The safety and efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS) hinges on the reliability of the airport infrastructure that it utilizes. Airport managers are expected to maintain runways, taxiways, parking aprons, clearance zones, terminals, etc., to meet FAA compliance standards. However, airport maintenance and development projects are expensive, and airport revenue streams change based on passengers, airlines, parking, concessions, and stakeholder investment in the airport. Over the decades, large airports continue to expand while smaller nonhub primary commercial service airports struggle to cover basic operational costs, impacting the safety and efficiency of the NAS.
History of the Problem
The gap between small and large airports began with the passage of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 1978). Large hub airports benefited from high passenger volume and proximity to metropolitan areas, while smaller airports lost out on important airport revenue when routes were eliminated in the name of profit. In response, the Essential Air Service (EAS) program was developed by the Department of Transportation (DOT) at the mandate of the United States Congress. The EAS program provided subsidies to airlines and qualifying EAS communities, guaranteeing at least two round trips per day were provided to rural airports (DOT, 2024). However, the limited passenger traffic to EAS airports did not provide the airport revenue needed to meet the operational costs of an airport.
Steps to Fix the Problem
Given the expensive cost of airport development, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) offers various federal funding sources, including the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) grant programs. To receive funding under these federal grant programs, airports must meet certain criteria and be included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), published by the FAA every five years (NPIAS, 2024). According to the lates NPIAS report, the 31 large hub airports account for 69% of all passenger enplanements across the U.S. and 36.5% ($25 Billion) of the planned airport development costs. In comparison, the 252 nonhub primary airports only account for 3% of nationwide enplanements and 12% ($8 Billion) of future airport development costs (FAA, 2024). Federal funding is an essential aspect of the overall development of all airports across the NAS.
Importance of the Problem
The figures provided above highlight the financial disparity between large hub and nonhub primary commercial service airports. Additionally, there is a significant difference in the types of airport development projects planned by larger airports verses their smaller airport competitors. Large hub airports (e.g. ATL, DFW, ORD, etc.) focus their resources on future airport expansion projects, such as building new terminals to meet passenger capacity issues. In comparison, nonhub primary airports (e.g. ROA, CHO, PHF, etc.) must use their limited airport revenue resources to maintain current infrastructure, bring existing infrastructure up to FAA design standards, or terminal improvements (FAA, 2024). This distinction is important because it highlights the fundamental growing divide between large hub airports focused on future growth and small nonhub airports trying to remain operationally viable. Both types of airports are needed to make the “hub and spoke” NAS system operate efficiently and safely for the traveling public.
References
Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-504, 92 Stat. 1705 (1978). https://www.congress.gov/bill/95th-congress/senate-bill/2493
Federal Aviation Administration. (2024). National plan of integrated airports systems (NPIAS) 2025-2029. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/airports/planning_capacity/npias/
current/ARP-NPIAS-2025-2029-Narrative.pdf
U.S. Department of Transportation. (2024, November 4) Essential air service.
Authors note: This post was originally written as part of the PhD in Aviation program.