Posted: February 26th, 2023

Delivering Value in the Air Transportation System

In preparation for this research effort, review the following resources and familiarize yourself with the Airport Categories (FAA) https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/categories established by the FAA.

Also, read the following case study which is located in the attachment section.

Grubesic, T. H., Fuellhart, K., Wei, F., & O’Connor, K. (2017). Regional perspectives on general aviation and reliever airports: A case study of the Phoenix metropolitan area. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 9(2), 101-120.

Review the document on the role of reliever airports in the Minneapolis/St. Paul market which is located in the attachment section.

The economic impact of reliever airports (Metropolitan Airports Commission)

Analyze the air transport system as you work to answer the following topics in APA format:

At a minimum your document should include the following topics:

o What is the general environment in the global airline industry driving delivery channel decisions?

o What factors led to the success of major metro areas to maintain their secondary and reliever airports?

o Given these projections in traffic growth and the existing air traffic delays at many of the most important hubs in the United States, do reliever airports provide an opportunity to ameliorate congestion and expand/enhance commercial operations in the United States?

o Research reflects various positive aspects of having a strong regional airport system. What are some of the negative aspects?

Requirements:

· At least three sections, a 150-word introduction, body content containing subject headings, and wrap-up or summary.

· Include a title page with your name, course, assignment number, and title.

· Use current APA format in-text citations and include a reference page at the end.

· A minimum of 4 pages, double-spaced (not including the title or reference pages).

Prepared for

Prepared by

April 3, 2018

Metropolitan Airports Commission

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF

THE RELIEVER AIRPORTS

This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library
as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study i

Executive Summary

The Metropolitan Airports Commission engaged InterVISTAS Consulting Inc. (InterVISTAS) to conduct an
economic impact study to account for the operations of the six general aviation (GA) airports under its
jurisdiction in the greater Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Collectively, they are referred to as the
MAC reliever airport system. This study updates a previous economic impact report prepared in 2005
and provides a current snapshot of the airport’s economic contribution to the greater Minneapolis-St. Paul
area.

General aviation is defined as the operation of any type of aircraft certificated by the U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) other than those used for scheduled airline service, government or the military.
General aviation aircraft include fixed-wing piston and turboprop airplanes, jets, helicopters, gliders, and
hot-air balloons. General aviation covers everything from the personal use of aircraft by recreational pilots
to operations of corporate aircraft to transport people and/or cargo for business purposes. The term
general aviation also incorporates sight-seeing flights, aerial photography, air medical services,
agriculture-related flights and flight training. The facilities primarily used by GA aircraft are commonly
referred to as general aviation airports.

The six general aviation airports that form the MAC reliever airport system are:

 Airlake Airport (LVN). Airlake Airport is located in Lakeville, a suburb south of the metropolitan
area. It primarily serves private and recreational pilots on its single runway.

 Anoka County – Blaine Airport (ANE). The airport is located in Blaine, directly north of the Twin
Cities. In terms of the number of aircraft based at the airport, it is the largest in the reliever
system, serving the most diverse assortment of aircraft, including recreational pilots, corporate
and antique aircraft.

 Crystal Airport (MIC). Northwest of Minneapolis and adjacent to Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn
Center, Crystal Airport has three paved and one turf runway and two non-precision instrument
approaches.

 Flying Cloud Airport (FCM). Southwest of the metro area in the suburb of Eden Prairie, Flying
Cloud Airport serves both corporate and recreational flying. It is the busiest airport in the reliever
system based on the number of aircraft operations.

 Lake Elmo Airport (21D). East of the Twin Cities, Lake Elmo Airport provides easy access to the
metropolitan region along with the scenic destinations along the St. Croix River.

 St. Paul Downtown Airport (STP). Near the banks of the Mississippi River and in the shadow of
downtown St. Paul, this airport is the only airport in the reliever system with a runway longer than
5,000’.

These six airports complement the operations of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and
serve as significant economic contributors to the region. Collectively, the airports play critical roles within
the metropolitan area by facilitating economic development. They support direct employment and
facilitate trade of goods and services, tourism, investment, and enhanced productivity. Individually, each
airport supports a relatively large number of aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings). Individually, each
airport not only serves both a particular local community, but also contributes as part of an integrated
system to support the regional economy. Altogether in 2016, the reliever airports supported an average

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study ii

of almost 900 operations each day – or about 80 percent of the average number of daily operations at
MSP.

Overview of Economic Impact Concepts

Economic impact is a measure of the spending and employment associated with a sector of the economy,
a specific project, or a

change

in government policy or regulation.

Economic impact can be measured along several dimensions. The most common are:

1. Employment – person years of employment supported (expressed in terms of “full time
equivalents” or FTEs).1 Because many jobs may be only part-time or seasonal, the number of
jobs is greater than the number of person years of employment. Hours worked in part-time
and seasonal employment are translated into FTEs.

2. Earnings – includes wages, salaries, and benefits associated with employment tied to the
airport.

3. Economic output – the dollar value of industrial output produced. Sometimes referred to as
“economic activity,” it reflects the spending (e.g., capital improvement plus revenue) by firms,
organizations, and individuals. In the case of organizations that do not generate revenue
(e.g., government-provided air traffic control services), annual operating expenses are
counted.

4. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Sometimes referred to as Value Added, this is a measure
of the money value of final goods and services produced as a result of economic activity. This

measure is net of the value of intermediate goods and services used up to produce the final
goods and services.

The three major components of economic impact are classified as direct, indirect, and induced impacts.

• Direct impacts account for the economic activity of the aviation sector itself. In the case of an airport,
all of those people who work in an aviation-related capacity either on-site or off-site would be
considered direct employment (e.g., ground handling, air traffic controllers, etc.). At GA airports,
typically the businesses that handle aircraft operations – known as Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) —
account for the largest concentration of employment.

• Indirect impacts arise because of the direct impacts. For an airport, indirect impacts originate from
off-site firms that supply goods or services to airport users. An example would be food wholesalers or
restaurants that supply food for catering on flights.

• Induced impacts are those created by the spending of wages, salaries, and profits earned in the
course of the direct and indirect economic activities. For instance, if a maintenance employee re-
models his/her home, the renovation would support activity in the home construction industry.

• Visitor spending impacts. Another related economic impact that arises from the airport’s operations
flows from visitors to a region who arrive and depart via the airport rather than by other means (e.g.,
auto). The hospitality industry in particular benefits from visitors who spend money on lodging, meals,

1 One person year is equivalent to 1,800 hours of work. Person years are the same as FTEs.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study iii

entertainment, car rentals, and retail. Direct employment associated with those industries is counted
as part of the economic impacts of the airport.

•

Total

impacts are the sum of direct, indirect, induced, and visitor spending impacts.

Figure ES-1 provides a graphical overview of economic impact at airports.

Figure ES-1:
Economic Impact Overview –

Airports

Economic Impact of Ongoing Operations
The economic impact of the MAC Reliever Airport System extends
throughout the entire metropolitan region.

Direct economic impact measures the factors directly associated with
the six airports. This includes employment of all tenants located on the
airports’ properties. The direct impacts of the reliever airport system in
2016 are estimated to be nearly 1,030 direct jobs (equivalent to
approximately 870 direct FTEs or person years of employment), earning
approximately $56 million in direct wages. Direct employment generates
$198 million in direct GDP and $355 million in direct economic output
annually.

Indirect economic impacts are those that are attributable to firms and
organizations that supply goods and/or services to those directly
involved in the airports and their operations. This measure accounts for
the employment and economic activity that would not occur were it not
for the operations of the reliever airports. All of these firms are located
off airport properties, elsewhere in the metropolitan region. In 2016, the

Ongoing Economic
Impacts of the MAC
Reliever Airports

Annual Direct Impacts:

 1,030 jobs

 870 full-time equivalents

 $56 million in wages

 $198 million in gross
domestic product (GDP)

 $355 million in economic
output

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study iv

indirect impacts associated with the reliever airports’ operations included 670 indirect FTEs or person
years of employment, earning approximately $44 million in wages.

The extent of the airport’s economic footprint reverberates throughout the region as employees in firms
directly and indirectly associated with the airports spend their wages and salaries and generate another
wave of economic activity. These “rippled effects” are known as the induced economic impacts of the
airports’ operations. The induced impacts resulting from ongoing the reliever airports’ operations include
an estimated 810 induced FTEs with an associated $36 million in wages.

The total operational economic impact of the reliever airports’ operations on the region’s economy is
calculated by summing the direct, indirect and induced impacts from the airports’ operations. Table ES-1
summarizes the economic impact of the MAC reliever airport system’s operations on the metropolitan
region in 2016. Altogether, in 2016, the economic impacts include a total of 2,340 FTEs in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul regional economy. Total regional income of all employees amounts to $136 million
in wages. Furthermore, the airports’ operations contributed an estimated $370 million and $662 million in
total GDP and total economic output, respectively, to the regional economy.

Table ES-1:
Total Operational Economic Impact of the Reliever Airport System’s Operations, 2016

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Direct 1,030 870 $56 $198 $355

Indirect 780 670 $44 $100 $179

Induced 950 810 $36 $72 $128

Total 2,750 2,340 $136 $370 $662
Note: Employment figures (jobs and FTEs) are rounded to the nearest ten. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Economic Impact of Airport-Related Visitor Spending
in the Region
Individuals who visit the region via the reliever airports support additional economic impacts by spending
their travel dollars locally. The economic impact of visitor spending depends on the total number of “true
visitors,” the amount they spend, the length of stay, and the distribution of their spending across different
categories – mostly in the hospitality sector. Spending on hotels, restaurants, retail, and entertainment
supports jobs and additional spending in the region.

Little data is available on the number of visitors to the region who arrived via these airports. No
government agency formally and systematically collects data on the number of travelers who use general
aviation. The very nature of business aviation, which places a premium on anonymity, makes it difficult to
gather data on passenger movements.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study v

Many airports may not have statistically reliable data on the total number of aircraft operations that occur
at the airfield. Moreover, not every operation at an airport brings “true visitors” to the area. Some aircraft
operations are “local” in nature, as opposed to “itinerant.” In general, local operations are those that
occur within the immediate area, originating and returning to the same airport while itinerant operations
originated at or were destined to land outside the area. Local operations basically do not bring visitors to
the airport, but itinerant operations do.

Each of the reliever airports sees a number of itinerant operations, and some of those airports experience
large numbers of these flights. With those flights, some pilots and visitors might only stop for fuel or to
take a break from flying. A sizeable percentage, however, will spend several hours in the area visiting
friends or relatives or conducting business. Some visitors will stay a night or more in the area for
personal or business reasons. In those cases, the activity at the airport supports additional economic
activity in the local economies, most directly in the hospitality industry. (The impact of business aviation –
possibly including major business deals – is impossible to measure but can clearly have broad and
significant impacts on the local and regional economies.)

The total economic impact of non-local visitor spending is shown in Table ES-2.

Table ES-2:
Total Economic Impact of Reliever Airports’ Visitor Spending, 2016

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Direct 620 520 $15 $27 $48

Indirect 110 90 $6 $12 $21

Induced 180 150 $7 $13 $24

Total 910 760 $27 $52 $94
Note: Employment figures (jobs and FTEs) are rounded to the nearest ten. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Consolidated Economic Impact on the Region
The sum of the impacts of the airport’s ongoing operations and visitor spending constitute the reliever
airports’ consolidated economic impact in the seven-county region. Table ES-3 summarizes these
impacts.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study vi

Table ES-3:
Consolidated Economic Impacts of the Reliever Airports’ Operations and Visitor Spending, 2016

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Total Direct 1,650 1,380 $71 $224 $403

Total Indirect 890 760 $50 $112 $200

Total Induced 1,130 960 $43 $85 $153

Grand Total 3,660 3,100 $164 $421 $756
Note: Employment figures (jobs and FTEs) are rounded to the nearest ten. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Annual Tax Impacts of Ongoing Operations
In addition, ongoing operations at the reliever airport system’s airports contribute to government revenue
including those received by federal, state, and local governments. Total taxes paid on an annual basis, by
airport employers and employees as well as passengers, are estimated at $27 million per year. The
majority of taxes accrue to the federal government at 59 percent overall, while the State of Minnesota and
local governments receive 41 percent of the tax revenue generated by the airport. These figures exclude
any estimated taxes levied on corporate profits.

Figure ES-2:
Annual Estimated Tax Revenues of the Reliever Airports by Level of Government

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study vii

Contents

Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………. i

1 Introduction and Background

……………………………………………………………………. 9

The Greater Minneapolis-St. Paul Region ………………………………………………………………….. 10
General Aviation is a Substantial Economic Contributor ………………………………………………. 11
The MAC Reliever Airport System …………………………………………………………………………….. 13
Economic Impact Defined ………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
Contributions to Local Governments from Airport Operations ……………………………………….. 17
Overview of Methodology …………………………………………………………………………………………. 17

2 Economic Impact of Airlake Airport

………………………………………………………….. 19
Direct Impacts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19
Multiplier Impacts…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
Total Operational Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………… 20
Visitor Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
Consolidated Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 21
Tax Contributions from Airlake Airport ……………………………………………………………………….. 21

3 Economic Impact of Anoka County-Blaine Airport

…………………………………….. 22
Direct Impacts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23
Multiplier Impacts…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
Total Operational Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………… 23
Visitor Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
Consolidated Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 24
Tax Contributions from Anoka County – Blaine Airport …………………………………………………. 25

4 Economic Impact of Crystal Airport

…………………………………………………………. 26
Direct Impacts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
Multiplier Impacts…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
Total Operational Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
Visitor Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 28
Consolidated Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 28
Tax Contributions from Crystal Airport ……………………………………………………………………….. 29

5 Economic Impact of Flying Cloud Airport

…………………………………………………. 30
Direct Impacts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 31
Multiplier Impacts…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31
Total Operational Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………… 31
Visitor Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 32
Consolidated Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 32
Tax Contributions from Flying Cloud Airport ……………………………………………………………….. 33

6 Economic Impact of Lake Elmo Airport

…………………………………………………….. 34
Direct Impacts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34
Multiplier Impacts…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 35
Total Operational Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
Visitor Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 36
Consolidated Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 36
Tax Contributions from Lake Elmo Airport ………………………………………………………………….. 36

7 Economic Impact of St. Paul Downtown Airport

………………………………………… 37
Direct Impacts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 37

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study viii

Multiplier Impacts…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 38
Total Operational Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………… 38
Visitor Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
Consolidated Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 39
Tax Contributions from St. Paul Downtown Airport ………………………………………………………. 39

8 Summary of Economic Impact Results

…………………………………………………….. 40
Operational Economic Impacts …………………………………………………………………………………. 40
Economic Impacts from Visitor Spending …………………………………………………………………… 41
Consolidated Economic Impact of the Reliever Airports ……………………………………………….. 41
Tax Revenue Impacts ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 42

9 Comparison of 2005 and 2016 Economic Impacts ……………………………………… 43
Comment on Changes over Time ……………………………………………………………………………… 44

Appendix: Methodology

……………………………………………………………………………….. 46
Estimating Current Economic Impact …………………………………………………………………………. 46
Surveying Direct Employment …………………………………………………………………………………… 46
Inferring Employment ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 47
Estimating Indirect and Induced Impacts with Economic Multipliers ……………………………….. 47
Study Time Frame …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 48
Jobs versus Person Years of Employment …………………………………………………………………. 48
Visitor Spending Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………………. 48
Tax Impact Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 50

Glossary of Terms

………………………………………………………………………………………… 51

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 9

1 Introduction and Background
The Metropolitan Airports Commission engaged InterVISTAS Consulting Inc. (InterVISTAS) to conduct an
economic impact study to account for the operations of the six general aviation (GA) airports under its
jurisdiction in the greater Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Collectively, they are referred to as the
MAC reliever airport system. This study updates a previous economic impact report prepared in 2005,
and provides a current snapshot of the airport’s economic contribution to the greater Minneapolis-St. Paul
area.

The six general aviation airports that form the MAC reliever airport system are:

 Airlake Airport. Airlake Airport is located in Lakeville, a suburb south of the metropolitan area. It
primarily serves private and recreational pilots on its single runway.

 Anoka County – Blaine Airport. Directly north of the Twin Cities in Blaine, the airport is the largest
in the reliever system, serving the most diverse assortment of aircraft, including recreational
pilots, corporate and antique aircraft.

 Crystal Airport. Northwest of Minneapolis and adjacent to Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center,
Crystal Airport has three paved and one turf runway and two non-precision instrument
approaches.

 Flying Cloud Airport. Southwest of the metro area in the suburb of Eden Prairie, Flying Cloud
Airport serves both corporate and recreational flying. It is one of the busiest airports in the
reliever airport system.

 Lake Elmo Airport. East of the Twin Cities, Lake Elmo Airport provides easy access to the
metropolitan region along with the scenic destinations along the St. Croix River.

 St. Paul Downtown Airport. Near the banks of the Mississippi River and in the shadow of
downtown St. Paul, this airport is the only airport in the reliever system with a runway longer than
5,000.’

These six airports complement Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP), which hosts both GA
and commercial airline operations. The reliever airports provide alternative points of access to the
metropolitan region for GA operators and help alleviate congestion in the airspace and on MSP’s airfield.
Collectively, the reliever airports play critical roles within the industry by facilitating the movement of
people, goods, and services regionally, nationally, and internationally. The industry facilitates employment
and economic development in the broader economy through mechanisms that include trade of goods and
services, tourism, investment, and enhanced productivity.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 10

The aviation sector is a major economic generator, and airports play a critical role within the industry by
facilitating the movement of people, goods, and services throughout the nation and world. The industry
facilitates employment and economic development in the broader economy through a number of key
mechanisms including tourism, investment, trade of goods and services, and productivity.

The Greater Minneapolis-St. Paul Region
One of the great metropolitan regions in the United States, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and the neighboring
communities, collectively referred to as the Twin Cities, is renowned for its exceptional quality of life. The
area boasts a vibrant culture, tremendous recreational opportunities, beautiful natural surroundings, and a
thriving diverse economy.

According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, as of 2015, the metropolitan area included
a population of over 3.5 million. The region’s population enjoys one of the highest per capita incomes in
the nation (over $55,000). Total employment in the region exceeds 2.4 million jobs. The population is also
recognized for being among the most highly educated in the nation.

The diverse and growing regional economy
features agriculture, food processing, computing,
printing and publishing, large- and small-scale
manufacturing, health care, arts and
entertainment as well as medical instruments,
education, and finance. The area is home to 17
Fortune 500 companies, including five Fortune
100 companies: UnitedHealth Group, Target,
Best Buy, CHS, and 3M. The region also
supports a large number of colleges and
universities including the University of Minnesota
and the University of St. Thomas. The area also
hosts teams in five different major league
professional sports: the Minnesota Twins,
Minnesota Vikings, Minnesota Timberwolves,
Minnesota Wild, and Minnesota United FC. St.
Paul is the capital of Minnesota and is home to
the Minnesota State Capitol, governor’s mansion,
and most buildings in the state government.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC)
operates one of the largest aviation systems in
the United States, consisting of MSP and the six
reliever airports in the metropolitan area. Figure
1-1 illustrates the location of all the MAC’s
airports in the Minneapolis-St. Paul (Twin Cities)
metropolitan area. The core metropolitan area
includes seven counties surrounding the Twin
Cities: Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin,
Ramsey, Scott, and Washington. This seven-
county metro region is home to a total population
of over 3 million and 2.2 million jobs.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 11

Figure 1-1: MAC Airports in the Seven-County Metropolitan Area

Source: InterVISTAS

General Aviation is a Substantial Economic Contributor
Airports make substantial contributions to local and regional economies. They facilitate the movement of
people, goods, and services throughout the nation and the world, allowing the economy to operate more
efficiently. Most people have had the experience of flying on commercial aircraft, and have encountered
employees at the airport who make that possible. But relatively few have had first-hand experiences with
general aviation, so their knowledge of this sector of the economy tends to be limited.

GA operations are typically managed by private companies called “fixed base operators” (FBOs). An
FBO is a commercial business authorized by the airport sponsor to operate on an airport and provide
aeronautical services such as fueling, hangaring, tie-down and parking, aircraft rental, aircraft
maintenance, flight instruction, etc. FBOs serve functions similar to terminals for commercial airline

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 12

passengers. In addition to the functions directly related to servicing aircraft, they may include meeting
spaces and food service. At smaller airports, these functions might be handled by the airport’s
management. Larger airports may have more than one FBO, and they compete for customers based on
service offerings, amenities and prices.

Most people flying to the Twin Cities and surrounding region use commercial aircraft, arriving and
departing from Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). But for many others, whether flying for
personal recreational purposes or for business, fly into one of the MAC reliever airports. GA also includes
other activities. According to data from the FAA’s most recent (2015) survey of GA, about half of all GA
hours flown is for personal and business purposes. Others include instruction (flight training), aerial
application of agricultural products, aerial observation, medical transport, air tours, and air taxi
operations.2

GA Activity Has Been Declining Nationally
Nationally, GA activity has been declining. Data from the FAA show broad-based decreases in the
number of GA pilots, the number of registered aircraft, and total annual and average flight hours. Since
the last economic impact study of the reliever airports was completed in 2005, national-level measures of
GA activity show that:

• The total number of aircraft has declined. From 2004 to 2015, the number of active GA aircraft
declined by more than 9,000 aircraft, a loss of four percent.

• The number of active fixed-wing piston GA aircraft dropped by more than 24,000 (15 percent).

• Offsetting that decline, the number of active fixed-wing turboprop aircraft increased by over 1300
(16 percent) and the number of active fixed-wing turbojet aircraft increased by over 4,100 (45
percent).

• The number of active rotorcraft also increased. Turbine powered rotorcraft increased by nearly
2,700 (34 percent).

• GA hours flown in the U.S. have been declining since at least 1980. This is especially noticeable
with piston aircraft traffic. Between 2004 and 2015, the total number of GA hours flown dropped
by 14 percent. However, some GA sectors are growing. Hours flown by turboprop and turbojet
aircraft, more often used for business rather than recreational purposes, increased by eight
percent over the period.

The FAA does not post data that show that change in the number of “certificated active airmen” back to
2004. (The FAA defines an “active airman” as one who holds both an airman certificate and a valid
medical certificate. The term includes men and women certified as pilots, mechanics or other aviation
technicians.) Nationally, since 2010, the number of “certificated active airmen” declined by more than
43,000 (7 percent). Of those, the number of individuals holding a private pilot’s license dropped by
39,707 (20 percent). In Minnesota, FAA’s data show that the number of people holding a private pilot’s
license declined over the same period by 15 percent.

2 Under federal regulations, certificated operators may provide on-demand air taxi (charter) services.
FAA regulations cover specific requirements and limits relating to the size (passenger or cargo capacity)
of the aircraft, its powerplant (piston or turboprop), qualifications of the flight crew, insurance, and
management. Scheduled commercial operations and those using turboprop or jet engines are not
included in the GA statistics.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 13

The MAC Reliever Airport System
Each of the six reliever airports are described in general below.

Airlake Airport
Used primarily by recreational pilots, Airlake Airport (KLVN) has a single 4,098′ x 75′ runway and full
length parallel taxiway. There is one fixed base operator at the airport, and no air traffic control tower. In
2016, the airport was home to 139 based aircraft3 and had an estimated 38,618 flight operations (take off
or departure).

Anoka County-Blaine Airport
The Anoka County – Blaine Airport (KANE) was acquired by MAC in 1950. The airport is considered by
the MAC to be a primary reliever airport for the main Minneapolis – St. Paul International Airport (MSP).
The airport has a non-federal aircraft control tower and two runways. Runway 9-27 is 5,000′ x 100′, and
Runway 18-36 is 4,855′ x 100′. A precision approach is available on Runway 27. In 2016, the airport was
home to 389 based aircraft and had an estimated 80,845 flight operations. More aircraft are based at this
airport than at any other MAC reliever airports.

Crystal Airport
Northwest of Minneapolis and adjacent to Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center, Crystal Airport (KMIC) has
three paved and one turf runway and two non-precision instrument approaches. The airport is served by
a single FBO and has an FAA-operated air traffic control tower. In 2016, the airport was home to 164
based aircraft and had an estimated 36,967 flight operations.

Flying Cloud Airport
Flying Cloud Airport (KFCM) has a reputation for serving the needs of busy corporate executives and
their flight crews. The airport has parallel runways (one 5,000’ and the other 3,900’) along with a 2,691’
cross runway. It is served by multiple FBOs and a FAA-operated control tower and an instrument landing
system. In 2016, the airport was home to 361 based aircraft and had an estimated 84,038 flight
operations, making it the busiest of the six relievers.

Lake Elmo Airport
The airport (21D) is served by a fixed base operator and an aircraft maintenance provider. Lake Elmo
Airport has two runways. Runway 14/32 is 2,850′ x 75′, and runway 4/22 measures 2,497′ x 75.’ There are
two non-precision instrument approaches to the airport, which has no control tower. Fueling, flight training
and aircraft maintenance services are available. In 2016, the airport was home to 194 based aircraft and
had an estimated 27,275 flight operations.

St. Paul Downtown Airport
The airport (KSTP) has the longest runway of the reliever airports and is closest to downtown St. Paul.
KSTP has three runways: Runway 14-32, with 6,491′ x 150′; Runway 13-31, with 4004′ x 150′, and
Runway 9-27, with 3,642′ x 100′. The airport is served by two fixed-base operators and an FAA-operated
air traffic control tower. In 2016, the airport was home to 82 based aircraft and had an estimated 54,548

3 “Based aircraft” are those permanently stored at one airport.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 14

flight operations. While this airport has the smallest number of based aircraft, its long runway and
proximity to downtown St. Paul makes this airport uniquely able to serve large private aircraft.

Figure 1-2: Total operations

Economic Impact Defined
Economic impact is a measure of the spending and employment associated with a sector of the economy,
a specific project, or a change in government policy or regulation.

Economic impact is most commonly measured along several dimensions. The most common are:

1. Employment – person years of employment supported (expressed in terms of “full time
equivalents” or FTEs). Because many jobs may be only part-time or seasonal, the number of
jobs is greater than the number of person years of employment. Hours worked in part-time
and seasonal employment are translated into FTEs.

2. Earnings – includes wages, salaries, and benefits associated with employment tied to the
airport.

4. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Sometimes referred to as Value Added, this is a measure
of the money value of final goods and services produced as a result of economic activity. This

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Flying Cloud St. Paul
Downtown

Anoka County-
Blaine

Crystal Lake Elmo Airlake

Change in Total Annual Aircraft Operations
2004 vs. 2017

2004 2017

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 15

measure is net of the value of intermediate goods and services used up to produce the final
goods and services.

The three major components of economic impact are classified as direct, indirect, and induced impacts.
These classifications are used as a base for the estimation of total economic impact of an airport. Each of
these three components requires different tools of analysis. Employment impact analysis determines the
economic impact in terms of jobs created and salaries and wages paid out. In the case of the airport, the
direct, indirect, induced, and total number of person years of employment created at the airport is
examined to produce a snapshot of airport operations.

• Direct impacts account for the economic activity of the
aviation sector itself. Direct employment impacts are
measured by counting those individuals who work in this
particular sector of the economy. In the case of an airport,
all of those people who work in an aviation-related capacity
either on-site or off-site would be considered direct.

At the reliever airports, a major source of employment are
the Fixed Base Operators (FBOs). These are companies
that have been granted the right by an airport (and the
MAC) to operate at the airport and provide aeronautical
services such as fueling, hangaring, tie-down and parking,
aircraft rental or chartering, aircraft maintenance, flight
instruction, de-icing and similar services. FBOs also take
care of ground handling services, like towing and baggage
handling, and other services, such as car rentals, hotel
reservations and pilot lounges.

Each of the reliever airports have at least one FBO.
Several of the airports have multiple FBOs on the airfield.
This allows both locally-based aircraft operators and
visiting operators some choice for purchasing fuel and
other handling services. Some FBOs may only sell limited
types of fuel. Some may offer self-service fuel.

Depending on the airport, there may also be air traffic control services provided on the airfield. Three
of the reliever airports have air traffic control towers that are owned and operated by the FAA. Anoka
County-Blaine Airport has air traffic control services provided by a private contractor, supported by
funds from the FAA and MAC. The remaining two airports, Lake Elmo Airport and Airlake Airport,
have no air traffic control towers.

The MAC has staff assigned to support the reliever airports including maintenance staff, mechanics,
and management and administrative personnel. Those staff’s direct employment and economic
effects are included as part of this analysis and allocated across each airport based on information
provided by the MAC.

• Indirect impacts are the “upstream” impacts that arise because of the direct impacts. For an airport,
indirect impacts originate from off-site firms that serve airport users. Indirect employment includes the
portion of employment in supplier industries which are dependent on sales to the air transport sector.
An example would be food wholesalers that supply food for catering on flights. Another example
would be building suppliers that sell materials used for the construction of capital improvements (e.g.,
a renovated building or hangar).

Major Sources of Direct
Employment at the Reliever

Airports

Aviation Support Services. This
includes employment with FBOs,
aircraft maintenance, and related
companies.

Government Enterprises. Examples
of employment related to government
agencies and departments include the
MAC, FAA, and CBP.

Building Maintenance & Janitorial
Work includes all employment
associated with the maintenance and
care of buildings on airport land. This
includes cleaning, janitorial, and
maintenance staff.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 16

• Induced impacts are economic impacts
created by the spending of wages, salaries,
and profits earned in the course of the direct
and indirect economic activities. Induced
employment is employment generated from
expenditures by individuals employed
indirectly or directly. For instance, if an airline
maintenance firm employee decides to re-
model his/her home, this would result in
additional (induced) employment hours in the
general economy. The home renovation
project would support hours of induced
employment in the construction industry, the
construction materials industry, etc.

• Visitor spending impacts. Another related
economic impact that arises from the airports’
operations flows from visitors to a region who
arrive and depart via the airports rather than
by other means (e.g., auto). The hospitality industry in particular benefits greatly from these visitors,
who spend money on lodging, meals, entertainment, car rentals, and retail. Direct employment
associated with those industries is counted as part of the economic impacts of the airport. The
economic impacts associated with visitor spending are separately identified in this report. Some
economic impact studies may incorporate these impacts into “indirect impacts,” but the project team
accounts for them separately for technical econometric reasons.

Clearly, MSP is the primary gateway to the Minneapolis-St. Paul region and millions of visiting
passengers arrive and depart from the airport annually. While MSP welcomed approximately 37.5
million passengers in 2016, only a portion of these travelers can be considered true visitors to the
region. In 2016, the total number of visitors to the region that arrived and departed via MSP exceeded
5 million. Domestic US visitors spent on average approximately $110 per day. Those averages
include the effects of a sizeable portion of travelers who stay with friends and family during their visits,
and thus tend to spend less. The estimated spending of domestic visitors at MSP is comparable to
that found at other major U.S. airports, adjusting for differences in local costs.

Some travelers who fly by GA come into MSP. But many use the reliever airports instead. Those
airports offer the same direct access to the Twin Cities and its suburbs. This study accounts for the
spending of those visitors who use the six reliever airports.

• Total impacts are the sum of direct, indirect, induced, and visitor spending impacts.

A related aspect of the airports’ economic impact is the contributions that flow from the supported
economic activity to different levels of government in the form of taxes and fees. Accounting for these
airports’ contributions to the public sector is important as part of their comprehensive impact.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 17

Figure 1-3: Economic Impact Overview – Airports

Contributions to Local Governments from Airport Operations
The operations and employment supported by each of the reliever airports contributes to governmental
revenues. Revenue contributions are divided into the following groupings, based on the origins of the
resulting impacts:

• Taxes Related to Employee Compensation. This category includes the federal, state, and local
impacts of Social Insurance taxes paid by employers and employees at the reliever airports. It
contains the tax impacts generated by retirement plans, temporary disability insurance, and
workers’ compensation payments. These taxes contribute largely to federal government streams;
however, smaller contributions are made to state and local governments as well.

• Taxes Related to Household Income. This category contains the personal tax impacts
generated by households related to employment at the reliever airports. The federal impacts
include all applicable personal income tax payments. The state and local impacts contain
personal income tax payments, fines and fee charges, motor vehicles licensing fees, property
taxes, and other applicable taxes. The federal government receives over two-thirds of the tax
impacts in this category, while state and local governments share the remaining third.

• Other Taxes and Fees. These relate to taxes and fees that are paid by corporations to the local,
state and federal levels of government.

Overview of Methodology
InterVISTAS conducted this study during the fall of 2017 based on operations and employment at the
airport during calendar year 2016. To calculate the direct effects, the study team surveyed all employers
associated with economic activity at each of the six airports (e.g., fixed base operators, government
agencies, and other tenants) to determine the total number of individuals employed in directly-related
occupations, as well as the total amount of earnings (wages) paid to those individuals. This included firms
located both on-site at the airports and those located off-site.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 18

The team estimated the impact of spending by visitors to the region who arrived via the airport (as distinct
from those who may have driven to the area). These were based on interviews with airport managers and
the FBOs, who provided their best professional estimates of the volume of itinerant aircraft traffic, number
of people on board, and other variables that drive visitor spending. The average amount spent by visitors
varied by airport, due to differences in the mix of business and leisure traffic, the average number of
individuals (including pilots and any flight crew) on arriving aircraft, the percentages of visitors who
overnight in the region, and other differences in their spending patterns.

The team derived the indirect and induced effects associated with the direct and visitor impacts by
application of econometric multipliers, which model the behavior of this sector of the economy. The
indirect and induced effects have been calculated using the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’s Regional
Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II).4 To ensure consistency with other economic analyses
completed for the MAC, the overall method used was the same applied to the estimate of the economic
impact of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. See the Appendix for a more detailed description of
the study’s methodology.

4 The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’s Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMSII) is a regional economic tool that
measures the total economic impact of a region (https://www.bea.gov/regional/rims/rimsii/). The model measures demand shocks on
employment, earnings, value added, and total gross output, and is based on 2007 national benchmark input-output data and 2015
regional data.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 19

2 Economic Impact of Airlake Airport

Airlake Airport (LVN) is located in Dakota
County, approximately 17 miles south of
MSP, 20 miles south of the City of
Minneapolis, and approximately 25 miles
southwest of the City of St. Paul. The airport
serves to relieve congestion at MSP by
attracting general aviation traffic away from
this larger airport.

According to the draft final Airlake Airport
Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP),5
the airport’s primary role is to serve personal,

recreational, and business aviation users in the southern metropolitan areas of Dakota and Scott
Counties. It is a complimentary reliever airport to MSP. Examples of business services provided at
Airlake Airport include flight training, aircraft rentals, charter flights, aircraft management services, and
medical flight transportation.

Airlake Airport has one primary hangar storage area on the northeast side of the airport that provides
approximately 136 indoor aircraft storage spaces. The MAC also has a maintenance structure at the
airport. The GA community here is served by a single FBO.

Direct Impacts
Based on responses to the employment survey by tenant organizations, the airport supports
approximately 31 direct jobs. These jobs paid a total of about $0.9 million in wages. The total economic
output of the direct employment was $4.1 million.

5 Metropolitan Airports Commission, Final Draft, Airlake Airport 2035 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan
(LTCP), November 27, 2017, available at https://www.metroairports.org/General-Aviation/General-
Aviation-Documents/Airlake_Airport_reduced_2035_LTCP_FINAL_DRAFT_Narr.aspx

Airlake Airport at a Glance

Runways: 12/30, 4,099’ * 75’

Based Aircraft (2016): 139

Operations (2016): 36,618

Percent of Operations that are Itinerant:
 FAA estimate: 60%
 FBO estimate: 40%

Number of FBOs: One

https://www.metroairports.org/General-Aviation/General-Aviation-Documents/Airlake_Airport_reduced_2035_LTCP_FINAL_DRAFT_Narr.aspx

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 20

Table 2.1: Direct Economic Impacts of Airlake Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Direct 31 11 $0.9 $2.3 $4.1

Multiplier Impacts
The direct economic impacts drive additional economic effects via their relationships with supplier
industries and by stimulating spending in the local economy. Combined, these “multiplier impacts”
substantially add to the effect from direct employment. Table 2.2 summarizes the combined indirect and
induced economic impacts that flow from the operations of Airlake Airport.

Table 2.2: Multiplier Impacts from Airlake Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Multiplier 22 8 $1.0 $2.1 $3.7

Total Operational Impacts
The total impacts of airport are calculated by adding the direct and multiplier impacts. Table 2.3
summarizes the total employment impact of the airport.

Table 2.3: Total Employment Impacts from Airlake Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Total 53 19 $1.9 $4.4 $7.8
Note: Earlier tables may not sum to these totals due to rounding.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 21

Visitor Impacts
Total operations at LVN in 2016 approached 37,000. Based on estimates from the FAA and interviews
with the FBO and airport management, the project team estimated that about 59 percent of those
operations were itinerant. Allowing for some small percentage of those operations to be “gas-and-go”
types of flights (where the aircraft lands and only takes on fuel without any other local purchase), there
was an estimated 9.320 flights at the airports where visitors spent money locally. According to
information from the FBO, the majority of those visitors were for less than a day (i.e., the visitors did not
spend the night in the area.) An estimated 20 percent of visitors spent the night. The total amount spent
by visitors reflects a combination of the two, along with some catering sold by the FBO. Visitor spending
at Airlake Airport is summarized in the table below.

Table 2.4: Key Visitor Metrics

Consolidated Impacts
The consolidated economic impact of Airlake Airport sums the total employment impact with that from
visitor spending. In 2016, the operations at Airlake Airport supported a total of 104 jobs (38 FTEs), which
paid a total of $3.5 million in wages. The total economic output that the airport stimulated was $13.2
million, with roughly $7.4 million in gross domestic product.

Table 2.5: Consolidated Economic Impacts of Airlake Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Consolidated 104 38 $3.5 $7.4 $13.2
Note: Earlier tables may not sum to these totals due to rounding.

Tax Contributions from Airlake Airport
As a result of the operations of Airlake Airport, state and local governments gained approximately
$57,000 in tax revenues. In addition, federal tax revenue amounted to approximately $211,000.
Altogether, this includes tax contributions for social insurance programs, income taxes, and other
government-imposed fees and charges.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 22

3 Economic Impact of Anoka County-Blaine
Airport

The Anoka County – Blaine Airport (KANE) has played
an important role in the Twin Cities since the airport
was acquired by MAC in 1950. The airport is located in
the southern part of Anoka County and the City of
Blaine, approximately 12 miles from downtown
Minneapolis and 12 miles from downtown St. Paul.

According to the 2010 long-term comprehensive plan
prepared for Anoka County – Blaine Airport,6 the MAC
considers that airport’s primary role to be as a primary
reliever airport for MSP.

Anoka County – Blaine Airport has its own air traffic control tower that is normally open for 14 to 15 hours
daily, depending on the season. When the tower is not open, air navigation services are provided by the
FAA’s local terminal area traffic control facility (TRACON). Two FBOs are onsite to provide services for
local and itinerant traffic. The airport also has hangars and a MAC maintenance and equipment storage
facility.

Anoka County – Blaine Airport was the second busiest of all of the six reliever airports in 2016 in terms of
total flight operations.

6 Metropolitan Airports Commission, Anoka County – Blaine Airport (ANE), Final Adoption by MAC June
2010, available at
https://www.metroairports.org/Metroairports/media/Media/Documents/general_aviation/ANE-LTCP/ANE-
LTCP-DOCUMENT

Anoka County – Blaine Airport at a Glance

Runways: 9/27, 5,000′ x 100′
18/36, 4,855′ x 100′

Based Aircraft (2016): 389

Operations (2016): 80,845

Percent of Operations that are Itinerant:
 FAA estimate: 48%
 FBO estimate: 40%

Number of FBOs: Two

https://www.metroairports.org/Metroairports/media/Media/Documents/general_aviation/ANE-LTCP/ANE-LTCP-DOCUMENT

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 23

Direct Impacts
Based on responses to the employment survey by tenant organizations, the airport supports
approximately 130 direct jobs. These jobs paid about $6 million in wages. The total economic output of
the direct employment was $55 million.

Table 3.1: Direct Economic Impacts of Anoka County – Blaine Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Direct 130 110 $6 $30 $55

Multiplier Impacts
The direct economic impacts drive additional economic effects via their relationships with supplier
industries and by stimulating spending in the local economy. Combined, these “multiplier impacts”
substantially add to the effect from direct employment. Table 3.2 summarizes the combined indirect and
induced economic impacts that flow from the operations of Anoka County – Blaine Airport.

Table 3.2: Multiplier Impacts from Anoka County – Blaine Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Multiplier 250 200 $11 $25 $46

Total Operational Impacts
The total impacts of airport are calculated by adding the direct and multiplier impacts. Table 3.3
summarizes the total employment impact of the airport

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 24

Table 3.3: Total Employment Impacts from Anoka County – Blaine Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Total 390 310 $17 $55 $101
Note: Earlier tables may not sum to these totals due to rounding.

Visitor Impacts
Total operations at ANE in 2016 exceeded 80,000 in 2016. Based on estimates from the FAA and
interviews with the FBO and airport management, the project team estimated that slightly under half of
those operations (about 48 percent) were itinerant. Allowing for some small percentage of those
operations to be “gas-and-go” types of flights (where the aircraft lands and only takes on fuel without any
other local purchase), there was an estimated 16.400 departures from the airports where visitors had
spent money locally. According to information from the FBO, about two-thirds of those visitors were for
less than a day (i.e., the visitors did not spend the night in the area.) The remaining third of visitors spent
the night. The total amount spent by visitors reflects a combination of the two, along with some catering
sold by the FBO. The total number of visitors who spent money in the region in 2016 was nearly 74,000,
and the total estimated amount spent was more than $8.5 million. Visitor spending at Anoka County –
Blaine Airport is summarized in the table below.

Table 3.4: Estimated Visitors and Total Amount Spent

Consolidated Impacts
The consolidated economic impact of Anoka County – Blaine Airport sums the total employment impact
with that from visitor spending. In 2016, the operations at the airport supported a total of 560 jobs (460
FTEs), which paid a total of $22 million in wages. The total economic output that the airport stimulated
was $118 million, with roughly $65 million in gross domestic product.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 25

Table 3.5: Consolidated Economic Impacts of Anoka County – Blaine Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Consolidated 560 460 $22 $65 $118
Note: Earlier tables may not sum to these totals due to rounding.

Tax Contributions from Anoka County – Blaine Airport
As a result of the operations of Anoka County – Blaine Airport, state and local governments gained
approximately $1.0 million in tax revenues. In addition, federal tax revenue amounted to approximately
$1.9 million. Altogether, this includes tax contributions for social insurance programs, income taxes, and
other government-imposed fees and charges.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 26

4 Economic Impact of Crystal Airport

Crystal Airport is located in Hennepin County, approximately seven miles northwest of downtown
Minneapolis. It lies within the City of Crystal, with small portions of airport property overlapping into the
City of Brooklyn Park and the City of Brooklyn Center. It is the closest MAC airport to downtown
Minneapolis.

According to the airport’s draft 2016 long-term comprehensive plan,7 Crystal Airport’s primary role is to
serve personal, recreational, and some business aviation users in the northwest metropolitan area,
including the cities of Crystal, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, and Minneapolis. Example business
services include flight training, aircraft rentals, charter flights, aircraft and propeller maintenance, sale of
aircraft avionics and parts, and medical flight transportation. The airport is a complimentary reliever to
MSP.

The airport is primarily designed to be used by small, propeller-driven airplanes with fewer than 10
passenger seats.

Crystal Airport is served by two FBOs. The airport also has numerous hangar facilities and a MAC
maintenance facility.

7 Metropolitan Airports Commission, Draft Crystal Airport, 2035 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP),
Narrative Report, September 12, 2016, available at https://www.metroairports.org/General-
Aviation/Airports/Crystal.aspx.

Crystal Airport at a Glance

Runways: 14L/32R, 3,268′ x 75′
14R/32L, 3,267′ x 75′
6L/24R, 2,500’ x 75’
6R/24L, 2,153’ x 150’ (turf)

Based Aircraft (2016): 164

Operations (2016): 36,967

Percent of Operations that are
Itinerant:

 FAA estimate: 56%
 FBO estimate: 20%

Number of FBOs: Two

https://www.metroairports.org/General-Aviation/Airports/Crystal.aspx

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 27

Direct Impacts
Based on responses to the employment survey by tenant organizations, the airport supports
approximately 100 direct jobs. These jobs paid a total of about $4 million in wages. The total economic
output of the direct employment was $35 million.

Table 4.1: Direct Economic Impacts of Crystal Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Direct 100 80 $4 $21 $35

Multiplier Impacts
The direct economic impacts drive additional economic effects via their relationships with supplier
industries and by stimulating spending in the local economy. Combined, these “multiplier impacts”
substantially add to the effect from direct employment. Table 4.2 summarizes the combined indirect and
induced economic impacts that flow from the operations of Crystal Airport.

Table 4.2: Multiplier Impacts from Crystal Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Multiplier 180 140 $8 $18 $30

Total Operational Impacts
The total impacts of airport are calculated by adding the direct and multiplier impacts. Table 4.3
summarizes the total employment impact of the airport.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 28

Table 4.3: Total Employment Impacts from Crystal Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Total 270 220 $12 $39 $66
Note: Earlier tables may not sum to these totals due to rounding.

Visitor Impacts
Total operations at MIC in 2016 approached 37,000. Based on estimates from the FAA and interviews
with the FBO and airport management, the project team estimated that over half — about 56 percent — of
those operations were itinerant. Allowing for some small percentage of those operations to be “gas-and-
go” types of flights (where the aircraft lands and only takes on fuel without any other local purchase),
there was an estimated 8,800 departures from the airports where visitors spent money locally. The
project team estimated that about two-thirds of those visitors were on the ground for less than a day (i.e.,
the visitors did not spend the night in the area.) The remaining two-thirds of the visitors spent the night.
The total number of visitors who spent money in the region in 2016 was just under 20,000, and the total
estimated amount spent was about $2.4 million. Visitor spending at Crystal Airport is summarized in the
table below.

Table 4.4: Estimated Visitors and Total Amount Spent

Consolidated Impacts
The consolidated economic impact of Crystal Airport sums the total employment impact with that from
visitor spending. In 2016, the operations at Crystal Airport supported a total of 320 jobs (250 FTEs),
which paid a total of $14 million in wages. The total economic output that the airport stimulated was $71
million, with roughly $41 million in gross domestic product.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 29

Table 4.5: Consolidated Economic Impacts of Crystal Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Consolidated 320 250 $14 $41 $71
Note: Earlier tables may not sum to these totals due to rounding.

Tax Contributions from Crystal Airport
As a result of the operations of Crystal Airport, state and local governments gained approximately $0.7
million in tax revenues. In addition, federal tax revenue amounted to approximately $1.6 million.
Altogether, this includes tax contributions for social insurance programs, income taxes, and other
government-imposed fees and charges.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 30

5 Economic Impact of Flying Cloud Airport

The airport is located in Hennepin County, in the south-central area
of the City of Eden Prairie, approximately 14 miles from downtown
Minneapolis. Its location in the southwest suburbs allow businesses
to consider it an important part of their local operations. The MAC considers the airport to be a primary
reliever airport for MSP.

According to the 2010 long term comprehensive plan,8 the airport is designed to accommodate aircraft
with wingspans less than 79 feet. Aircraft that fall into this category include most single engine and twin
piston aircraft and smaller regional and corporate jets.

Flying Cloud Airport has its own air traffic control tower that is owned and operated by the FAA. During
the times when it is open, it provides air traffic control services. When the tower is closed, air navigation
services are provided by Minneapolis Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) located at
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and assisted by the Flight Service Station (FSS) at Princeton,
Minnesota.

The airport is served by six FBOs that offer both outdoor and indoor storage for aircraft. The airport also
has other hangar storage areas that are not a part of existing FBO facilities. The MAC also has two
maintenance and storage facilities at the airport.

Flying Cloud Airport was the busiest of all of the six reliever airports in 2016 in terms of total flight
operations. The extension of runway 10R/28L to 5,000’ in 2010 enabled the airport to accommodate
larger aircraft than previously.

8 Metropolitan Airports Commission, Flying Cloud Airport, Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update
FINAL, October 2010, available at https://www.metroairports.org/General-Aviation/Airports/Flying-
Cloud.aspx

Flying Cloud Airport at a Glance

Runways: 10R/28L, 5,000′ x 100′
10L/28R, 3,898′ x75′
18/36, 2,690’ x 75’

Based Aircraft (2016): 361

Operations (2016): 84,038

Percent of Operations that are
Itinerant:

 FAA estimate: 60%
 FBO estimate: 70%

Number of FBOs: Six

https://www.metroairports.org/General-Aviation/Airports/Flying-Cloud.aspx

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 31

Direct Impacts
Based on responses to the employment survey by tenant organizations, the airport supports
approximately 340 direct jobs. These jobs paid a total of about $18 million in wages. The total economic
output of the direct employment was $104 million.

Table 5.1: Direct Economic Impacts of Flying Cloud Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Direct 340 300 $18 $58 $104

Multiplier Impacts
The direct economic impacts drive additional economic effects via their relationships with supplier
industries and by stimulating spending in the local economy. Combined, these “multiplier impacts”
substantially add to the effect from direct employment. Table 5.2 summarizes the combined indirect and
induced economic impacts that flow from the operations of Flying Cloud Airport.

Table 5.2: Multiplier Impacts from Flying Cloud Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Multiplier 500 430 $24 $50 $90

Total Operational Impacts
The total impacts of airport are calculated by adding the direct and multiplier impacts. Table 5.3
summarizes the total employment impact of the airport

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 32

Table 5.3: Total Employment Impacts from Flying Cloud Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Total 840 740 $41 $107 $194
Note: Earlier tables may not sum to these totals due to rounding.

Visitor Impacts
Total operations at FCM in 2016 exceeded 84,000, the most of all six MAC reliever airports. Based on
estimates from the FAA and interviews with the FBO and airport management, the project team estimated
that nearly 60 percent of those operations were itinerant. Allowing for some small percentage of those
operations to be “gas-and-go” types of flights (where the aircraft lands and only takes on fuel without any
other local purchase), there was an estimated 21,400 flight departures from the airport where visitors
spent money locally. According to information from the FBOs, about 60 percent of those visitors spent
less than a day (i.e., the visitors did not spend the night in the area.). The remaining 40 percent of visitors
spent the night. The total number of visitors who spent money in the region in 2016 was over 115,000,
and the total estimated amount spent was over $18 million. Visitor spending at Flying Cloud Airport is
summarized in the table below.

Table 5.4: Estimated Visitors and Total Amount Spent

Consolidated Impacts
The consolidated economic impact of Flying Cloud Airport sums the total employment impact with that
from visitor spending. In 2016, the operations at Flying Cloud Airport supported a total of 1,190 jobs
(1,040 FTEs), which paid a total of $52 million in wages. The total economic output that the airport
stimulated was $229 million, with roughly $127 million in gross domestic product.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 33

Table 5.5: Consolidated Economic Impacts of Flying Cloud Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Consolidated 1,190 1,040 $52 $127 $229
Note: Earlier tables may not sum to these totals due to rounding.

Tax Contributions from Flying Cloud Airport
As a result of the operations of Flying Cloud Airport, state and local governments gained approximately
$2.6 million in tax revenues. In addition, federal tax revenue amounted to approximately $4.2 million.
Altogether, this includes tax contributions for social insurance programs (i.e., Social Security,
unemployment insurance, Medicare, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation program, and the
Railroad Retirement Board program), income taxes, and other government-imposed fees and charges.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 34

6 Economic Impact of Lake Elmo Airport

Lake Elmo Airport is located in Washington County, approximately 12 miles east of the downtown Saint
Paul business district. According to the 2016 long-term comprehensive plan for Lake Elmo Airport,9 the
MAC believes the primary role of Lake Elmo Airport is to accommodate personal, recreational, and some
business aviation users within Washington County and the eastern portion of the metropolitan area.
Example business services provided at the airport include flight training and aircraft maintenance. The
aircraft that normally use the airport on a regular basis are small, propeller-driven airplanes with fewer
than 10 passenger seats. The airport is a complimentary reliever to MSP.

The airport is home to a single FBO. The airport also has two main hangar storage areas and a MAC
maintenance building.

Of the six MAC reliever airports, Lake Elmo Airport is the quietest in terms of flight operations (takeoffs
and landings). In 2016, the airport recorded an estimated 27,000 operations, an equivalent of about 75
per day.

Direct Impacts
Based on responses to the employment survey by tenant organizations, the airport supports
approximately 14 direct jobs. These jobs paid a total of about $0.4 million in wages. The total economic
output of the direct employment was $5.8 million.

9 Metropolitan Airports Commission, Lake Elmo Airport, 2035 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP),
Volume 1 Narrative Report, Final MAC Adoption September 2016, available at
https://www.metroairports.org/General-Aviation/General-Aviation-
Documents/Lake_Elmo_Airport_2035_LTCP_FINAL_Narrative_Re-(2).aspx

Lake Elmo Airport at a Glance

Runways: 14/32, 2849’ x 75’
4/22, 2,496′ x 75′

Based Aircraft (2016): 194

Operations (2016): 27,275

Percent of Operations that are
Itinerant:

 FAA estimate: 39%
 FBO estimate: 5%

Number of FBOs: One

https://www.metroairports.org/General-Aviation/General-Aviation-Documents/Lake_Elmo_Airport_2035_LTCP_FINAL_Narrative_Re-(2).aspx

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 35

Table 6.1: Direct Economic Impacts of Lake Elmo Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Direct 14 10 $0.4 $3.2 $5.8

Multiplier Impacts
The direct economic impacts drive additional economic effects via their relationships with supplier
industries and by stimulating spending in the local economy. Combined, these “multiplier impacts”
substantially add to the effect from direct employment. Table 6.2 summarizes the combined indirect and
induced economic impacts that flow from the operations of Lake Elmo Airport.

Table 6.2: Multiplier Impacts from Lake Elmo Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Multiplier 26 18 $1.2 $2.6 $4.8

Total Operational Impacts
The total impacts of airport are calculated by adding the direct and multiplier impacts. Table 6.3
summarizes the total employment impact of the airport.

Table 6.3: Total Employment Impacts from Lake Elmo Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Total 40 28 $1.7 $5.8 $10.6
Note: Earlier tables may not sum to these totals due to rounding.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 36

Visitor Impacts
Total operations at 21D in 2016 exceeded 27,000. Based on estimates from the FAA and interviews with
the FBO and airport management, the project team estimated that less than 40 percent of those
operations were itinerant. Allowing for some small percentage of those operations to be “gas-and-go”
types of flights (where the aircraft lands and only takes on fuel without any other local purchase), there
was an estimated 4,500 flights at the airports where visitors spent money locally. According to
information from the FBO, the vast majority of those visitors were for less than a day (i.e., the visitors did
not spend the night in the area). Only about five percent of visitors spent the night. The total number of
visitors who arrived at Lake Elmo Airport was slightly above 10,000, and the total amount spent by those
visitors was nearly $1.1 million. Visitor spending at Lake Elmo Airport is summarized in the table below.

Table 6.4: Estimated Visitors and Total Amount Spent

Consolidated Impacts
The consolidated economic impact of Lake Elmo Airport sums the total employment impact with that from
visitor spending. In 2016, the airport’s operations supported a total of 60 jobs (42 FTEs), which paid a
total of $2.3 million in wages. The total economic output that the airport stimulated was $12.8 million, with
roughly $7.0 million in gross domestic product.

Table 6.5: Consolidated Economic Impacts of Lake Elmo Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Consolidated 60 42 $2.3 $7.0 $12.8
Note: Earlier tables may not sum to these totals due to rounding.

Tax Contributions from Lake Elmo Airport
As a result of the operations of Lake Elmo Airport, state and local governments gained approximately
$49,000 in tax revenues. In addition, federal tax revenue amounted to approximately $174,000.
Altogether, this includes tax contributions for social insurance programs, income taxes, and other
government-imposed fees and charges.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 37

7 Economic Impact of St. Paul Downtown
Airport

The St. Paul Downtown Airport (STP), also known as Holman
Field, is located just five minutes from the St. Paul business
center and 15 minutes from downtown Minneapolis. Along with
Flying Cloud Airport and Anoka County – Blaine Airport, the MAC
considers STP to be one of the primary relievers for the
Minneapolis – St. Paul International Airport.

Two FBOs serve the airport. The FBOs provide indoor storage
for aircraft. On a limited basis, they may park aircraft outside on
their apron areas but generally, airplanes are housed indoors.

The MAC also owns several structures on the airport property.
These include the original administration building that was
constructed in 1939. That building formerly hosted the air traffic
control facility until the replacement opened in 1999. The MAC
also owns several maintenance and storage buildings. U.S.
Customs and Border Protection operate out of the administration
building when clearance is needed for international flights.

Aircraft based at and using the airport includes primarily
business jets, but also single-engine, twin-engine piston and
turbo props, helicopters and military aircraft (primarily helicopters). It is assumed that flights in and out of
the airport are of both a business and a recreational nature. The airport’s longest runway allows for
operations of relatively large corporate jet aircraft, with wingspans of up to 118’.

Of all of the MAC reliever airports, STP has the longest runway. This enables it to handle larger aircraft
than any of the other relievers.

Direct Impacts
Based on responses to the employment survey by tenant organizations, the airport supports
approximately 410 direct jobs. These jobs paid a total of about $27 million in wages. The total economic
output of the direct employment was $150 million.

St. Paul Downtown Airport at a
Glance

Runways: 14/32, 6,491’ x 150’
13/31, 4,004′ x 150′
9/27, 3,642’ x 100’

Based Aircraft (2016): 82

Operations (2016): 54,548

Percent of Operations that are
Itinerant:

 FAA estimate: 64%
 FBO estimate: 50%

Number of FBOs: Two

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 38

Table 7.1: Direct Economic Impacts of St. Paul Downtown Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Direct 410 360 $27 $84 $150

Multiplier Impacts
The direct economic impacts drive additional economic effects via their relationships with supplier
industries and by stimulating spending in the local economy. Combined, these “multiplier impacts”
substantially add to the effect from direct employment. Table 7.2 summarizes the combined indirect and
induced economic impacts that flow from the operations of St. Paul Downtown Airport.

Table 7.2: Multiplier Impacts from St. Paul Downtown Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Multiplier 760 670 $35 $75 $133

Total Operational Impacts
The total impacts of airport are calculated by adding the direct and multiplier impacts. Table 7.3
summarizes the total employment impact of the airport

Table 7.3: Total Employment Impacts from St. Paul Downtown Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Total 1,160 1,030 $62 $159 $283
Note: Earlier tables may not sum to these totals due to rounding.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 39

Visitor Impacts
Total operations at STP in 2016 approached 55,000. Based on estimates from the FAA and interviews
with the FBO and airport management, over 64 percent of those operations were itinerant. Allowing for
some small percentage of those operations to be “gas-and-go” types of flights (where the aircraft lands
and only takes on fuel without any other local purchase), there were nearly 15,000 flights at the airports
where visitors spent money locally. According to information from the FBOs, the majority of those visitors
spent less than a day in the (i.e., the visitors did not spend the night in the area.) About 25 percent of
visitors spent the night. The total amount spent by visitors reflects a combination of the two, along with
some catering sold by the FBO. Because the aircraft that make itinerant operations at STP tend to carry
relatively large numbers of individuals, the total number of visitors attributed to STP was nearly 90,000.
These visitors spent over $15 million locally.

Table 7.4: Estimated Visitors and Total Amount Spent

Consolidated Impacts
The consolidated economic impact of St. Paul Downtown Airport sums the total employment impact with
that from visitor spending. In 2016, the operations at STP supported a total of 1,430 jobs (1,260 FTEs),
which paid a total of $70 million in wages. The total economic output that the airport stimulated was $312
million, with roughly $174 million in gross domestic product.

Table 7.5: Consolidated Economic Impacts of St. Paul Downtown Airport

Impact
Employment Wages

($ millions)
GDP

($ millions)
Output

($ millions)
Jobs FTEs

Consolidated 1,430 1,260 $70 $174 $312
Note: Earlier tables may not sum to these totals due to rounding.

Tax Contributions from St. Paul Downtown Airport
As a result of the operations of St. Paul Downtown Airport, state and local governments gained
approximately $6.7 million in tax revenues. In addition, federal tax revenue amounted to approximately
$8.1 million. Altogether, this includes tax contributions for social insurance programs, income taxes, and
other government-imposed fees and charges.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 40

8 Summary of Economic Impact Results
Operational Economic Impacts

The ongoing operations at the six MAC reliever airports support a total of 2,750 jobs (2,340 FTEs or
person years of employment) in the state, including multiplier impacts. Of this total employment figure,
1,030 jobs (870 FTEs) are attributable to direct employment. As jobs related to the airport extend far
beyond its boundaries, the bottom line
total also includes approximately 780
additional indirect jobs (670 FTEs) and
950 induced jobs (810 FTEs).

The statewide economy benefits
significantly from the day-to-day
operations of the airports. Annually, the
airports contribute an estimated total of
$370 million in GDP, alongside an
estimated $662 million in economic
output. All impacts relating to
employment, wages, GDP, and output
are illustrated in Table 8-1.

Table 8-1:
Total Economic Impacts of MAC Reliever Airports Operations, 2016

Impact
Employment Wages

($ Millions)
GDP

($ Millions)
Output

($ Millions)
Jobs FTEs

Direct 1,030 870 $56 $198 $355

Indirect 780 670 $44 $100 $179

Induced 950 810 $36 $72 $128

Total 2,750 2,340 $136 $370 $662
Note: Employment figures (jobs and FTEs) are rounded to the nearest ten. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 41

Economic Impacts from Visitor Spending
Individuals who visit the region via the reliever airports support additional economic impacts by spending
their travel dollars locally. The economic impact of visitor spending depends on the total number of “true
visitors,” the amount they spend, the length of stay, and the distribution of their spending across different
categories – mostly in the hospitality sector. Spending on hotels, restaurants, retail, and entertainment
supports jobs and additional spending in the region.

Table 8-2 summarizes the total impacts from non-local visitor spending affiliated with the reliever airports.
In 2016, visitor spending across all six airports amounted to $48 million, which in turn supported 620
direct jobs (520 FTEs) and $15 million in direct wages. With multiplier impacts included, the total
economic impact from visitor spending includes 910 total jobs (760 FTEs) and $27 million in total wages.

Table 8-2:
Total Economic Impact of Visitor Spending at the Reliever Airports, in 2016

Impact
Employment Wages

($ Millions)
GDP

($ Millions)
Output

($ Millions)
Jobs FTEs

Direct 620 520 $15 $27 $48

Indirect 110 90 $6 $12 $21

Induced 180 150 $7 $13 $24

Total 910 760 $27 $52 $94
Note: Employment figures (jobs and FTEs) are rounded to the nearest ten. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Consolidated Economic Impact of the Reliever Airports
The total economic impact associated with the MAC reliever airports’ operations and visitor spending in
2016 was approximately 3,660 jobs, with wages and earnings of $164 million. The total contribution to
the region’s GDP was approximately $421 million, with a total economic output of $756 million, as shown
in Table 8-3.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 42

Table 8-3:
Consolidated Economic Impacts of MAC Reliever Airports’ Operations and Visitor Spending, 2016

Impact
Employment Wages

($ Millions)
GDP

($ Millions)
Output

($ Millions)
Jobs FTEs

Total Direct 1,650 1,380 $71 $224 $403

Total Indirect 890 760 $50 $112 $200

Total Induced 1,130 960 $43 $85 $153

Grand Total 3,660 3,100 $164 $421 $756
Note: Employment figures (jobs and FTEs) are rounded to the nearest ten. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Tax Revenue Impacts
The six MAC reliever airports generate considerable tax revenues across all levels of government. On an
annual basis, an estimated $27 million in tax is contributed by airport employers, employees, and
passengers. Nearly two-thirds of that amount (59%) flowed to the federal government, with the remaining
41% going to state and local governments. These figures exclude any estimates of corporate profit taxes.

Figure 8-1:
Annual Estimated Tax Revenues of MAC Reliever Airports by Level of Government

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 43

9 Comparison of 2004 and 2016 Economic
Impacts

This report provides an update on information about the MAC reliever airports published in 2005 based
on data for 2004. Comparisons can be complicated because of differing industry conditions and
methodologies, so readers should bear both of those factors in mind.

The total economic impact of the MAC Reliever Airports in 2016 is higher relative to 2004. Employee
FTEs from total ongoing operations (airport operations, onsite-site tenants and visitor spending impacts)
increased from 2,260 to 3,100, between 2004 and 2016. Airport operations have seen growth in
employment, despite the natural decline in general aviation activity and total operations at each of the
reliever airports (as previously outlined in Section 1 and discussed in further detail below). In 2016, visitor
spending is estimated to contribute roughly half the impact that was seen in 2004. Table 9-1 summarizes
the change between 2004 and 2016.

Table 9-1: Comparison of 2004 vs. 2016 Results

Impact Measurement 2004 2016 % Change
(2016 vs. 2004)

Total Airport Operations – Total Impacts

Employment (FTEs) 901 2,340 160%

Activity ($ millions) $169 $662 N/M

Visitor Spending – Total Impacts

Employment (FTEs) 1,358 760 -46%

Activity ($ Millions) $86 $94 N/M

Total Impacts (Airport Operations & Visitor Spending)

Employment (FTEs) 2,259 3,100 36%

Activity ($ Millions) $255 $756 N/M
Note: Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding. N/M = not meaningful.

However, some portion of the change between the 2004 and 2016 results is attributable to differences in
methodology. For instance, in the 2004 analysis, the impact of airport operations was calculated based on
the dollar volume of operations rather than a direct survey of employment. Further, the 2004 impacts are
assessed across a broader geographic scope (i.e., the 2004 results refer to impacts across the 13-county
extended Minneapolis-St Paul region – which includes two counties in Wisconsin) as opposed to the
geographic region encompassed by this study – the 7-county metropolitan area. In addition, although
multiplier impacts were calculated using RIMS II in both studies, the studies use different versions of the
RIMS II multipliers based on the most current data available at the time. The 2004 study also used a
non-traditional definition of economic “activity,” based only on operating expenses and fuel sales. This
current study applies the textbook definition of economic activity, which captures ALL spending (e.g.,

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 44

capital improvement plus revenue) by firms, organizations, and individuals. In the case of organizations
that do not generate revenue (e.g., government-provided air traffic control services and expenses by the
MAC to staff and maintain these airports), annual operating expenses associated with these facilities are
counted.

Comment on Changes over Time
The entire aviation industry has undergone significant changes in the last 12 years. On the commercial
airline side, the major changes include significant consolidation in the industry (e.g., the merger of Delta
Air Lines and Northwest Airlines) and a developing pilot shortage that has affected the ability of major
airlines and their regional partners to serve smaller communities. In the general aviation industry, GA
activity has been declining steadily for years, mostly because of a drop in recreational or leisure flying.
Data from the FAA show broad-based decreases in the number of GA pilots, the number of registered
aircraft, and total annual and average flight hours. Offsetting those declines, however, are increases in
business flying, the expansion of the fractional aviation market, and increases in rotorcraft (helicopter)
activity.

In general, the FAA’s data show a drop of 8 percent in the number of active aircraft in the U.S. between
2004 and 2015 (the latest available data at the time of this report). The number of active fixed-wing
piston aircraft dropped by over 24,000 (-15 percent). On the other hand, the number of active turboprop,
turbojet, and rotorcraft increased. Similarly, the number of aircraft used primarily for personal or
recreational purposes declined by about 7 percent, and the number of aircraft used for business purposes
(with paid flight crew) dropped by 34 percent. Over the same time period, the number of aircraft used for
business purposes (without a paid flight crew) grew by 10 percent. Flying for instructional and other
purposes (e.g., sightseeing, agricultural) also increased.

Table 9.2: National Changes in Active Aircraft by Type and Primary Use

Notes: 1 = Prior to 2014 this category was labeled “Business.”
2 = Prior to 2014 this category was labeled “Corporate.”
Source: FAA.

These national trends are reflected in the change in movements at the MAC’s reliever airports. Since
2004, the number of operations has declined substantially at all of the reliever airports, with each airport
showing anywhere between a one- to two-thirds decrease in operations. At Flying Cloud Airport, the
busiest reliever airport, the number of operations fell by 49% between 2004 and 2017. Some of that
decline may be attributable to changes in how personnel at the airport’s air traffic control count aircraft
operation, but that cannot be determined with certainty.

The FAA does not separately report data for GA operations specific to Minnesota. Some data are
available on the number of active pilots whose records indicate that they reside in the state. These
records go back only to 2011, so the comparison since 2004 is unavailable. It is probably safe to assume
that the overall trends in the number of Minnesota’s active pilots broadly corresponds to the national
trends in active aircraft and number of hours flown.

Type of Aircraft 2004 2015 % change
Fixed Wing 182,867 164,293 -10.2% 2004 2015
Fixed Wing – Piston 165,189 141,141 -14.6% Personal 149.7 139.7 -6.7%
Fixed Wing – Turboprop 8,379 9,712 15.9% Business with paid flight crew1 24.2 15.9 -34.3%
Fixed Wing – Turbojet 9,298 13,440 44.5% Business without paid flight crew2 10.2 11.3 10.4%
Rotorcraft 7,821 10,506 34.3% Instructional 13.1 15.7 19.6%
All Other 28,738 35,231 22.6% Other 22.2 27.5 23.6%
Total 219,426 210,030 -8.3% Total 219.4 210.0 -4.3%

Primary Use
(in thousands) %

change

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 45

Table 9.3 summarizes the changes in Minnesota’s active pilots and non-pilot airmen.10 It highlights that
the total number of pilots in Minnesota declined by 7 percent between 2011 and 2016, although the
number of individuals holding private pilot’s licenses (as opposed to commercial, air transport, or some
other type of certificate) decreased by 16 percent. Similarly, the number of other aviation professionals
such as mechanics, repairmen, and dispatcher, fell by 11 percent over the same period.

Table 9.3: Active Minnesota Pilots and Non-pilot Airmen

The MAC has also supported numerous changes within the reliever airport system since 2004, some of
which have had impacts on operations at those airports. These include but are not limited to:

 Installing a floodwall at St. Paul Downtown
 The acquisition of Regent Aviation by BBA Aviation (Signature Flight Support)
 The buyout of Modern Aero at Flying Cloud by Premier Aviation
 Lengthening runway at Flying Cloud
 Lengthening runway at Anoka County – Blaine
 Adding precision landing system (instrument landing system) at Anoka County – Blaine
 Constructing a new building at Flying Cloud

Taken together, these changes highlight the dynamic nature of the GA industry in the greater
Minneapolis-St. Paul region.

10 FAA defines the term “airmen” to includes men and women certified as pilots, mechanics or other
aviation technicians. An active airman is one who holds both an airmen certificate and a valid medical
certificate. Airmen who must have a valid medical to exercise the privileges of their certificate are all
airplane pilots, rotorcraft pilots, flight navigators, and flight engineers. Glider pilots are not required to
have a medical examination but the numbers represent only those who had a valid medical certificate on
record at the Aeronautical Center.

2011 2016 Change % change
Students 1,885 2,033 148 8%
Private 1/ 4,705 3,965 (740) -16%
Commercial 1/ 2,641 1,943 (698) -26%
Airline Transport 1/ 3,502 3,923 421 12%
Misc. 2/ 85 108 23 27%
Flight Instructor 3/ 2,469 2,627 158 6%
Remote Pilots 3/ N/A 381 N/A N/A
Subtotal – Pilots 12,818 11,972 (846) -7%

Ground Instructor 1,533 1,189 (344) -22%
Flight Engineer 1,512 1,086 (426) -28%
Mechanic 6,893 4,708 (2,185) -32%
Repair men 583 504 (79) -14%
Parachute Rigger 108 57 (51) -47%
Dispatcher 579 433 (146) -25%
Flight Attendant 5,514 6,322 808 15%
Subtotal – Non Pilot Airmen 16,722 14,299 (2,423) -14%

29,540 26,271 (3,269) -11%

Non-Pilot
Airmen

Active
Pilots &
Flight

Instructors

Category

Total

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 46

Appendix: Methodology
InterVISTAS conducted this economic impact study during the second half of 2017. The study is based
on employment data collected from survey respondents for calendar year 2016.

To calculate the direct employment impacts, the study team surveyed all the employers associated with
the operation of each of the six reliever airports (e.g., the FBOs) to determine the number of individuals
employed in directly related occupations, as well as the amount of wages paid out to those individuals.
The firms surveyed as part of this study are located both on the airport site (on-site) and off airport
property (off-site). The employment survey was used to classify the total employment and average wages
paid out by business type. In turn, this data was used to calculate the associated tax impacts
(government revenue) generated by the airports’ operations.

InterVISTAS estimated the indirect and induced effects using the RIMS II model, which is based on 2007
national benchmark input-output data and 2015 regional data. The previous study conducted in 2005 also
used the RIMS II model, with multipliers derived from 2002 benchmark input-output data and 2010
regional data.

To derive estimates of the impact of non-local visitors arriving and departing from the reliever airports,
InterVISTAS consulted with the FBOs operating at each of the airports and further corroborated the
findings with MAC.

Wherever possible, the results of this study were validated and measured against recognized and reliable
external sources.

Estimating Current Economic Impact
Direct employment related to ongoing operations at each of the reliever airports is measured first.
Employment figures are generally more understandable by the public than more abstract measures, such
as economic output or GDP. Employment figures also have the advantage of being a more accurate
measure, both because firms are more likely to provide data on employment rather than information on
revenues, earnings, and other monetary amounts, and because there is less chance of double counting
economic activity.

The study team then assessed the indirect and induced (or “multiplier”) employment supported by each
airport’s operations, as well as economic activity in terms of economic output and GDP using economic
multipliers. The tax revenues generated annually by operations at each airport are also estimated.

Surveying Direct Employment
To quantify the total amount of employment attributable to ongoing operations at each of the reliever
airports, the project team began by surveying tenants and employers located at the airports. The team
followed up with firms and organizations that had not responded to the emailed survey via telephone and
email to encourage them to submit information. In total, 70% of the businesses and organizations
contacted responded to the survey, representing roughly 86% of total person years of employment
covered by the survey. In total, 51 survey responses were received from on-site tenants.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 47

Inferring Employment
For non-responding firms, the project estimated the amount of employment by company using a proven
and accepted methodology. At commercial service airports which are under security requirements
established by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, airport operators must require employees
of tenant firms/organizations who work at the reliever airport to obtain security badges allowing them to
work on the airport properties. This TSA requirement is not applicable to the reliever airports, so the team
was not able to estimate total employment based on the number of badges issued. Instead, the team
generated inferred amounts of employment for non-responding firms based on a combination of internet
research as well as statistical estimates based on responses from similar firms that did submit a survey.
The team provided those estimates to the MAC staff with responsibility for and knowledge of operations
at each of the airport for their review. The team also referenced the survey results of similar firms and
examined information from other credible external sources like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

There may be firms located off-airport that were not surveyed because their relationships to airport-
related industries were not known. An estimate of employment for these non-surveyed firms was not
provided because there was no basis for an assessment. If there were any omissions, it is expected that
the volume of missed employment would be minimal.

Estimating Indirect and Induced Impacts with Economic
Multipliers
Measurement of indirect and induced economic activity is difficult. While it may be possible to conduct a
survey of downstream employers, the survey would need to cover thousands of firms in order to
completely cover indirect employment. For induced employment, the entire economy would need to be
scrutinized. In addition to the time and financial resources needed to conduct such surveys, the quality of
responses would be suspect.

As an alternative to costly and inaccurate surveys, indirect and induced effects are typically measured
using economic multipliers. Multipliers are derived from models of the general economy. They come in a
variety of forms and differ greatly in definition and application.

InterVISTAS purchased the multipliers used for this study from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA). Those multipliers are based on BEA’s most recent Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS
II). RIMS II is based on a highly detailed accounting of national and regional economic structures or
relationships. The model tracks how the goods and services produced by one industry are used by other
industries and final users. RIMS II adjusts these national relationships to account for regional supply
conditions. This version of the RIMS II model is based on 2007 national benchmark input-output data and
2015 regional data.

The specific multipliers selected for this study model the economy of the seven-county core metro area —
Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington counties. This region – rather than
other potential geographic areas, such as the entire State of Minnesota — was selected based on the
concentration of airport- and airline-related employers in the area, the economic relationship among those
firms and organizations, and the residency of the vast majority of employees.

InterVISTAS acknowledges that the use of multiplier analysis – and indeed any econometric model — is
inevitably subject to certain theoretical and practical constraints and limitations. These include:

• the accuracy of the structure and parameters of the underlying model;
• the level of unemployment in the economy;

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 48

• the assumption of constant returns to scale in production;
• the assumption that the economy’s structure is static over time; and
• the assumption that there are no displacement effects.

That said, the project team believes that the use of this model in entirely consistent with recognized and
common professional economic impact modeling.

Study Time Frame
The employment survey was conducted between October 2017 and January 2018. The results reflect
employment for calendar year 2016.

Jobs versus Person Years of Employment
Traditionally, employment is measured by the number of jobs. However, when part-time and/or seasonal
workers are used, this can be a misleading measure resulting in an overstatement of economic impact.
Whenever possible, employment impacts are measured both in terms of the number of jobs and the
number person-years of employment, often referred to as “full-time equivalents” (or FTEs).11 We convert
hours worked by part-time and/or seasonal employees into FTEs.

Visitor Spending Analysis
Visitors who fly into the reliever airports contribute to the local, regional, and state-wide economic impacts
in ways similar to passengers who arrive via Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The project team
developed estimates of the amount and type of spending who arrived at the reliever airports using
multiple approaches.

Estimating the Number of Non-Local Visitors
Verifiable data are not available on the number of people who arrive at an airport on general aviation
aircraft. However, there are relatively reliable data on the number of aircraft operations that occur at each
airport, and whether those operations were “local” or “itinerant.” (An operation refers to a take-off or
landing; total operations count both.) The MAC maintains data on total operations at each airport. The
FAA also maintains data on operations at most airports in the U.S. (including the six reliever airports).
The FAA’s data includes estimates on the number of operations that are local versus itinerant. With
these data, the team estimated the number of itinerant aircraft operations at each airport.

The project team interviewed the FBO managers at most of the airports to develop information on the
number of persons on-board each itinerant operation. Based on the data reported by those staff, the
team estimated the total number of visitors who arrived in the region at each airport.

Estimating Average Spending per Visitor
First, the team asked each manager of the airport or the local FBO to report some basic metrics about
aircraft operations at their facilities, and estimates of visitors and their spending. Airport managers were
asked to estimate:

11 One person year is equivalent to 1,800 hours of work. Person years are the same as FTEs.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 49

• The percentage of their operations that were local vs. transient;
• Average number of persons on board, including the pilots;
• The percentage of visitors who used local ground transportation (e.g., rental cars, car services);
• Average catering purchases by visiting aircraft;
• Average length of stay for visitors; and
• Whether the FBO had any relationships with local hotels.

The project team used these data to generate estimates of the total number of visitors who arrived at
each airport, the average length of stay, and spending by those visitors.

Discussions with these staff also provided insight into the nature of the travellers who used each airport –
that is, whether the persons on board tended to be traveling for business or personal/leisure reasons.
Generally speaking, aircraft activity at St. Paul Downtown tends mostly to be corporate/business aviation.
Flying Cloud Airport also supports a high percentage of corporate and business traffic, as does Anoka-
Blaine County. Airlake, Crystal, and Lake Elmo airports generally are more oriented toward recreational
and leisure flying.

In general, business travellers tend to spend more per person per day than leisure travellers. Higher
concentrations of corporate and business flying are thus associated with higher amounts of spending.

To gauge the reasonableness of the estimates, the project team compared against multiple other
estimates:

 In 2017, InterVISTAS Consulting issued an analysis of the total economic impact of the
operations of MSP, which included estimates of the average amount spent by different categories
of visitors, including those who arrive by GA.

 The prior (2005) economic impact analysis of the reliever airports included estimates of the
average amount spent by visitors to each of the reliever airports. Those estimates were based
originally on data from Greater Minneapolis Convention and Visitors Bureau and from the
Minnesota Office of Tourism.

 Other estimates of the average spending by visitors who arrive at GA airports in other areas. For
example, InterVISTAS generated estimates of average spending by GA travellers who arrived at
GA airports in Virginia in 2017. Similarly, in January 2018, the Allegheny County Airport Authority
released a study from another consulting firm that estimated the average amount spent by GA
travellers who used both Pittsburgh International Airport and the nearby Allegheny County (GA)
Airport.12

The combination of passenger spending profiles and the calculation of non-local visitors were used to
develop the estimate of total visitor spending for 2016. The final results are provided in Table I-1.

12 As of the writing of this report, the Commonwealth of Virginia has not released the technical report that
describes the visitor impact at Virginia’s 66 public use airports. For information on the amount spent by
visitors who use the Allegheny Airport Authority’s airports, see
http://www.flypittsburgh.com/newsroom/economic-impact

http://www.flypittsburgh.com/newsroom/economic-impact

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 50

Table I-1: Summary of Trip Characteristics of Non-Local Visitors Using Reliever Airports

Airport Number of
Visitors

Average Expenditure
per Visitor / Day ($)

Total Visitor
Spending ($000)

Airlake 22,300 $121 $2,819

Anoka County-Blaine 73,700 $116 $8,581

Crystal 19,740 $120 $2,378

Flying Cloud 115,720 $159 $18,437

Lake Elmo 10,130 $108 $1,098

St. Paul Downtown 89,920 $168 $15,077

Total* 332,500 $146 $48,390
Note: Total average (mean) expenditure per visitor is calculated by dividing the total visitor expenditure amount by the total number
of visitors that passed through the airports in 2016. Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Tax Impact Analysis
Direct employment figures related to the operations of the reliever airports were entered into the IMPLAN
model to generate the resulting federal, state, and local government tax impacts. No indirect or induced
impacts (multiplier effects) were considered as part of the tax analysis.

Tax revenue contributions are divided into the following groupings:

• Taxes Related to Employee Compensation. This category includes the federal, state, and local
impacts of Social Insurance taxes paid by employers and employees at the airports. It contains
the tax impacts generated by retirement plans, temporary disability insurance, and workers’
compensation payments. These taxes contribute largely to federal government streams; however,
smaller contributions are made to state and local governments as well.

• Taxes Related to Household Income. This category contains the personal tax impacts
generated by households related to the airports. The federal impacts include all applicable
personal income tax payments. The state and local impacts contain personal income tax
payments, fines and fee charges, motor vehicles licensing fees, property taxes, and other
applicable taxes. The federal government receives over two-thirds of the tax impacts in this
category, while state and local governments share the remaining third.

• Other Taxes and Fees. These relate to a taxes and fees that are paid by corporations to the
local, state and federal levels of government.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 51

Glossary of Terms
Contract Work: Any work which is done for a company by an individual who is not on the payroll or work
done for a company by another company. Generally speaking, firms will contract out work in areas in
which they do not have expertise or when there are cost advantages to doing so.

Direct Employment: Direct employment is employment that can be directly attributable to the operations
in an industry, firm, etc. It is literally a head count of those people who work in a sector of the economy. In
the case of the airport, all of those people who work in an aviation related capacity would be considered
direct employment.

Economic Activity: (also Output, Production) The end product of transforming inputs into goods. The
end product does not necessarily have to be a tangible good (for example, knowledge), nor does it have
to create utility (for example, pollution). Or, more generally, the process of transforming the factors of
production into goods and services desired for consumption.

Economic Output: (also Economic Activity, Production) The end product of transforming inputs into
goods. The end product does not necessarily have to be a tangible good (for example, knowledge), nor
does it have to create utility (for example, pollution). Or, more generally, it is defined as the process of
transforming the factors of production into goods and services desired for consumption.

Employment Impact: Employment impact analysis determines the economic impact of employment in
terms of jobs created and salaries and wages paid out. In the case of the airport, the direct, indirect,
induced and total number of jobs or person years created at the airport is examined to produce a
snapshot of airport operations.

Fixed-Base Operator (FBO): An organization granted the right by an airport to operate at the airport and
provide aeronautical services such as fueling, hangaring, tie-down and parking, aircraft rental, aircraft
maintenance, flight instruction, and similar services.

Full Time Equivalent (FTE): (also Person Year) One full time equivalent (FTE) year of employment is
equivalent to the number of hours that an individual would work on a full-time basis for one year. In this
study we have calculated one full time equivalent year to be equivalent to 1,800 hours. Full time
equivalent years are useful because part time and seasonal workers do not account for one full time job.

General Aviation (GA): Refers to all segments of aircraft activity that are not related to the commercial
airlines or the military. GA is often divided into two broad categories: leisure or recreational flying and
business aviation.

Gross Domestic Product: (GDP, also value-added) A measure of the money value of final goods and
services produced as a result of economic activity in the nation. This measure is net of the value of
intermediate goods and services used up to produce the final goods and services.

Ground Transportation: Ground Transportation at the airport includes any vehicles which transport
passengers from the airport to the cities or from the cities to the airport. This would include taxicab
service, limousine service and hotel van service. Transportation network companies such as Uber or Lyft
are also included in this category. Valet services as well as skycaps are included in this category.

Indirect Employment: Indirect employment is employment which results because of direct employment.
For the airport, it would include that portion of employment in supplier industries which are dependent on
sales to the air transport sector. In some cases, contract work would be considered indirect employment.

Metropolitan Airports Commission – 2017 Reliever Airport System Economic Impact Study 52

Induced Employment: Induced employment is employment created because of expenditures by direct
and indirect employees.

Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO): Generally, a company whose primary mission involves
fixing any sort of mechanical, plumbing, or electrical device should it become out of order. In the aircraft
maintenance market sector, MRO services also include inspection, rebuilding, alteration and the supply of
spare parts, accessories, raw materials, adhesives, sealants, coatings and consumables for aircraft
manufacturing.

Multiplier Analysis: Analysis using economic multipliers in which indirect and induced economic impacts
is quantified. Essentially, a multiplier number is applied to the “directly traceable economic impact” to
produce indirect and total effects (see Multiplier.)

Multiplier: Economic multipliers are used to infer indirect and induced effects from a particular sector of
the economy. They come in a variety of forms and differ in definition and application. A multiplier is a
number which would be multiplied by direct effects in order to calculate indirect or induced effects. In the
case of the airport, as in many other cases, multipliers can lead to illusory results, and thus must be used
with great care.

Tenant: A firm which pays a lease to a leasing company or to the airport authority directly.

Value-Added: (also GDP) A measure of the money value of final goods and services produced as a
result of economic activity in the nation. This measure is net of the value of intermediate goods and
services used up to produce the final goods and service.

Prepared by

InterVISTAS Consulting Inc.
1150 Conn. Ave., NW

Suite 601
Washington, DC 20036

Telephone: +1-202-688-2220

www.intervistas.com

1 Introduction and Background

The Greater Minneapolis-St. Paul Region

General Aviation is a Substantial Economic Contributor

GA Activity Has Been Declining Nationally

The MAC Reliever Airport System

Airlake Airport

Anoka County-Blaine Airport

Crystal Airport

Flying Cloud Airport

Lake Elmo Airport

St. Paul Downtown Airport

Economic Impact Defined

Contributions to Local Governments from Airport Operations

Overview of Methodology

2 Economic Impact of Airlake Airport

Direct Impacts

Multiplier Impacts

Total Operational Impacts

Visitor Impacts

Consolidated Impacts

Tax Contributions from Airlake Airport

3 Economic Impact of Anoka County-Blaine Airport

Direct Impacts

Multiplier Impacts

Total Operational Impacts

Visitor Impacts

Consolidated Impacts

Tax Contributions from Anoka County – Blaine Airport

4 Economic Impact of Crystal Airport

Direct Impacts

Multiplier Impacts

Total Operational Impacts

Visitor Impacts

Consolidated Impacts

Tax Contributions from Crystal Airport

5 Economic Impact of Flying Cloud Airport

Direct Impacts

Multiplier Impacts

Total Operational Impacts

Visitor Impacts

Consolidated Impacts

Tax Contributions from Flying Cloud Airport

6 Economic Impact of Lake Elmo Airport

Direct Impacts

Multiplier Impacts

Total Operational Impacts

Visitor Impacts

Consolidated Impacts

Tax Contributions from Lake Elmo Airport

7 Economic Impact of St. Paul Downtown Airport

Direct Impacts

Multiplier Impacts

Total Operational Impacts

Visitor Impacts

Consolidated Impacts

Tax Contributions from St. Paul Downtown Airport

8 Summary of Economic Impact Results

Operational Economic Impacts

Economic Impacts from Visitor Spending

Consolidated Economic Impact of the Reliever Airports

Tax Revenue Impacts

9 Comparison of 2004 and 2016 Economic Impacts

Comment on Changes over Time

Appendix: Methodology

Estimating Current Economic Impact

Surveying Direct Employment

Inferring Employment

Estimating Indirect and Induced Impacts with Economic Multipliers

Study Time Frame

Jobs versus Person Years of Employment

Visitor Spending Analysis

Estimating the Number of Non-Local Visitors

Estimating Average Spending per Visitor

Tax Impact Analysis

Glossary of Terms

Regional perspectives on general aviation and reliever airports:
A case study of the Phoenix metropolitan area

Tony H. Grubesic1, Kurt Fuellhart2, Fangwu Wei3, Kevin O’Connor4

1 Center for Spatial Reasoning & Policy Analytics, College of Public Service & Community Solutions, Arizona State
University, Phoenix, AZ, USA (e-mail: grubesic@asu.edu)
2 Department of Geography &Earth Science, Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, PA, USA
(e-mail: kgfuel@ship.edu)
3 School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
(e-mail: fangwu.wei@asu.edu)
4 Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, Parkville,
Australia (e-mail: kevin.oconnor@unimelb.edu.au)

Received: 12 April 2017 / Accepted: 7 June 2017

Abstract. Reliever airports hold a special place within the National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems (NPIAS) in the United States. Established in the 1960s, the purpose of reliever airports
was to draw general aviation traffic away from congested primary airports located in larger met-
ropolitan areas. In time, many of these airports evolved from simply relieving local air traffic
congestion to functioning as both operational and economic hubs for the communities they
serve. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the development of the reliever airport network
in the United States and to explore their role (existing or potential) in the larger air transport sys-
tem, as well as the associated regions that they serve. Specifically, a case study of the Phoenix
Arizona metropolitan area and its reliever network is conducted. The results suggest that
although many relievers are destined for their original purpose, others may have the opportunity
to diversify their form and function.

JEL classification: L93, R58, O21

Key words: Air transportation, regional development policy, planning models

1 Introduction

The national air transportation system in the United States is large and complex. Of the 3,340
airports identified in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), 382 are consid-
ered primary airports by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (FAA 2016c). This group
includes all large, medium, small and non-hub facilities. FAA designated large hubs (e.g., ATL)
handle 1 per cent or more passenger enplanements, medium hubs (e.g., STL) 0.25–1 per cent,
small hubs (e.g., TUS) 0.05–0.25 per cent and non-hubs (e.g., MFR) enplane at least 10,000
(but less than 0.05%) of all US passengers per year. To put these numbers in perspective,

doi:10.1111/rsp3.12091

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

FAA large hubs (n = 31) handled 580,568,021 passenger enplanements (i.e., 72.7%) of the na-
tion’s passengers in 2015 (FAA 2016a).

The airports detailed above are those that most people are familiar with – functional gate-
ways served by commercial carriers. However, there are 2,950 additional facilities in the
United States that are classified as non-primary airports, which consist of general aviation
(GA) (n = 2,564), non-primary commercial service (n = 127) and reliever airports (n = 259).
As detailed by the FAA (2016a), general aviation airports do not receive any commercial service
(or not enough to satisfy the NPIAS criteria), but do serve as the closest source of air transpor-
tation for about 19 per cent of the population, including many rural areas. General aviation air-
ports also support a range of critical functions for local communities, including flight training
and law enforcement operations (FAA 2015b). That said, a small group of non-primary com-
mercial service airports (n = 127) offer scheduled passenger service at low volumes (2,500 to
9,999 passengers per year). For example, during 2015, the airport in Bar Harbor, Maine
(BHB) handled 9,579 passengers, while the Purdue University airport in Lafayette, Indiana
handled 2,504 passengers.

The remaining non-primary airports are classified as relievers and provide functionality
somewhere between a general aviation and non-primary commercial gateway. For example,
the operation requirements for smaller, general aviation aircraft are drastically different than
those for larger commercial jets. As a result, general aviation pilots often have difficulty
accessing and operating their aircraft in urban areas, especially at primary airports where the dif-
ferentials in aircraft size and speed and can cause problems (FAA 2015b). Thus, in an effort to
provide broader access to the national airspace, the FAA has developed a network of reliever
airports in/around metropolitan areas. To obtain reliever status, an airport must provide general
aviation access to the surrounding area, have 100 or more based aircraft or have 25,000 annual
itinerant operations.1 To reiterate, contrary to the nomenclature, most airports that are desig-
nated as relievers serve their own economic and operational role and do not exist to relieve com-
mercial jet congestion at another primary airport. However some reliever airports have the
capacity to provide this function. It is this fact that makes them both interesting and highly rel-
evant to their local communities, as well as the future of the national air transportation plan.

Specifically, reliever airports are important for several reasons. First, as will be detailed later,
they have substantial regional economic implications, contributing millions to local economies
every year. Second, and relatedly, relievers facilitate the general aviation industry, which sup-
ports $219 billion in total economic output and 1.1 million total jobs in the United States
(GAMA 2015). Third, relievers have a potential role in the development of future commercial
air transport, especially in communities where existing primary airports are heavily congested.
Fourth, reliever airports can present significant land use conflicts for communities, where noise
and related development concerns can become contentious issues. Lastly, it is important to re-
member that most reliever airports were sited decades ago. So, like many infrastructure systems,
reliever airports reflect a legacy of community priorities and investments, but their geographic
positioning is important to consider and/or reconsider given the massive growth that many urban
areas have experienced over the past several decades.

Given this context, the purpose of this paper is to highlight the development of the reliever
airport network in the United States and to explore the role of relievers (existing or potential) in
the larger air transport system, as well as the associated regions that they serve. Specifically, a
case study of the Phoenix Arizona metropolitan area and its reliever network is conducted.
The results suggest that although many relievers are destined for their original purpose, others
may have the opportunity to diversify their form and function, greatly expanding and enhancing

1 Itinerant operations are operations performed by an aircraft, either Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), Special Visual
Flight Rules (SVFR) or Visual Flight Rules (VFR), that lands at an airport, arriving from outside the airport area,
or departs an airport and leaves the airport area (FAA 2014).

T.H. Grubesic et al.102

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

their role in the local metropolitan fabric. It is also important to note that research on general
aviation in the United States, in any form, is sparse – especially in the regional science and/or
transport geography literature. Aside from some basic work on general aviation crashes (Baker
and Lamb 1989; Kearney and Li 2000; Grabowski et al. 2002), and an early effort to evaluate
the employment impacts of reliever airports (NewMyer 1983; NewMyer et al. 2007), we are
not aware of any work concerning the regional implications of general aviation in the US.
Again, considering that the general aviation industry supports $219 billion in total economic
output and 1.1 million total jobs in the United States (GAMA 2016), this is a huge oversite.
In an effort to mitigate this gap, a secondary purpose of this paper is to develop a foundation
for future research concerning general aviation and its importance to communities and their as-
sociated regions. However, because this work is structured as an overview and case study for
Phoenix, the small sample size (n = 6) prevents us from developing an inferential framework
that explains local drivers for all general aviation activity. We view this as a strength, rather than
a limitation as it allows us to highlight the many economic, operational and spatial subtleties that
permeate the reliever airport network in the United States, and Phoenix, Arizona in particular.

2 General aviation

In order to understand reliever airports, it is necessary to explore the many facets of general avi-
ation operations in the United States. In brief, general aviation fills the gaps left behind by
scheduled commercial airline service. Each year, the FAA conducts a general aviation survey
and categorizes the uses of general aviation aircraft as follows:

• personal and recreational flying;
• business transportation without a paid crew;
• business transportation with a paid, professional crew;
• instructional flying;
• sight-seeing (i.e., commercial sight-seeing operations under FAR Part 91); and2

• air taxi, air tours and air-medical operations (i.e., on-demand FAR Part 135).3

It is remarkable to note that the bulk of yearly aircraft operations in the United States (~75%)
fall within the bounds of general aviation. These are little planes moving in/out of little airports.
As detailed above, this includes the use of corporate jets, medical evacuation helicopters and
airplanes owned by small businesses and/or individuals. To be clear, this also includes general
aviation for agricultural functions, law enforcement and border control, fire suppression, time-
sensitive air cargo services (e.g., organ donation) and a range of other important civil and
municipal functions. Clearly, the scale and scope of general aviation activity is significant in
the United States. Of the 268, 443 registered GA aircraft in the United States 204,408 (77.9%)
were active in 2014, flying more than 23.2 million hours (GAMA 2016). GAMA (2016) is also
projecting a 1.4 per cent growth in GA hours flown in the US. (2014–2035), but this projected
growth runs counter to other trends that indicate some softening within the GA industry. For
example, the number of registered pilots in the United States has steadily decreased since
1980, falling from 827,071 to 590,038 in 2015, a decline of more than 33 per cent (GAMA 2016).

In 2012, the FAA developed a basic typology of general aviation airports to better delineate
their local, regional and national functions (FAA 2012):

2 For more details on Part 91, see: http://tinyurl.com/z9ewsz4.
3 For more details on Part 135, see: http://tinyurl.com/jt6vmmq.

Regional perspectives on general aviation 103

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

http://tinyurl.com/z9ewsz4

http://tinyurl.com/jt6vmmq

• National: supports the national and state system by providing communities with access to na-
tional and international markets in multiple states and throughout the United States;

• Regional: supports regional economies by connecting communities to statewide and interstate
markets;

• Local: supplements local communities by providing access primarily to intrastate and some
interstate markets;

• Basic: supports general aviation activities such as emergency service, charter or critical pas-
senger service, cargo operations, flight training and personal flying.

• Unclassified: airports with limited activity and eight or fewer based aircraft.

Each category for GA airports is associated with several criteria that help determine mem-
berships.4 For example, to be classified as a regional general aviation airport, the facility must
be located in a census designated micropolitan or metropolitan area, have 10 or more annual do-
mestic instrument flight rule (IFR) flights over 500 miles, 1,000 or more IFR departures and one
based jet or 100 or more based aircraft.

Roberts Field (RDM), located in Redmond, Oregon is a good example of this category.
RDM is the primary commercial airport for Central Oregon, serving as the local air gateway
for nearby communities such as Bend, Prineville and Madras. Currently, RDM is served by four
commercial carriers, including Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, United Airlines and Delta
Airlines. Non-stop destinations include Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Salt Lake City,
Denver, Seattle and Portland. As of 2015, 68 aircraft are based at RDM, 55 of which are single
engine, nine are multi-engine, three are jets and one is a helicopter (AirNav 2016). RDM aver-
aged 125 operations per day in 2015, 48 per cent of which were local general aviation, 25 per
cent transient general aviation, 15 per cent air taxi, 10 per cent commercial and 2 per cent mil-
itary (AirNav 2016). Interestingly, one of the major general aviation functions at RDM is its use
as a base for regional firefighting efforts. The United States Forest Service (USFS) Redmond Air
Center is located at the airport, providing support for firefighting operations, training and hous-
ing for smokejumper teams (USFS 2016).

2.1 Reliever airports, secondary airports and multi-airport regions

2.1.1 Multi-airport regions (MARs) and secondary airports

Given the sheer number of airports recognized by the NPIAS in the United States, it should not
be surprising that most metropolitan areas are home to more than one airport. However, local
context is important when attaching the term multi-airport region to commercial air transport
markets. As outlined by De Neufville (1995) multiple airport regions correspond to metropolitan
markets and/or regions that have more than one commercial gateway option for travelers. Again,
this subset of facilities consists of 382 primary airports, or about 11.5 per cent of all NPIAS
airports in the US.

Within the broader context of MARs it is important to delineate the differences between core
airports and secondary airports. To be clear, reliever airports should not be confused with, nor
do they correspond to ‘secondary’ airports in multi-airport regions (MARs) (De Neufville
1995; Loo 2008; O’Connor and Fuellhart 2016). Secondary airports are commercial gateways
that have emerged near heavily congested core airports. These gateways are often served by
low-cost carriers (LCCs) (e.g., Southwest, JetBlue, Frontier, etc.) and their geographic location
typically caters to densely populated secondary cities or suburban population centers located

4 Space limitations prevent us from detailing the requisite characteristics for all of these categories, but interested
readers can consult the FAA (2012) report, General Aviation Airports: A National Asset, for more information.

T.H. Grubesic et al.104

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

near major cities (Bonnefoy and Hansman 2005). In short, secondary airports are the ‘multi’ part
of the MAR system.

For example, consider the Tampa, Florida region, which includes three primary airports –
Tampa International (TPA), St. Petersburg/Clearwater International (PIE) and Sarasota/
Bradenton (SRQ). TPA is considered the ‘core’ airport in the region, maintaining an 86.7 per cent
market share of passenger traffic within the MAR during 2015 (BTS 2016a). Accordingly, PIE
and SRQ are classified as secondary airports for the region, maintaining a 7.52 per cent and
5.77 per cent market share of passenger traffic, respectively. These are not the only airports in
the region, however. There are five reliever airports within 35 miles of Tampa (CLW, SPG,
TPF, VDF and LAL), but none of these airports factor into the MAR designation, nor are they
considered ‘secondary’ airports.5 Interestingly, the Lakeland Linder Regional airport (LAL), lo-
cated near Lakeland, FL is a NPIAS designated reliever airport, but it currently holds a Part 139
operating certificate from the FAA (2016b), which allows for scheduled air carrier operations
with aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats, but less than 31 seats. In fact, as recently
as 2012, Direct Air offered service to Myrtle Beach, SC, Niagara Falls, NY and Springfield, IL –
anticipating that LAL would become a hub for tourist traffic to the area (Chambliss 2011) – but
scheduled services ceased in March of that year and LAL resumed its status as a reliever.

In other MARs, such as Washington, DC, multiple core airports may exist without any sec-
ondary gateways. For example, Baltimore (BWI), Dulles (IAD) and Reagan National (DCA) are
all considered core airports, because their share of passenger traffic within the region is rela-
tively equal. BWI processed 35.02 per cent of all traffic in the region for 2015, while DCA
and IAD processed 32.77 per cent and 31.7 per cent, respectively (BTS 2016a). In the case of
Washington, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) denotes the region (and all
three component airports) as ‘WAS’, although as noted by O’Connor and Fuellhart (2016),
the use of these codes for MARs are not applied consistently on a global basis.

2.1.2 Reliever airports

The concept for reliever airports was developed in 1962 in an effort to more fully integrate gen-
eral aviation activity into the fabric of metropolitan areas (FAA 2012). Again, the basic idea was
that smaller planes and commercial jets did not mix particularly well when simultaneously
operating at larger commercial airports. Reliever airports provided smaller aircraft alternative
gateways for accessing metropolitan airspace without interfering with larger commercial opera-
tions at large or medium hubs. By 1968, 147 reliever airports were active in/around the 22
largest commercial airports in the United States. In time, the network of relievers expanded as
new reliever airport standards were established in 2000 (FAA 2000). Specifically, general
aviation airports could be included in the NPIAS and granted reliever status if the following
criteria are met (FAA 2000):

1. The airport currently (or is forecasted) to have at least 100 based aircraft or 25,000 annual
itinerant operations,

2. The relieved airport serves a metropolitan area with a population of at least 250,000 or
enplanes 250,000 passengers annually.

3. The relieved airport operates at 60 per cent or more of its capacity, or would be operated at
such a level before being relieved, or is subject to restrictions that limit activity that would
otherwise reach 60 per cent of capacity.

5 Clearwater Air Park (CLW) is located in Clearwater, FL, Albert Whitted Airport (SPG) is located in St. Petersburg,
FL, Peter O. Knight Airport (TPF) is located on Davis Islands, FL, the Tampa Executive Airport (VDF) is located six
miles east of the Tampa central business district in an unincorporated portion of Hillsborough County and the Lakeland
Linder Regional Airport is located in Polk County, FL.

Regional perspectives on general aviation 105

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

4. Privately owned airports that were already designated as relievers (but did not meet these
newly established criteria) could be grandfathered into the system and maintain reliever sta-
tus for 10 years. If these airports did not meet the new criteria within that timeframe, they
were to be deleted from the NPIAS.

Today, the FAA recognizes relievers using their established typology of non-primary air-
ports detailed above. This includes 65 relievers within the national category, 151 classified as
regional, and a handful of other reliever airports that are considered local (n = 20), basic
(n = 1) or unclassified (n = 22) (Figure 1). The spatial distribution of the airports is not unex-
pected. Figure 1 illustrates that relievers are clustered in metropolitan areas (e.g., Dallas/Fort
Worth, Los Angeles, Chicago), but there are standalone relievers, including those near Albu-
querque, NM, Boise, ID, Spokane, WA, Des Moines, IA, Omaha, NE and many other smaller
metropolitan areas in the US.

Reliever airports in the United States are diverse in both size and function. Consider, for ex-
ample, Phoenix Deer Valley Airport (DVT). DVT is a national airport that is home to 881 fixed
wing aircraft (single engine, multi-engine and jets). During 2015, DVT had 379,616 tower op-
erations, which includes both general aviation, commercial and military activity (GAMA 2016).
In fact, DVT is so active, that as recently as 2010 it ranked as the 25th busiest airport in the
world for aircraft movements (368,737 total), ahead of Salt Lake City (SLC), New York
LaGuardia (LGA), Boston (BOS) and many others (ACI 2010). Conversely, consider the St.
Clair County Airport (PLR), located near Pell City, Alabama, which serves as a reliever for
Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport (BHM). PLR is a non-primary local airport
that houses 84 fixed wing aircraft and had 34,572 operations during 2015 (GCR 2016). In terms

Fig. 1. Reliever airports in the United States, by Type, 2015

T.H. Grubesic et al.106

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

of operations, DVT is more than 165 per cent larger than PLR. So, while they are both consid-
ered relievers, the scale of operations between the two airports is enormous. For example, DVT
covers 914 acres, has two asphalt runways, hosts two flight schools (Westwind School of Aero-
nautics and TransPac Aviation Academy) and a charter airline (Westwind Air Service) (DVT
Airport 2016). Conversely, PLR covers 200 acres, has a single asphalt runway and is home to
Holder Aviation, an avionics repair and installation company (PLR Airport 2016).

3 Reliever airport development

Clearly, general aviation plays an important role in the United States and reliever airports serve
as the most significant locations of general aviation functions. Given the recent growth in both
global and US domestic airport traffic, it is important to explore opportunities for leveraging key
air transportation assets, including reliever airports, when considering strategies for expansion
of the commercial air transport system. For example, IATA expects global air traffic for 2016
to increase 5.4 per cent to 3.7 billion passengers (3.5 billion in 2015) and it is expected to double
by 2034 (IATA 2016b). To put this in perspective, for 2016, about 9.8 million passengers flew
each day – 5.83 million international and 3.97 million domestic passengers (IATA 2016a).
Although much of the projected growth will occur in developing markets (e.g., Asia and the
Middle East), mature markets, such as North America, are also anticipating growth. For
example, IATA (2016b) analysis suggests that North America will grow 3.3 per cent annually
and carry a total of 1.4 billion passengers (an increase of 649 million) by 2034. Considering that
only 78 per cent of flights departed on time at airports such as SFO, JFK, LAX, FLL, ORD,
LGA, EWR and MIA between January and October of 2016 (BTS 2016b), and that only
78 per cent or less of scheduled flights arrived on-time to BOS, MIA, FLL, LAX, JFK, EWR,
SFO and LGA (71.50%) during that same period, congestion delays at existing commercial
hubs will continue to increase (Ruud 2015).

Given these projections in traffic growth and the existing air traffic delays at many of the
most important hubs in the United States, do reliever airports provide an opportunity to amelio-
rate congestion and expand/enhance commercial operations in the United States? Answering
this seemingly simple question is fraught with complications, including economic, planning, op-
erational, and environmental challenges. In addition, it is recognized that airport capacity, con-
gestion, demand and performance, for both passengers and freight, comingle in diverse ways.
For interested readers, the literature offers a thorough exploration of these interactions
(Hamzawi 1992; Gillen and Lall 1997; Slack 1999; Forsyth 2007). Here, we are asking two in-
terrelated questions. First, can reliever airports shift from just serving general aviation to a rising
share of commercial traffic in a growing global, national or regional market? If so, how and
where? Second, are there alternative development trajectories, not necessarily involving com-
mercial operations, that could spur local and regional economic development? If so, how and
where?

3.1 At least two paths

It is important to acknowledge that there is significant debate surrounding reliever airport devel-
opment throughout the United States. In this context, development could include additional
charter and corporate/business jet traffic along with larger scale passenger operations. That de-
bate has negative and positive dimensions. The negative dimension queries whether a reliever
airport should be developed to accommodate larger volumes of traffic at all. It is well expressed
in the controversy surrounding a proposal for an $11.5 million runway expansion to accommo-
date more business travel at the Lake Elmo, MN airport (21D), which serves as a reliever for

Regional perspectives on general aviation 107

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP (Divine 2015). However, residents in/around Lake
Elmo have expressed strong displeasure with the proposed expansion citing the potential for
more noise from increased activity at the airport and an encroachment of the airport facility
on valued open-space (Divine 2015). Ultimately, the proposed runway expansion was short-
ened, but only by 100 feet (3,600 ft. to 3,500 ft.) (Divine 2016). Similar opinions were
expressed when a proposal to expand the Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) in Eden Prairie, Minne-
sota, also a reliever for (MSP). Again, community groups were concerned about the potential for
additional noise in the community that a larger FCM would generate (Blake 2008). Regardless,
plans for expanding FCM are moving ahead.

The positive dimension of this debate centres on the benefits that are expected to flow from
the role of a local airport as an economic hub (Weisbrod et al. 1993). It expresses the potential
economic impact, not only directly via the additional traffic, but also from aviation support in-
dustries or businesses that rely on the logistical advantages attracted by the additional traffic
(MASC 2016). Analyses of the local impact of an airport have been carried out and although
returns vary, it is suggested that for every dollar invested in an airport, the associated economic
benefit exceeds $2 (MASC 2016). This is confirmed by research carried out on the total eco-
nomic impacts of commercial airports in each of the US states in 2013 by CDM Smith
(2014). That showed the 19 commercial airports in the state of Florida, for example, generated
over 1.1 million jobs, and had a payroll approaching $38 billion and an economic output of
$143.5 billion. In Arizona, the numbers were smaller, but still considerable. Specifically, the
11 commercial airports generated 324,000 jobs with a payroll exceeding $14 billion and an eco-
nomic output of $43.3 billion. In sum, the total economic output tied to commercial airports in
the U.S. for 2013 was $1.1 trillion, approximately 7 per cent of the total gross domestic product
that year (CDM Smith 2014).

Needless to say, reports of these economic returns spur significant interest in airport devel-
opment for smaller communities especially for those that already have existing air transport in-
frastructure such as reliever airports. As an example, in 2000, Stafford County, Virginia, which
is located on the Interstate 95 corridor approximately 35 miles southwest of Washington, DC,
aggressively pursued the construction of a new reliever airport to support economic develop-
ment in the region (Infanger 2000). Unlike many other locales, Stafford County did not have
any existing air transport infrastructure, so the newly established local airport community pur-
chased 550 of land acres at a cost of $9 million (Infanger 2000). Subsequent development of
the airport increased overall costs to $35 million and includes a ~ 5,000 ft. runway. By 2010,
Stafford Regional Airport was contributing $18.2 million to the local economy and actively
serving as a reliever airport for both Dulles International (IAD) and Reagan National (DCA)
in the DC area (SRAA 2014). What makes this an interesting example is that all of the major
local government entities, including Stafford County, Prince William County, the city of
Fredericksburg and many others supported its development and worked collaboratively to
complete the project.

Hence reliever airport development is not a straightforward matter, and opportunities and
outcomes depend on local circumstances and community organization and attitudes to local eco-
nomic development. To illustrate how these issues play out in a metropolitan region, we carry
out an analysis of the reliever airports in the Phoenix metro area.

4 Reliever airports in the Phoenix metropolitan area

With over 1.5 million residents, Phoenix is the most populous city in Arizona and the sixth most
populous in the United States (Census 2015). More broadly, the Phoenix metropolitan area,
which includes numerous suburbs (e.g., Scottsdale, Mesa, Chandler) throughout Maricopa

T.H. Grubesic et al.108

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

and Pinal Counties, has a population of over 4.5 million (Census 2015), making it the twelfth
largest metropolitan area in the United States. Although larger than most, the overall urban
and suburban structure of Phoenix is quite similar to many other large cities found in the Sun-
belt, including Las Vegas, San Antonio, Albuquerque, Sacramento and Austin. The Phoenix
area is also growing rapidly, but the majority of this growth is occurring in the suburbs.
Figure 2 displays population growth from 1990 to 2014 for a range of suburban locales through-
out the metropolitan area. The growth in these suburbs is remarkable. For example, the city of
Chandler had a population of 91,030 in 1990, but as of 2014 had grown to 254,276 (+94.55%).
The city of Surprise grew from 7,207 people in 1990 to 126,275 (+174.4%) in 2014. It is impor-
tant to highlight this suburban growth because reliever airports for the Phoenix area are firmly
embedded within (or nearby) many of these suburbs. Again, Figure 3 highlights reliever loca-
tions, all of which are located in first or second-ring suburbs in the metropolitan area.

The state of Arizona has appreciably strong ties to the aviation industry. The Arizona De-
partment of Transportation (AZDOT 2015) estimates that nearly 16.8 per cent of all employ-
ment in the state is connected to the aviation industry. More importantly, AZDOT (2008)
projects significant growth in aviation activity throughout the state over the next several de-
cades, including massive increases in both enplanements and general aviation operation
(Table 1). This mimics the national and global trends of projected growth highlighted previously
(IATA 2016b). AZDOT (2008) estimated that $9.72 billion in funding would be required to
meet basic infrastructure needs and associated aviation facility expansions to meet this projected
demand in aviation services.

The commercial air transport landscape of Arizona is largely dominated by Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport. During 2015, PHX was the 11th busiest airport in the United
States, enplaning over 21.3 million passengers (FAA 2016a). This is not to say that commercial
activity does not exist elsewhere in Arizona. For example, Tucson International (TUS) enplaned
1,549,253 passengers in 2015, while the Grand Canyon National Park Airport (GCN) enplaned
332,050. Enplanement statistics, however, mask the sheer volume of passengers processed in
hubs like PHX. For example, 44,006,205 passengers made their way through PHX during
2015, setting a new record for the airport (AZ Central 2016). In addition to being a hub city
for American Airlines (which processed 48% of all passengers (~23 million), PHX also serves
as a focus city for Southwest Airlines (which processed 32% of all passengers (~14 million) in
2016 (AZ Central 2016). In sum 20 different commercial airlines operate at PHX, providing
service to over 300 cities in North America and Europe.

In the next subsection, we provide a structured overview of reliever airports in the Phoenix
metropolitan area by grouping them into four functional classifications based on their opera-
tional characteristics as well as their role in the community. It is important to note that these
are not ‘hard’ assignments, many of the detailed airports could easily be grouped in one or more
categories, but for the purposes of this paper, they are assigned to their best fitting group for
2016. As detailed throughout this paper, reliever airports are dynamic entities, as are the com-
munities that they belong to. Thus, the functional classifications of these airports may change
over time.

4.1 Reliever becomes commercial

Phoenix-Mesa Gateway International airport is located in Mesa, Arizona. AZA covers 3,020
acres and maintains three runways. AZA represents the most interesting development in com-
mercial air transport in Arizona over the past decade – emerging as a second commercial airport
in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Phoenix-Mesa Gateway International Airport (IWA or AZA)
is located 20 nautical miles east-southeast east of Phoenix (Figure 3) in the community of Mesa,
AZ. As recently as 2007, AZA was classified as a reliever airport in the NPIAS and had no

Regional perspectives on general aviation 109

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

Fig. 2. Population growth in metropolitan Phoenix suburbs: 1990–2014

T.H. Grubesic et al.110

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

commercial flights. However, in October of that year, Allegiant Airlines began offering service
to a handful of US destinations. In time, both Spirit Airlines and Frontier Airlines also began
offering service from AZA, but the presence of multiple carriers was short-lived. Both Spirit
and Frontier uprooted from AZA and began offering service from PHX instead, with Spirit
Airlines citing higher levels of traveller familiarity with PHX as the reason for leaving (Polletta
and Wang 2013). With the departure of Spirit and Frontier, WestJet Airlines (based in Canada)
began offering service from AZA in 2015 to multiple destinations in Canada.

Fig. 3. Phoenix reliever airport network, 2015

Regional perspectives on general aviation 111

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

The transition of AZA from a reliever airport to a small hub is significant for many reasons.
First, these types of large scale transitions from general aviation/reliever airports to commercial
hubs are rare. As detailed by Poole and Butler (1999), this is not an easy process, even if smaller
regional jets were used for providing the service to relievers. In short, it requires significant
upgrades to the landing aids and associated technology, as well as changes to the regional air
space and air traffic control procedures. AZA managed to make these changes, leveraging a sig-
nificant capital funding effort exceeding $754 million, much of which was eligible for FAA sup-
port (~$400 million) (PhxMesa 2009). Second, the return on this investment has been significant.
AZA has become amassive economic engine for the East Valley andGreater Phoenix region. The
most recent economic impact analysis for AZA suggests a direct impact of $767 million for the
region. In addition, estimates suggest the secondary impacts of AZA exceed $544 million
(ASU 2014). In sum, over $1.3 billion in economic activity is attributable to Phoenix-Mesa Gate-
way, with payrolls exceeding $390 million, as well as adding 10,470 jobs in the region (ASU
2014). Expansion plans for AZA are also underway. For example, in an effort to attract additional
carriers, AZA is offering incentives for new service at levels of at least two roundtrip flights per
week to new markets. Specifically, AZA will provide 24-months of terminal use fee and landing
waivers and $200,000 in marketing assistance (PhxMesa 2017). Further, for providing additional
non-stop service to underserved markets, AZA is offering 12-months of fee waivers and
$100,000 in marketing assistance (PhxMesa 2017). Lastly, AZA is also part of the FAA Phoenix
Metroplex plan which is a large scale effort to improve the efficiency of the airspace in the Phoe-
nix area by optimizing arrivals and departures. The Phoenix Metroplex project includes all of the
reliever airports in Phoenix, as well as Tucson International (TUS) (FAA 2017).

4.2 Relievers as economic growth engines

Phoenix Deer Valley Airport is located in Phoenix Arizona. DVT covers 914 acres and main-
tains two runways. It is the busiest general aviation airport in the country (FAA 2015a), and
likely the world. As detailed in Table 2, DVT had 379,616 tower operations in 2015, but there
is no scheduled commercial service, aside from an occasional charter flight, at DVT. Given the
sheer volume of activity at DVT, Phoenix City Council recently passed a 20-year master
improvement project for the airport. This includes the improvement of existing taxiways, the
addition of new taxiways, upgraded lighting and hangar expansion (CBS 5 2015). In addition,
all of the runways at DVT will be improved. Cutter Aviation, the DVT fixed-base operator,
has also announced plans to build a new, multimillion-dollar facility at the airport (Epstein
2015). Recent estimates suggest that DVT is responsible for direct (on airport) revenues of more
than $32 million, employing 282 people with a payroll of $6.89 million for 2015.

Phoenix Goodyear Airport is located in Goodyear, Arizona. GYR covers 789 acres and
maintains one runway and one helipad. GYR was once known as Litchfield Naval Air Facility
(LNAF) and was used to receive and test aircraft modified for the Navy by the Goodyear Air-
craft Corporation during the Second World War (AZ Central 2014). After the Second World

Table 1. Projected Growth in Aviation Activity for the State of Arizona

2007 2012 2017 2030

Enplanments (including air tours) 23.2 M 25.3 M 29.0 M 41.1 M
Based aircraft 8,043 8,757 9,523 11,892
General aviation operations 3.84 M 4.21 M 4.63 M 5.93 M
Total operations (including military) 4.84 M 5.23 M 5.75 M 7.32 M
Cargo tonnage 0.17 M 0.19 M 0.22 M 0.32 M

Note: M = Million.

T.H. Grubesic et al.112

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

War, the facility shifted the scope of its operations and began serving as a preservation depot for
surplus or antiquated aircraft from the Navy, Marines and Coast Guard (AZ Central 2014).
When the LNAF closed in 1967, it was purchased by the city of Phoenix to serve as a reliever
for Sky Harbor Airport. Because of federal budget cuts in 2013, the FAA threatened to close the
tower at GYR (Jansen 2013), but because of its proximity to Luke Air Force Base, the tower
remained (and remains) operational. As detailed in Figure 2, GYR is located in the second ring
suburb of Goodyear, AZ, which is one of the fastest growing cities in the country (Zetner 2016).
Similar to DVT, there is no scheduled commercial service in/out of GYR, but it is a busy airport,
with 128,377 tower operations in 2016. The bulk of these operations are attributable to the Air-
line Training Center Arizona (ATCA), which trains pilots for both Lufthansa Airlines and the
German air force. In fact, the ATCA programme is so large, it has constructed dormitories for
students at GYR. At one point ATCA and Oxford Aviation Academy (OAA), a second flight
school based at Goodyear, housed nearly 600 students per year. Although Oxford departed
GYR to consolidate training operations at Falcon Field in Mesa, AZ, expansion plans for pilot
training are currently in the works for GYR, with CTC Aviation Group slated to invest $7 mil-
lion to equip and open a training centre at GYR (Madrid 2014). Within three years, CTC plans
on training approximately 200 pilots per year at GYR. The broader plans for GYR includes a
partnership between the Phoenix Aviation Department and the city of Goodyear to create an avi-
ation, defence and technology centre near the airport. A range of local development projects are
in the works, including a $9.7 million corporate jet hangar and facility operated by Lux Air Jet
Centers (Trowbridge 2015). In addition, the city of Goodyear also operates the Gateway South
industrial park which is classified as a foreign trade zone (FTZ). This allows companies to store
and move products within the FTZ, duty free. For example, Estes (2016, p. 1) notes that ‘British
Airways can send orders to the warehouse in Goodyear where it ships to caterers who then de-
liver to airlines in Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Duties are only assessed when items
reach their final destination’.

Chandler Municipal is located in Chandler, Arizona. Established in 1928, CHD covers 550
acres and maintains two active runways and a helipad. Today, it is the 7th busiest general avi-
ation airport in the United States, with more than 226,000 tower operations in 2015. As detailed
previously, Chandler is one of many fast-growing suburbs in the Phoenix metropolitan area,
adding more than 163,000 residents between 1990 and 2014. Given the boundary restrictions
for the city, especially where Chandler abuts the Gila River Indian Reservation, the corridor sur-
rounding CHD represents a ‘final frontier’ of growth and development for the municipality.
Plans for this corridor, formally known as the Chandler Airpark, include a recently announced
50-year ground lease agreement for the WingSpan Aviation Center at CHD. The first phase
of this project will include 80,000ft2 of hangar/office space (City of Chandler 2015), but the

Table 2. Phoenix reliever airport operations, 2015

Facility Airport operations Tower operations* Enplanments

CHD 219,853 226,681 360
DVT 369,759 379,616 28
FFZ 250,725 260,664 21
GEU 77,835 81,589 13
GYR 111,330 116,598 10
SDL 147,753 157,457 1,164
PHX 440,411 462,603 21,351,504
AZA 214,409 223,178 666,187

Notes: *Tower operations include all itinerant traffic and overflight activity at a given airport.

Regional perspectives on general aviation 113

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

five-year build-out plan include an additional 170,000ft2 of hangar/office space and enhanced
taxi access to the CHD runway. This is in addition to the development of a 302,000ft2 package
distribution center under development by Federal Express (Gabel 2014). A recent economic
impact analysis of CHD suggests that the airport is directly responsible for over $32 million in
revenues and 163 jobs with a payroll of $6.89 million (CAC 2016). More importantly, when
direct air visitor impacts and associated secondary economic impacts are considered, CHD is
responsible for over $109 million in revenues, 795 jobs and $31.45 million in payroll. These
numbers are expected to grow over the next decade, with estimates suggesting that the Chandler
Airpark area eventually hosting more than 28 million square feet of non-residential space and
account for 30,000 jobs (Quigley 2013).

4.3 Relievers as specialized economic nodes

Falcon Field is located in Mesa, Arizona opened in 1941 to serve as a training base for pilots
during the Second World War. FFZ consists of 794 acres and has two active runways. FFZ is
an active airport, with over 260,000 tower operations in 2015, ranking it as the 12th busiest gen-
eral aviation airport in the country (FAA 2015a). However, FZZ is best known as a centre for
aerospace/defence manufacturing. For example, MD Helicopters is located at Falcon Field
and is one of the largest manufacturers of high-performance helicopters in the United States
(MDH 2016). Also, adjacent to FFZ is a Boeing Corporation campus that manufactures the
AH-64 Apache helicopter. Boeing employs more than 5,000 people in the state of Arizona, with
its largest concentration of employees in Mesa. Nammo Talley and Timken (both defence con-
tractors) also maintain a presence in/around the Falcon Field Economic Activity Area (Mesa
2014). In sum, there are more than 90 businesses providing more than 1,300 jobs at Falcon Field
(FF 2016) and much like Goodyear, AZ, Mesa also offers a FTZ to companies seeking this type
of operational support.

Scottsdale Airport is located in Scottsdale, Arizona and was established in 1942 as a training
facility for Second World War Army Air Corps pilots (Scottsdale 2017). SDL covers 282 acres
and maintains a single asphalt runway. SDL is one of the busiest single runway airports in the
country and had the most enplanements of any reliever airport in the Phoenix metropolitan area
during 2015 (Table 2).6 Recent economic impact statistics suggest that aviation activity at SDL
and its associated airpark created $536 million in total economic benefits for the region,
supporting 3,462 jobs with incomes of $186.2 million (SCC 2015). On an average day, SDL
visitors inject $120,000 into the area economy (SCC 2015). One of the major geographical ad-
vantages for SDL is its location in north Scottsdale and its proximity to the major resort desti-
nations in Scottsdale and Paradise Valley. There are more than 16,000 rooms and 86 resorts
in the immediate area (Scottsdale 2015) and economic analysis suggests that an overnight vis-
iting travel party arriving to SDL by private jet will spend an average of $5,255 during their stay
in the area (SCC 2015).

4.4 Relievers on the decline

Glendale Municipal is located in Glendale, Arizona and was established in 1987. GEU covers
720 acres and maintains one active runway. GEU is the least active reliever airport in the
Phoenix region (Table 2), with less than 82,000 tower operations in 2015. The University of
Phoenix Stadium is located in Glendale (home to the Arizona Cardinals, a professional football
franchise) and the stadium plays frequent host to major sporting events, including the Copa
America Centenario soccer games (June 2016) and major college football games (e.g., 2011

6 All of these enplanements are tied to charter airline operations.

T.H. Grubesic et al.114

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

NCAA Championship). Recent strife at the airport, including a major lawsuit from pilots, sug-
gests that GEU is both poorly managed and unpopular with local pilots (McGlade 2014). The
most recent economic impact statistics for GEU (Glendale 2002) are extremely dated, but sug-
gested that its direct, indirect and induced economic impacts exceeded $52 million annually,
generating 516 local jobs, a payroll of $15.5 million and $36.7 million in sales.

5 Discussion – expanding and synthesizing views on relievers

The examples from the greater Phoenix region make clear that reliever airports are embedded in
multiple spatial, political and economic frameworks that sometime draw contradictory views.
Although the case studies presented for Phoenix are somewhat limited in both scale and scope,
it is important that readers view them in the broader context of reliever airports nationwide. Spe-
cifically, while AZA, DVT, CHD, FFZ, SDL and GEU are local to the Phoenix metropolitan
area, they are part of a much larger, nationwide network of general aviation ports that provide
both a foundation for regional economic and transport activity (usually evidenced by positive
regional economic modeling results). However, many relievers in the United States, including
some of those found in the Phoenix area, can also become targets of criticism. As a result, re-
liever airports, can be assessed from a variety of aviation and non-aviation perspectives, based
on factors both on and off the airport grounds. In an effort to synthesize the reliever experience
here in Phoenix, and beyond, it is important to succinctly summarize both the promise and peril
of reliever airports in broad strokes. We recognize that each reliever airport and their associated
community, will have some local quirks that make their site and situation unique. However,
there are a handful of themes which are emergent, regardless of location, reflecting the current
mix of thinking on reliever airports in the academic literature, gray literature (e.g., newspapers,
community development reports, etc.), by practitioners in the field and the case studies
presented above.

Specifically, reliever airports promise to:

1. act as important nodes in the US’s overall aviation infrastructure as origin–destination points
for many types of operators;

2. clear some traffic from busier ‘hub’ airports, potentially increasing regional air transport
efficiency (Lindsay 2005);

3. reflect trends in GA and private air transportation in the nation and within their regions
(Adams 2011);

4. provide a site for organizing emergency and other public service aviation activities (Eisler
2005; ACRP 2008);

5. support, many aviation-related enterprises that related or linked to the civil air network
(Mulliger 2016);

6. generate economic multiplier effects which provide benefits that go beyond the airport itself
(ACRP 2008; FAA 2015a);

7. provide potential catalytic effects on regional productivity (ACRP 2008);
8. promote tourism (Chambliss 2011); and
9. provide a land use for which new alternatives are extremely difficult to site.

At the same time, relievers may become lightning rods for criticism on many grounds. While
these would differ substantially by region and context, they include:

1. excessive noise in and around the airport region (ACRP 2008; Blake 2008; Remmers 2015);
2. enhanced traffic or road congestion in and around the airport region (Remmers 2015);

Regional perspectives on general aviation 115

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

3. ineffective or inefficient use of funds (high opportunity costs);
4. ineffective or inefficient use of lands (Divine 2015; Olson 2004);
5. ineffective or inefficient relative source of taxes (Eisler 2005); and
6. ineffective or inefficient management / regional integration (Glendale 2002).

In sum, when evaluating the potential impacts of reliever airports in a community, the rela-
tive importance (or weight) that is given to both the positive and negative aspects of a facility
and its operation might vary between communities, but the factors considered likely reflect a
combination of those detailed above.

Within this context, it is important to reiterate that reliever airports are strongly enmeshed
within a city’s socioeconomic, demographic and infrastructural fabric. As detailed previously,
the vast majority of reliever airports were designed and built at (or beyond) a city’s
‘perimetripolitan bow wave’ (Hart 1991) – close, but not too close. Strategically, this made good
sense because relievers were located in places where they could perform their roles with mini-
mal negative externalities to their local community, but were proximal enough to add economic
benefits and provide the necessary decentralizing function(s) to the larger city’s air traffic. How-
ever, metropolitan areas are dynamic and this dynamism can gradually change the context of re-
liever airport locations. For example, as local and regional land use pressures evolve in major
metropolitan areas, divisions can emerge between various constituencies as airports’ uses and
function are contemplated for the future. This is especially salient for reliever airports, which
are often one of the more visible and/or high profile facilities within a community (Eisler 2005).

Consider, for example, the impacts of growth pressures in a community where suburban de-
velopment has pushed into the frontier and toward a once, relatively isolated, reliever airport.
For these newer residential areas, noise suddenly becomes an important element of an airport’s
regional perception. According to Nelson (2004), residential property values decrease by almost
0.6 per cent per decibel of noise (when proximal to an airport) in the United States. Although
this finding is not consistent (Lipscomb 2003; see also, ACRP 2015) between areas, noise is un-
doubtedly one of the core issues relating to airport operations, development and quality of life
for most communities in the United States and elsewhere.

These interrelated views – one towards the relievers’ air network functions at various scales
and the other towards their integration within their regional and local communities at various
scales, coupled with the priorities of local constituencies – form the context within which the
development of research on relievers both generally and within individual cities can move for-
ward. Importantly, while economic impact studies form the basis of many arguments regarding
the benefits, need for, and usefulness of reliever airports, they may not necessarily be the ‘last
word’. Understanding the operational nature of reliever airports, as well as the political climate
of communities they are located in is also absolutely essential.

6 Conclusion

As detailed in this paper, reliever airports can take many forms, serve many functions and have a
wide variety of impacts in their communities and regions. The Phoenix metropolitan area and its
reliever airports are illustrative of this diversity in form, function and impact. Not only does
Phoenix have a major international commercial airport (PHX), it is also home to a booming
regional airport that has increased its role in commercial aviation (AZA) and a robust group
of traditional reliever airports, including the busiest reliever in the United States (DVT).

However, it is important to reiterate the context of the Phoenix case study, in that it may not
be directly generalizable to all cities or their experiences with reliever airports. As mentioned
previously, the local metropolitan morphology is not dramatically different from places like

T.H. Grubesic et al.116

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

Dallas/Fort Worth, Denver or many other large urban complexes in the Sunbelt, particularly
when evaluating the geographic distribution of reliever airports. However, the relative strengths
of Phoenix in the domains of commercial, corporate and general aviation, as well as the pres-
ence of multiple flight schools, aviation manufacturers and a large air force base in the region
make it somewhat unique. To some extent, this may obfuscate some of the local challenges
faced by suburban communities and their reliever airports in/around Phoenix, but it does not
render the metropolitan area immune to airport development problems. For example, noise gen-
erated by new FAA mandated flight paths for PHX remain a serious concern for many
neighbourhoods in the metropolitan area, and residents are going to court to lobby for changes
in the air traffic management for the region (Goth 2017).

From a development perspective, it is also clear that within the current aviation environ-
ment, Phoenix’s collective airport system provides substantial economic benefits to the region,
with the impacts underscored by a suite of diverse input–output studies (Glendale 2002; ASU
2014; SCC 2015; FF 2016; CAC 2016). While these studies can be coarse, such metrics are crit-
ical. They represent fundamental economic arguments for the continued operation of the airports
from a cost–benefit perspective and can be used both in time-series as well as in geographic
comparisons (with other regions) to provide a sense of on-going changes, methodological
opportunities, and prospects for discovering new for aviation-community linkages. Yet there
is no doubt that Phoenix too will face difficult development questions pertaining to its reliever
network in the future. In particular, issues pertaining to who exactly reaps the benefits (e.g.,
employment, product movement) versus those that pay the costs (e.g., noise, congestion) from
reliever airports may soon emerge as the Phoenix area continues to grow. More importantly, as
with most spatial problems, it is likely the two groups will not be one and the same.

Land use, safety, and sustainability may also form the backdrop for other concerns over
the future use and management of reliever airports both in Phoenix and across the US. It is
already clear that some regions see the very existence of an airport in close proximity to a
CBD or suburban development as a tremendous opportunity cost that might be ‘paid’ through
the land use conversion of airport properties into parks, residential units, or commercial areas.
Where arguments for safety and sustainability are both compelling and actionable, opportuni-
ties for re-location are attractive, although the process for decommissioning and converting the
airport will take many years. The ability to balance economic development and urban
growth, with issues of sustainability, safety and concerns regarding noise are not limited
to Phoenix, as many communities, including Boise, Idaho (Loughrey 2017), Longmont,
Colorado (LTC 2017), Santa Monica, California (Croft 2008; City of Santa Monica 2017;
Weikel and Smith 2017) and Portland, Oregon (Sparling 2017) are also attempting to find
an appropriate balance.

The review of reliever airports and the case study of Phoenix has suggested many of the
positive aspects of having a strong regional airport system. The benefits accrue widely. Yet
the questions that surround the future of reliever airports in Phoenix and elsewhere will no doubt
multiply over time and involve political and economic arguments of tremendous complexity.
The relative paucity of systematic research to date into both general aviation and reliever
airports is somewhat odd given the volume of GA flying, the sheer number of reliever airports,
and the (occasionally controversial) impact of both. This leaves significant opportunities for
future research along at least two tracks. First, it is essential to more thoroughly document the
role of reliever airports’ aviation functions. This includes both current uses and potential options
for future roles in metropolitan, regional and national plans to effectively handle air transport
demand. Second, ‘from the ground’, the impact of relievers on urban morphology will have
to be more adequately accounted for along the lines of land use, economic growth, and commu-
nity planning. Ultimately, as is often the case, a third research track – one that synthesizes both
perspectives – may prove most fruitful.

Regional perspectives on general aviation 117

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

References

Adams J (2011) Signs of relief of suburban airports; The reliever airports were hit by the recession, but several are seeing
increases in air traffic and sales. Star Tribune (Minneapolis), January 24, 2011, 1D

AirNav (2016) Roberts Field Airport. URL: http://www.airnav.com/airport/RDM
Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) (2008) Airport economic impact method and models: A synthesis of

airport practice. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC
Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) (2015) Passenger value of time, benefit-cost analysis, and airport capital

investment decisions. URL: http://tinyurl.com/llpmc37
Airports Council International [ACI] (2010) URL: http://tinyurl.com/lnavn3w
Arizona Department of Aviation [AZDOT] (2008) State Airports System Plan. URL: http://tinyurl.com/zkzn3u7
Arizona Department of Aviation [AZDOT] (2015) Economic impact of aviation in Arizona: Statewide report. URL:

http://tinyurl.com/z2qznvy
Arizona State University [ASU] (2014) PhxMesa Gateway Airport economic impact analysis: Fiscal year 2013. URL:

http://tinyurl.com/zdox6su
AZ Central (2014) Goodyear naval facility became aircraft restoration center. URL: http://tinyurl.com/h4u9xl6
AZ Central (2016) Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport sets passenger record in 2015. URL: http://tinyurl.com/

hq9qqdz
Baker SP, Lamb MW (1989) Hazards of mountain flying: Crashes in the Colorado Rockies. Aviation, Space, and Envi-

ronmental Medicine 60: 531–536
Blake L (2008) Flying Cloud Airport is cleared for expansion. URL: http://tinyurl.com/jqbqddb
Bonnefoy PA, Hansman RJ (2005) Emergence of secondary airports and dynamics of regional airport systems in the

United States. Report No ICAT-2005-02, MIT International Center for Air Transportation
Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] (2016a) URL: http://www.transtats.bts.gov
Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] (2016b) Ranking of major airport on-time departure performance year-to-date

through October 2016. URL: http://tinyurl.com/zdoerof
Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] (2016c) Ranking of major airport on-time arrival performance year-to-date

through October 2016. URL: http://tinyurl.com/z5ma6vb
CBS 5 (2015) Phoenix council approves 20-year Deer Valley Airport improvement plan. URL: http://tinyurl.com/

zchc66g
CDM Smith (2014) The economic impact of commercial airports in 2013. CDM, Cincinnati
Chambliss J (2011) Direct Air expects Lakeland Linder to become a hub of tourism. The Ledger. URL: http://tinyurl.

com/h6xffnr
Chandler Airport Commission [CAC] (2016) Chandler Municipal Airport economic impact analysis. URL: http://tinyurl.

com/hdwnzwg
City of Glendale [Glendale] (2002) Airport Master Plan: City of Glendale. URL: http://tinyurl.com/ybarjyp2
City of Chandler (2015) New hangar/office project headed to Chandler Municipal Airport. URL: http://tinyurl.com/

hfnwag6
City of Santa Monica (2017) Santa Monica Airport will close forever on December 31 2028. Santa Monica City Council

reaches Historic agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Justice. URL: http://
tinyurl.com/hhrq4tv

Croft J (2008) FAA challenges reliever airport on access for business jets. Flight International, 8–14 April, 28
De Neufville R (1995) Management of multi-airport systems: A development strategy. Journal of Air Transport Man-

agement 2: 99–110
Divine M (2015) Lake Elmo Airport expansion in the works. Twin Cities Pioneer Press. URL: http://tinyurl.com/zjo9l5n.
Divine M (2016) Lake Elmo Airport neighbors unsatisfied by revised expansion plan. Twin Cities Pioneer Press. URL:

http://tinyurl.com/h62fs5e
Eisler D (2005) How to save your airport. Business & Commercial Aviation 96(3): 69–78
Epstein C (2015) Cutter Aviation becomes sole FBO at Deer Valley. URL: http://tinyurl.com/hxan7wu
Estes C (2016) Foreign trade zone attracts first company to Goodyear Gateway South. KJZZ.URL: http://tinyurl.com/

jhr8se6
FAA (2012) General Aviation Airports: A National Asset. URL: http://tinyurl.com/y8enlnkz
Falcon Field Airport [FF] (2016) URL: http://tinyurl.com/zgbzaxe
Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2000) Order 5090.3C: Field formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Air-

port Systems (NPIAS). URL: http://tinyurl.com/zqxa3sz
Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2012) FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. URL: http://tinyurl.com/lsrlqtn
Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2014) Glossary. URL: http://aspmhelp.faa.gov/index.php/Glossary
Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2015a) Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS). URL: https://aspm.faa.gov/

opsnet/sys/Tower.asp

T.H. Grubesic et al.118

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

http://www.airnav.com/airport/RDM

http://tinyurl.com/llpmc37

http://tinyurl.com/lnavn3w

http://tinyurl.com/zkzn3u7

http://tinyurl.com/z2qznvy

http://tinyurl.com/zdox6su

http://tinyurl.com/h4u9xl6

http://tinyurl.com/hq9qqdz

http://tinyurl.com/jqbqddb

http://www.transtats.bts.gov

http://tinyurl.com/zdoerof

http://tinyurl.com/z5ma6vb

http://tinyurl.com/zchc66g

http://tinyurl.com/h6xffnr

http://tinyurl.com/hdwnzwg

http://tinyurl.com/ybarjyp2

http://tinyurl.com/hfnwag6

http://tinyurl.com/hhrq4tv

http://tinyurl.com/zjo9l5n

http://tinyurl.com/h62fs5e

http://tinyurl.com/hxan7wu

http://tinyurl.com/jhr8se6

http://tinyurl.com/y8enlnkz

http://tinyurl.com/zgbzaxe

http://tinyurl.com/zqxa3sz

http://tinyurl.com/lsrlqtn

http://aspmhelp.faa.gov/index.php/Glossary

https://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/Tower.asp

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2015b) The economic impact of civil aviation on the US economy. URL: http://
tinyurl.com/jppw85t

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2016a) Passenger boarding (enplanement) and all-cargo data for US Airports.
URL: http://tinyurl.com/65y8kwn

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2016b) Part 139 Airport Certification. URL: http://tinyurl.com/n6kdvb7
Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2016c) Airport categories. URL: http://tinyurl.com/yblkd9xl
Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2017) Phoenix Metroplex. URL: http://tinyurl.com/j2445lx
Forsyth P (2007) The impacts of emerging aviation trends on airport infrastructure. Journal of Air Transport Manage-

ment 13: 45–52
Gabel C (2014) FedEx bringing huge distribution facility to Chandler Air Park. East Valley Tribune. URL: http://tinyurl.

com/h9aaq5a
General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) (2016) 2015 General aviation statistical databook & 2016 indus-

try outlook. URL: http://tinyurl.com/zmtp2z9
GCR Inc (2016) AirportIQ 5010. URL: http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/default.cfm
Gillen D, Lall A (1997) Developing measures of airport productivity and performance: An application of data envelop-

ment analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 33: 261–273
Goth B (2017) Court to hear Phoenix arguments against FAA flight paths at Sky Harbor. Arizona Republic. URL: http://

tinyurl.com/j9vw4e2
Grabowski JG, Curriero FC, Baker SP, Li G (2002) Exploratory spatial analysis of pilot fatality rates in general aviation

crashes using geographic information systems. American Journal of Epidemiology 155: 398–405
Hamzawi SG (1992) Lack of airport capacity: Exploration of alternative solutions. Transportation Research Part A:

Policy and Practice 26: 47–58
Hart JF (1991) The perimetropolitan bow wave. Geographical Review 81: 35–51
Infanger, J.F (2000) A new capital reliever. URL: http://tinyurl.com/gns9suh
International Air Transport Association [IATA] (2016a) Global Air Traffic & Top Airlines 2016. URL: http://tinyurl.

com/zyl2exf
International Air Transport Association [IATA] (2016b) IATA Air Passenger Forecast Shows Dip in Long-Term

Demand. URL: http://tinyurl.com/hyc4e4j
Jansen B (2013) FAA: Air-traffic control towers at 4 Arizona airports to close. USA Today. URL: http://tinyurl.com/

jf3g25r
Kearney PJ, Li G (2000) Geographic variations in crash risk of general aviation and air taxis. Aviation, Space, and

Environmental Medicine 71: 19–21
Lindsay M (2005) Relievers airports looking for relief. Saint Paul Pioneer Press. August 16, 2005
Lipscomb C (2003) Small cities matter, too: The impacts of an airport and local infrastructure on housing prices in a

small urban city. Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies 15: 255–273
Loo BP (2008) Passengers’ airport choice within multi-airport regions (MARs): Some insights from a stated preference

survey at Hong Kong International Airport. Journal of Transport Geography 16: 117–125
LTC (2017) Editorial: Respect needed in Longmont skydiving noise battle. Longmont Times Call. URL: http://tinyurl.

com/j6czexa
Loughrey D (2017) Sure, bring the F-35: But base it in the Idaho desert, not in Boise. Idaho Statesman. URL: http://

tinyurl.com/joyf4fy
Madrid D (2014) Training center for pilots planned at Phoenix Goodyear Airport. Arizona Republic. URL: http://tinyurl.

com/j6kmwum
McGlade C (2014) Glendale Municipal Airport sued by pilots. Arizona Republic. URL: http://tinyurl.com/q6etspa
Mesa (2014) Falcon Field economic activity area strategic plan. URL: http://tinyurl.com/zedprac
MDH (2016) URL: http://www.mdhelicopters.com/v2/index.php
Mulliger A (2016) Runway expansion to begin at Spartanburg Downtown Memorial Airport. Herald-Journal

(Spartanburg, SC), February 19, 2016
Municipal Association of South Carolina [MASC] (2016) Airports make economic development soar. URL: http://

tinyurl.com/jjvpxdc
Nelson JP (2004) Meta-analysis of airport noise and hedonic property values. Journal of Transport Economics and

Policy 38: 1–27
NewMyer DA (1983) Problems and prospects for the growth of reliever airports. Airport Services Management: 28–32
NewMyer DA, Modjeski MC, Voges JK, Bryant JT (2007) The Importance of Reliever Airports in the USA. Collegiate

Aviation Review 25: 57–72
O’Connor K, Fuellhart K (2016) Airports and regional air transport markets: A new perspective. Journal of Transport

Geography 53: 78–82
Olson R (2004) Reliever airport may need to close; the land is envisioned as part of the upgrade near County Rd. 81.

Start Tribune, 23 October, 1B

Regional perspectives on general aviation 119

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

http://tinyurl.com/jppw85t

http://tinyurl.com/65y8kwn

http://tinyurl.com/n6kdvb7

http://tinyurl.com/yblkd9xl

http://tinyurl.com/j2445lx

http://tinyurl.com/h9aaq5a

http://tinyurl.com/zmtp2z9

http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/default.cfm

http://tinyurl.com/j9vw4e2

http://tinyurl.com/gns9suh

http://tinyurl.com/zyl2exf

http://tinyurl.com/hyc4e4j

http://tinyurl.com/jf3g25r

http://tinyurl.com/j6czexa

http://tinyurl.com/joyf4fy

http://tinyurl.com/j6kmwum

http://tinyurl.com/q6etspa

http://tinyurl.com/zedprac

http://www.mdhelicopters.com/v2/index.php

http://tinyurl.com/jjvpxdc

PhxMesa (2009) Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport master plan. URL: http://tinyurl.com/jewz4vy
PhxMesa (2017) Resolution No.: 16-58| Air service incentive program. URL http://tinyurl.com/j5fcan3
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport [DVT Airport] (2016) URL: https://deervalleyairport.com/
PLR Airport (2016) URL: http://www.plrairport.com/pilot-information.html
Polletta M, Wang AB (2013) Spirit Airlines to leave Mesa Gateway for Sky Harbor. Arizona Republic. URL: http://

tinyurl.com/jgm8arh
Poole Jr RW, Butler V (1999) Airline deregulation: The unfinished revolution. Regulation 22: 44
Quigley D (2013) Chandler, Mesa Gateway, Sky Harbor officials discuss aviation impact on AZ economy. East Valley

Tribune. URL: http://tinyurl.com/cy4xujl
Remmers V (2015) Airport’s expansion draws mixed reaction from residents. The Free Lance-Star (Fredericksburg, VA)

13 August. URL: http://tinyurl.com/y8nshapg
Ruud C (2015) FAA warns NYC-area airport congestion to significantly worsen by 2030. New York Newsday. URL:

http://tinyurl.com/jlojcpf
Scottsdale [City of Scottsdale] (2017) Airport History. URL: http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/airport/history
Scottsdale [City of Scottsdale] (2015) The Scottsdale/Paradise Valley Tourism Study. URL: http://tinyurl.com/h5z4byv
Scottsdale City Council [SCC] (2015) Scottsdale Airport Master Plan. URL: http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/airport/

master-plan
Slack B (1999) Satellite terminals: A local solution to hub congestion? Journal of Transport Geography 7: 241–246
Sparling Z (2017) House bill to challenge port control of Troutdale Airport. The Portland Tribune. URL: http://tinyurl.

com/jqcymuy
Stafford Regional Airport Authority [SRAA] (2014) Stafford Regional Airport Compatible Land Use Study. URL:

http://stafford.va.us/DocumentCenter/View/5378
Trowbridge C (2015) $9.7 million luxury hangar project coming to Phoenix Goodyear Airport. Phoenix Business Jour-

nal. URL: http://tinyurl.com/jxbbpyk
United States Census Bureau (2015) Quick facts: Phoenix, Arizona. URL: http://tinyurl.com/y8wfwg7h
United States Forest Service [USFS] (2016) URL: http://tinyurl.com/mfok6h7
Weikel D, Smith D (2017) Santa Monica Airport will close in 2028 and be replaced by a park, officials say. Los Angeles

Times, 28 January. URL: http://tinyurl.com/hovgy5h
Weisbrod G, Reed JS, Neuwirth RM (1993) Airport area development model. Paper presented at PTRC-International

Transport Conference, Manchester
Zetner E (2016) Goodyear, Buckeye saw some of the nation’s fasted population growth last year. Arizona Republic.

URL: http://tinyurl.com/h49egqy

T.H. Grubesic et al.120

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

http://tinyurl.com/jewz4vy

http://tinyurl.com/j5fcan3

https://deervalleyairport.com/

http://www.plrairport.com/pilot-information.html

http://tinyurl.com/jgm8arh

http://tinyurl.com/y8nshapg

http://tinyurl.com/jlojcpf

http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/airport/history

http://tinyurl.com/h5z4byv

http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/airport/master-plan

http://tinyurl.com/jqcymuy

http://stafford.va.us/DocumentCenter/View/5378

http://tinyurl.com/jxbbpyk

http://tinyurl.com/y8wfwg7h

http://tinyurl.com/mfok6h7

http://tinyurl.com/hovgy5h

http://tinyurl.com/h49egqy

Resumen. Los ‘aeropuertos de alivio’ constituyen un grupo especial dentro del Plan Nacional
de Sistemas Aeroportuarios Integrados (NPIAS, por sus siglas en inglés) en los Estados Unidos.
Establecidos en la década de 1960, el propósito de los aeropuertos de alivio fue el de desviar
hacia ellos el tráfico aéreo de carácter general de los aeropuertos principales congestionados
situados en las áreas metropolitanas más grandes. Con el tiempo, muchos de estos aeropuertos
evolucionaron para pasar de simplemente aliviar la congestión del tráfico aéreo local a funcionar
como polos operativos y económicos para las comunidades a las que sirven. El propósito de este
artículo es poner de relieve el desarrollo de la red de aeropuertos de alivio en los Estados Unidos
y examinar su papel (actual o potencial) dentro del sistema de transporte aéreo en general, así
como en las regiones asociadas a las que sirven. Específicamente, se trabaja en un estudio de
caso del área metropolitana de Phoenix (Arizona) y su red de alivio. Los resultados sugieren
que aunque muchos aeropuertos de alivio están destinados a cumplir su propósito original, otros
pueden gozar de la oportunidad de diversificar su forma y su función.

抄録:抄録: リリーバー空港は、米国におけるNational Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
(NPIAS:国家空港総合整備計画)が定める特殊な位置づけの空港である。これは、ゼネ
ラル・アビエーションの航空交通を大都市圏の主要な空港の混雑から分離する目的で
1960年代に設立された。リリーバー空港の多くは、現地の航空交通の混雑を緩和する
だけであったのが、時間の経過とともに現地コミュニティにおける運用と経済のハブ
の両方として機能するようになった。本稿の目的は、米国におけるリリーバー空港の
ネットワークの発展を明示することと、より大きな航空輸送システムおよびその空港
に関連する地域における役割(既存の役割と潜在的な役割)を探索することである。具

体的には、アリゾナ州のフェニックス大都市圏(Phoenix Arizona metropolitan area)
とそのリリーバー・ネットワークについてのケーススタディを実施する。結果は、多
くのリリーバー空港が元来の目的を果たすだけであるが、一部の空港には形式と機能

を多様化できる機会がある可能性があることを示す。

doi:10.1111/rsp3.12091

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D
ow

nloaded from
https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m
bry-R

iddle A
eronautical U

niv, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00