Cl er k ri n tende n t d T rans . in a l S rv c s S uper v is o r P a s s en ger Se rv ic e s FB O L in e O p s Mg r. A c c ount ing M g r. QC L in e O p s Mg r. Li ne Te c h s Li n e Te c h s Co u r. Hgr as s tL
e
h
ig
h
Va
ll
e
y
In
tern
atio
n
a
l Airp
or
t
L e hi gh N o rt ha mpt o n A irpo rt A u th o rity Bo ar d o f Go ver n o rs Exec u ti v e Di re c to r Di rec to r of P ubl ic S a fe ty D ir e c tor o f F ina nce & Bu d g ets S e nior P roj ec t Ma n a ge r Di rec to r of m in is tr a ti o n Adm inistra tive Assist a n t Leg al Co unse l Sp e c ial A s si stan t to th e E x e c ut iv e D ir e ct or Ai rp o rt Pla n n e r D e pu ty E x e c u ti v e D ir e c tor A s si st a n t to t h e D e p u ty Ex e c uti v e D ir e ctor Brad en Airp ark Dire c to r o f Bu s. De v lp m t S upe ri nt e n den t of M a in te na n c e D ire ct o r of L V IA A v ia ti o n S e rv ic es Sy st e m s Di rec to r P roper ti es M ana ge r rk in g ts P a ss enger S e rv ic es ( 25) P a ss enger S e rv ic es Coo rd . Land A q u i. S pec ia li s t H. R. A c c t. G ene ra lis t A c co unt in g Cl e rk P lanner E ngi ne er P roj ec t E ngi neer Ad m in A s s t. Cl e rk C o m m Cent e r Fi re D iv is io n Po li ce Di v is io n B u s iness De v . Coor d B u s iness De v . Mg r. A s si st a n t S uper in tend en t o f M a in tenanc e M a in tenan c e (25) Cus todi al S upe rv is o r C u s tod ians (1 8) S y st e m s Te c h . Air lin e S e rv ic e s M anag e r FB O L in e O p s Mg r. Air lin e S e rv ic e s M anag e r AT O s ta ti o n Mg mt Cl er k Des k Reps Cl er k ri n tende n t d T rans . in a l S rv c s S uper v is o r P a s s en ger Se rv ic e s FB O L in e O p s Mg r. A c c ount ing M g r. QC L in e O p s Mg r. Li ne Te c h sGe
ne
ra
l M
itc
hel
l
In
te
rn
ati
onal Ai
rpor
t
M ilwa u ke e C o un ty Ex ec ut iv e D ire c to r Ma n a g er Ma rk et in g/ Pu b lic R ela ti on s 2 Air p o rt I n te rn s G e ner a l Co un s e l N o is e A b at em en t G IS Sp e c ia li st . . Law Enf o rc em e n t (8) Admi n is tr a ti on 2 St u d e n t In ter n s Air p o r t E n g in e er s Ai r p o r t P la n n e r Depu ty Dire c to r Fi n a n c e/ A d min Gr ou nd Tra n sp o r t & P a rk in g M a n ager A cc o unt in g S ec re ta ry P rope rt ie s M ngr Pr op e rt ies Spc C ontr ac ts Depu ty Dire c to r Op s/ M a in te n a n ce Oper a tio n s M ngr Envir o n m e n ta l M ngr A d m in. A ss t. M a in te na nc e M n g r Ope rat io n s St a ff M a in te na nc e St a ff Sa fe ty & Tra in ing Sp e c ia li st (N o n -A ir p o r t) (No n -Air p o r t) (No n -Air po r t)Ge
ne
ra
l M
itc
hel
l
In
te
rn
ati
onal Ai
rpor
t
M ilwa u ke e C o un ty Ex ec ut iv e D ire c to r Ma n a g er Ma rk et in g/ Pu b lic R ela ti on s 2 Air p o rt I n te rn s G e ner a l Co un s e l N o is e A b at em en t G IS Sp e c ia li st . . Law Enf o rc em e n t (8) Admi n is tr a ti on 2 St u d e n t In ter n s Air p o r t E n g in e er s Ai r p o r t P la n n e r Depu ty Dire c to r Fi n a n c e/ A d min Gr ou nd Tra n sp o r t & P a rk in g M a n ager A cc o unt in g S ec re ta ry P rope rt ie s M ngr Pr op e rt ies Spc C ontr ac ts Depu ty Dire c to r Op s/ M a in te n a n ce Oper a tio n s M ngr Envir o n m e n ta l M ngr A d m in. A ss t. M a in te na nc e M n g r Ope rat io n s St a ff M a in te na nc e St a ff Sa fe ty & Tra in ing Sp e c ia li st (N o n -A ir p o r t) (No n -Air p o r t) (No n -Air po r t)Orla
ndo
Sa
nford
Ai
rpo
rt A
u
tho
ri
ty
City o f S a n for d Ma y o r a n d C it y C o m m is si on San for d Air p or t A u th or it y B o a rd of D ire ct or s Pr eside n t an d C h ie f E x ecu ti v e O ffi c e r In c id e n t Co m m a nd e r/ L aw E n for c e m e n t C o n s tr u c ti o n Ma n a g e me nt V ice P res id en t o f F in a n c e /CF O & A ir por t C h ie f o f P o li c e V ice P res id en t o f O p er a ti ons V ice P res id en t o f Adm in is tr a ti on P rop e rti es Hum a n Res o u rc e s O ff ice A d m ini st ra ti o n B u ild ing M a in tena nc e Publ ic I n fo rm a ti on O ffi c e r A irpo rt Pol ic e & Di spatc h F inan c e & A cco un ti ng In fo rm a ti on T e c hnol og y G ran t A d m in is tr a ti on A ir fie ld M a in te n a n c e Ai rpor t O p e ra ti ons & S a fe ty A irpo rt Sec u ri ty C o m p lia nce & Ac ce ss Co n tr o l A ircra ft R e s c ue /F ir e fi g h ting (A R F F Hor izon tal Ve rt ic a l Reno v a ti o n Rem o deli n g Dir e c tor o f S p e c ia l A ffa ir s Gen e ra l Coun s e lOrla
ndo
Sa
nford
Ai
rpo
rt A
u
tho
ri
ty
City o f S a n for d Ma y o r a n d C it y C o m m is si on San for d Air p or t A u th or it y B o a rd of D ire ct or s Pr eside n t an d C h ie f E x ecu ti v e O ffi c e r In c id e n t Co m m a nd e r/ L aw E n for c e m e n t C o n s tr u c ti o n Ma n a g e me nt V ice P res id en t o f F in a n c e /CF O & A ir por t C h ie f o f P o li c e V ice P res id en t o f O p er a ti ons V ice P res id en t o f Adm in is tr a ti on P rop e rti es Hum a n Res o u rc e s O ff ice A d m ini st ra ti o n B u ild ing M a in tena nc e Publ ic I n fo rm a ti on O ffi c e r A irpo rt Pol ic e & Di spatc h F inan c e & A cco un ti ng In fo rm a ti on T e c hnol og y G ran t A d m in is tr a ti on A ir fie ld M a in te n a n c e Ai rpor t O p e ra ti ons & S a fe ty A irpo rt Sec u ri ty C o m p lia nce & Ac ce ss Co n tr o l A ircra ft R e s c ue /F ir e fi g h ting (A R F F Hor izon tal Ve rt ic a l Reno v a ti o n Rem o deli n g Dir e c tor o f S p e c ia l A ffa ir s Gen e ra l Coun s e lBo ard o f D irecto rs Chief Audit or & Financ ial Ana lyst Ma nager o f Exec . Suppor t Se rv ices D irecto r Hu man Res ources VP Pub lic Affai rs & Ai r Servic e M arketi ng Pa ra le ga l VP Commercial Progra m s Corp. C ont rolle r Proc. Sp eci al is t Finan ce M gr. Proj. C ont . Mgr/ D B E Liais on O ff. Gra nts/Cont racts Proj ec t A cct Ma nage r Eng. Mana ger Plng. VP Env Mg mt Sys TSS Pr oj Mgr. Proj Mgr. CADD Op P/T Air port Pla nner Fire Chief Chie f of Polic e GA (L andma rk) AVP Ops & Main tenanc e Ae ro na ut ic s Ins. Capt ain Mgr O ps M gr Airf ield AVP Buildings Lt’s (4) Inspec to r Deputy Ca ptains (4) AVP Comm. Prog. Con tr. M gr Adm . Mg r Pa rking/ G round Tran s. Commun ity Rel ations TSS A ir Se rv ice Mktg Ana lys t HR M ana ge r Payroll M ana ger Re cepti oni st Sr Ad m in As st . Ge neral Cou nsel Mana ger Audit Mana ger Audit O perati ons an d M ainte nance Plan ning, Enginee ring, a nd Envi ronm en tal TSS II Sr. VP. Fi nance and Ad m in Badge C oord P/T TSS Sn r T SS TSS Mgr Buildings Mgr Env Pr og Ad m in A ss t. Acc ounting A ccou nti ng Ac countin g TSS TSS Ca pit al Progra m Ma nage r
Airport Planner
Ba dge C oord Em erg. Resp. Coordi na tor La wy er Preside nt & C EO Envn Pr oj Mg r TSS Noi se Pr og Mg r Chie f Te ch . Offi ce r Se nior IT A nal yst IT Ana lyst IT Ana lyst IT Ana lyst Ac counti ng T. F. Gr ee n Ai rp or t Bo ard o f D irecto rs Chief Audit or & Financ ial Ana lyst Ma nager o f Exec . Suppor t Se rv ices D irecto r Hu man Res ources VP Pub lic Affai rs & Ai r Servic e M arketi ng Pa ra le ga l VP Commercial Progra m s Corp. C ont rolle r Proc. Sp eci al is t Finan ce M gr. Proj. C ont . Mgr/ D B E Liais on O ff. Gra nts/Cont racts Proj ec t A cct Ma nage r Eng. Mana ger Plng. VP Env Mg mt Sys TSS Pr oj Mgr. Proj Mgr. CADD Op P/T Air port Pla nner Fire Chief Chie f of Polic e GA (L andma rk) AVP Ops & Main tenanc e Ae ro na ut ic s Ins. Capt ain Mgr O ps M gr Airf ield AVP Buildings Lt’s (4) Inspec to r Deputy Ca ptains (4) AVP Comm. Prog. Con tr. M gr Adm . Mg r Pa rking/ G round Tran s. Commun ity Rel ations TSS A ir Se rv ice Mktg Ana lys t HR M ana ge r Payroll M ana ger Re cepti oni st Sr Ad m in As st . Ge neral Cou nsel Mana ger Audit Mana ger Audit O perati ons an d M ainte nance Plan ning, Enginee ring, a nd Envi ronm en tal TSS II Sr. VP. Fi nance and Ad m in Badge C oord P/T TSS Sn r T SS TSS Mgr Buildings Mgr Env Pr og Ad m in A ss t. Acc ounting A ccou nti ng Ac countin g TSS TSS Ca pit al Progra m Ma nage r
Airport Planner
Ba dge C oord Em erg. Resp. Coordi na tor La wy er Preside nt & C EO Envn Pr oj Mg r TSS Noi se Pr og Mg r Chie f Te ch . Offi ce r Se nior IT A nal yst IT Ana lyst IT Ana lyst IT Ana lyst Ac counti ng T. F. Gr ee n Ai rp or t
T e ch s
Ha
rrisburg Intern
a
ti
ona
l
Airport
S u s que ha n n a Ar ea R e g io n a l A ir por t A u thor it y E x e c u tiv e D ire ct o r Adm inistra ti v e A ssist an t De p u ty Ex e c u ti v e Di re c to r H. R. A s s is tant H. R. M anage r M anage r, T e rm in a l Fac ili ti e s , Pa rk in g , & G T & A d m ini s tr a tion e pu ty D ir e c tor of F ina n c e D e pu ty D ir e c tor of P R & M a rke