Final Report
Airport Management Study
Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
February 6, 2009
Prepared for:
County of Lehigh and County of Northampton
In Association With:
Prepared by:
THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC.20 Corporate Woods Blvd Albany, New York 12211
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Table of Contents Page 1-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................... See Separate Document SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1-1 SECTION 2 STAKEHOLDER SURVEY ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Survey Results...................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Survey Summary................................................................................................................ 2-19 SECTION 3 COMPARABLE AIRPORTS ANALYSIS .............................................................. 3-1 3.1 Comparable Airports Data Collection, Screening and Selection.............................. 3-1 3.2 Comparable Airports Overview........................................................................................ 3-4 3.3 Human Resources ............................................................................................................. 3-25 SECTION 4 AIR SERVICE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Analysis of Interview with LVIA...................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Comparison to Peer Airports ............................................................................................ 4-8 4.3 Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................................. 4-10 SECTION 5 ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 5-1 5.1 National Governance Models ........................................................................................... 5-2 5.2 National Organization of Operations Models ................................................................ 5-2 5.3 Governance of Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority ............................................. 5-4 5.4 Organizational Analysis.................................................................................................... 5-10 5.5 LNAA Departmental Analysis ........................................................................................ 5-12 SECTION 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 6-1 6.1 SWOT Components........................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 SWOT Results ..................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Summary............................................................................................................................... 6-5 APPENDICES
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Introduction Page 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Lehigh County and Northampton County, Pennsylvania, retained The Louis Berger Group, Inc. in
association with Signet Human Resources Management and TranSystems (Study Team) to perform
the Airport Management Study of the Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority (LNAA) and Lehigh
Valley International Airport (LVIA).
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the airport functions to
include the current state of air service, policies, revenue goals, planning/engineering, contracts,
personnel, operational procedures, property management, and project management and to provide
recommended actions to enhance the value of Lehigh Valley International Airport (LVIA) to the
Lehigh Valley.
1.1 Study Scope
In order to accomplish the above study objectives, Berger defined a study scope which was
submitted to and approved by Lehigh and Northampton Counties. The scope provided for several
key study elements, including: a) to identify and gather relevant study information; b) methods for
evaluating information concerning LNAAs management and organizational structure; c) the
comparison of LNAA to comparable airports; d) the assessment of air service marketing and
development initiatives; e) organizational evaluation including a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats) analysis; and f) to report on findings and provide recommendations.
1.2 Study Process
The Study was conducted over approximately five (5) months and the process involved the
collection of various data and reports, the development and analysis of stakeholders perspectives by
conducting surveys and interviews, assessing information from comparable airports, attending Board
meetings, on-site observations, and completing exercises to evaluate the overall organization of
LNAA. These efforts culminate in the identification of findings and recommendations documented
as part of this report.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Introduction Page 1-2
Data Collection The Study Team collected over 50 documents regarding LNAA on various
subjects. These included: governmental documents such as the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities
Act and LNAA By-Laws; financial, administrative and policy documents including LNAAs current
Financial Statement, New Board Member Orientation Presentation, LNAA Policies and Procedures
for Union Employees, and Policies and Procedures for Non-Bargaining Unit Employees; and
planning, operational and marketing documents such as LVIA Marketing and Advertising Package,
Airline Marketing Presentations, and the LVIA Airport Master Plan Update, among others.
The primary purpose for gathering and reviewing these documents was to provide the necessary
input needed for the Study Team to make accurate observations concerning the overall governance
of the Authority.
Development of Stakeholder Perspectives The study included an extensive effort to understand
the perspectives of various stakeholders (a stakeholder being defined as someone who has an
interest in LNAA or the Airport). To do this, multiple methods were used that included in-person
and telephone interviews, as well as a survey instrument that is discussed later in the report.
The interviews were primarily conducted in Lehigh County offices with members of the Study
Team. For logistical reasons, only a few of the participants found it necessary to be interviewed via
telephone. Over 40 individuals representing a cross-section of Airport Employees, Airport
Management, Board of Governors, County Administration, and Regional and Community
representatives (stakeholders) participated in the interview process each of which were
approximately 30 minutes in duration or longer.
In addition to those people that were interviewed, a parallel survey was conducted. Surveys were
conducted with each member of the LNAA Board of Governors, LNAA, appropriate Lehigh and
Northampton County officials and a cross section of regional and community representatives. A
total of 92 surveys were distributed electronically (web based) of which 48 people responded
representing a response rate of approximate 52%.
Assessment of Comparable Airports This component of the study effort identified five (5)
airports to compare LNAA against and evaluate common and best practices among them. To
choose the comparable airports, the Study Team identified airports that were in close proximity to
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Introduction Page 1-3
major domestic and international hubs, similar to LVIA. Additional criteria included the number of
passenger enplanements, existing governance type, multiple airport operator status, and FAA hub
classification. From these criteria, the study developed a list of potential comparable airports. After
further evaluation, the Study Team in coordination with the Counties chose the following five
comparable airports in which comparative data was collected and evaluated:
1. General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee, WI)
2. T. F. Green Airport (Providence, RI)
3. Orlando Sanford International Airport (Sanford, FL)
4. Harrisburg International Airport (Harrisburg, PA)
5. Stewart International Airport (Newburgh, NY)
Each of these comparable airports were reviewed and compared to LVIA in various categories. In
addition, the recent past and present activities regarding LVIAs Air Service Development activities
were also assessed and is reported Section 4. A comprehensive review of all air service development
marketing efforts was performed. Information was gathered through meetings with airport
marketing officials, through the collection of information on incentive plans, recent air service
development studies, and on other efforts tailored to market airlines.
Organizational Evaluation The Study Team performed an organizational evaluation to review
the data and information collected through the various study efforts discussed above. Included with
this effort was a SWOT analysis conducted with LNAA. The SWOT analysis was held at LNAA
offices and provided key inputs into the overall evaluation. This information as well as information
collected on the various governance models of todays airports in the United States and the
comparable airports in this study provided key input into the overall development of findings and
recommendations for this study.
Findings and Recommendations The Airport Management Study provides strategic findings
and recommendations for the Counties to consider for implementation in its effort to increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of airport operations with regard to the management of the Counties
three airports: Lehigh Valley International Airport, Queen City Airport, and Braden Airpark. The
essence behind each finding and recommendation identifies areas where the efficiency and
effectiveness of LNAA can be enhanced for the betterment of the Lehigh Valley as a whole.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Introduction Page 1-4
1.3 Document Outline
This report is divided into multiple sections providing information on each of the efforts completed
for this comprehensive review. First, a standalone Executive Summary of the Study undertaking was
produced and highlights some of the findings and recommendations made during the study process.
The full results of the study can be found in Sections 1 through Section 6 as identified below.
Section 1 Introduction. Provides an introduction to the study presenting the studys scope and process.
Section 2 Stakeholder Research. Examines the stakeholder input process involving the information gathered as a result of the survey process.
Section 3 Comparable Airports Analysis. Identifies the basis on which comparable airports used for the study were selected and assesses LNAA and LVIA in comparison with
comparable organizations and airports in the areas of operations, management and
organizational structure.
Section 4 Air Service. Provides an overview of the air service marketing and development initiatives and of the overall efficiency and effectiveness of LNAAs approach toward air
service development LVIA.
Section 5 Organizational Analysis. Building on the data and analysis from Sections 2 and 3, provides a descriptive narrative of how LVIA compares in key areas. This section also
examines commonly used airport governance models, as well as the organizational and
governance structure of the LNAA.
Section 6 Findings and Recommendations. Provides a summary of the SWOT analysis and presents the findings made by the Study Team along with strategic recommendations to
be considered by the Counties and LNAA for implementation.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Introduction Page 1-5
1.4 Key Project Staff
The following provide brief biographies of the key project staff that conducted this study.
Steven T. Baldwin, Senior Vice President Mr. Baldwin is responsible for Bergers National Aviation
Program and the delivery of all domestic aviation services throughout the firms network of offices. He brings
with him 27 years of airport and aviation experience to this effort. Prior to Joining Berger in 1996, he served
the NYSDOT Aviation Division for 14 years. There he had responsibility for the day-to-day operations of
Stewart International Airport in Newburgh, NY and Republic Airport on Long Island. While with the DOT
Aviation Division, he also directed the States planning and environmental programs for the State owned and
operated airports, in addition to providing staff services to two governor appointed commissions. In addition,
Mr. Baldwin served as the Governors congressional liaison to Congress on matters concerning overflight
noise, and served two years in the NYS Governors office as a senior advisor assigned to the Governors
Office of Regulatory Reform. He is an active commercial instrument rated multi-engine pilot and flight
instructor, and holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Airport Management from Florida Institute of
Technology and a Masters Degree in Public Administration from the Rockefeller College of the State
University of New York.
Russell B. Vachon, Senior Aviation Associate Mr. Vachon brings 4o years of transportation/aviation
industry experience to this study. Prior to joining The Louis Berger Group, Mr. Vachon was the Director of
Aviation for the New York State Department of Transportation where he managed various aviation
programs to include: annual grants to 85 eligible airports sponsors totaling an average of $5.5M for planning
and development which leveraged an average of $70M annually in FAA Airports Improvements Program
funds, ranking NY among the top three states in federal funds administered nationally; 100% State funded
grants to 38 airports for $10M; FAA-financed, $0.5M annual aviation system planning program; FAA 5010
inspections of 150 airports annually; specialized technical assistance to airports to address environmental,
financial and development needs; the operation of Stewart International and Republican Airports involving
the policy and decision-making oversight of 100 employees, coordination of programs with separate,
politically appointed, advisory commissions, the administration of both an $8 million annual operating
budget, completely underwritten with airport revenues, and a $10 million annual capital budget, as well as all
lease negotiation policy decisions. He also represented New York State in national associations: the Airports
Council International-North America serving as a member of the Government Affairs Committee, American
Association of Airports Executives, The National Association of Aviations Officials, and the New York
Airport Managers Association.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Introduction Page 1-6
Marc C. Champigny, Management Associate Mr. Champignys experience includes financial, safety,
security, operational, and planning services at several airports of varying size and function. Having worked as
an Operations Coordinator at Morristown Municipal Airport and in the public sector for the New York State
Department of Transportations Aviation Services Bureau, Mr. Champigny brings a comprehensive base of
experience and a strong understanding of the airport operators requirements. As an Assistant Director, he
has managed projects relating to airport management, financial feasibility, market comparables, business
planning and strategy, rate analysis and modeling, master planning, and FAA 5010 safety inspections. As an
active Private Pilot, Mr. Champigny also brings unique experience related to aircraft operations. Mr.
Champigny holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Aviation Management from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University and a Masters Business Administration from the College of Saint Rose.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-1
2.0 STAKEHOLDER SURVEY
To review and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of LNAA and the Lehigh Valley
International Airport, a 15-point questionnaire was deigned to facilitate dialogue and gather key
information from Board of Governors members, Airport Management employees, and Non-
Management Airport employees, Regional Executives, Stakeholders and Non-Airport employees. In
conjunction with on-site interviews, the Study Team used online survey software to develop and
electronically distribute, via email, a comprehensive survey to obtain opinions and perceptions of the
Airport. Survey questions focused on the following areas:
Survey participants level of understanding of the Airports organizational structure; The level of economic importance of the Airport to the local community and the region; The current state of Airport service and its ability to meet air traveler needs; The Airports relationship with stakeholders and the general public; The effectiveness of Airport Management; and The effectiveness of Airport Authority public outreach and communication initiatives.
Throughout the survey development process, the Study Team worked closely with the Counties to
ensure survey questions would generate responses that provide the necessary information needed to
meet the Studys objective within the Studys scope of work. Typically, large survey invitation lists
are associated with lower response rates, thus it was important for the Study Team to obtain the
most focused and high-quality representatives to survey as possible. A complete list of proposed
survey participants was provided by Lehigh and Northampton Counties. The list included a
comprehensive cross-section of participants from Airport employees and Board members, to
Stakeholders and Regional Executives.
2.1 Survey Results
In order to obtain the most accurate responses in the opinion of the survey taker, the Study Team
prefaced the survey with an introduction that assured the confidentiality of participant identity by
explaining that survey results would be collected and presented to the Counties in aggregate form. A
copy of the survey questions are provided as an Appendix within this report.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-2
The survey was opened and
distributed via email on
September 24, 2008 and was
closed on October 31, 2008.
Participants were sent
reminder emails bi-weekly if a
completed survey wasnt
received by the survey
administrator.
Ninety-two (92) survey
invitations were sent, of
which 48 completed surveys
were received, resulting in a
52% response rate. Metadata
compiled by survey systems that use email invitations indicate that the average survey response is
32.5%. As mentioned, a function of the survey software allowed the Study Team to selectively
follow up with non responders and improve the response rate. Despite the ambiguity of what
response rates mean, the credibility of survey statistics are often linked to response rates.
The demographic profile of survey respondents is shown on the following page in Figure 2.1,
Results of Survey Question 1. Of the total responses, 56% indicated they were either a Board of
Governors member or an Airport Employee, while 44% identified themselves as a Regional
Executive, an Airport Stakeholder or a Non-Airport Employee.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-3
Figure 2.1- Results of Question 1
In order to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the Lehigh Valley International Airport from
an economic development and Airport management standpoint, the survey questions were designed
to assist the Study Team in understanding the respondents general perception of the Airport.
Following each question, the respondent was given the option to provide additional comments
related to their response.
Individual comments were analyzed and reviewed for consistency. Common characteristics were
identified among comments, which allowed the Study Team to make observations of the perception
and opinions of the current state of the Lehigh Valley International Airport.
Question 2
The survey asked the respondents to provide their overall perception of the Airport. Answers to this
question are provided in graphical form in Figure 2.2 on the following page. As the chart shows,
90% of all respondents feel that the Airport is a valuable economic asset. Only 10% either believe it
is just another mode of transportation or did not have an opinion. None of the respondents
believed that the Airport is an unnecessary asset.
31%
15%
10%
44%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Board of Governors Member
Airport ManagementEmployee
Non-Management AirportEmployee
Regional Executive, AirportStakeholder or Non-Airport
Employee
In regards to Lehigh Valley International Airport, how would you classify yourself?
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-4
Figure 2.2- Results of Question 2
To further analyze the survey responses, specific questions within the survey were cross-tabulated
what the respondents answered in question 1, In regards to LVIA, how would you classify
yourself?
As you can see in the cross-tab analysis in Figure 2.3 on the following page, 100% of the Board of
Governors respondents as well as management and non-management Airport employees believe
that the Airport is a valuable economic asset while a smaller percentage, (76%) of regional
executives, Airport stakeholders, or non-Airport employees believe this to be true. This
demonstrates that generally the more removed one is from the development, operation, and/or daily
management of the Airport; the more likely they are to view an airport as just another mode of
transportation. Overall a small percentage of respondents (8%) perceive the Airport as just another
mode of transportation, however, of more significance is the fact that none of the respondents view
the Airport as an unnecessary asset.
Those who view the Airport as just another mode of transportation identified themselves as
Regional Executives, Airport Stakeholders, or Non-Airport Employees.
90%
8%
2%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
A valuable economicasset
Just another mode oftransportation
No opinion
An unnecessary asset
What is your perception of Lehigh Valley International Airport?
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-5
Figure 2.3- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 2
Question 3
Generally, Airports provide economic growth to communities in the form of jobs, tourism and
business links. Question 3 asked the respondent to rate the importance of aviation growth in the
city/county from an economic perspective. As Figure 2.4 on the next page indicates, nearly 80% of
all respondents believe that aviation growth within the local area is very important. Notably, the
cross tabulation chart shown as Figure 2.5 that follows, indicates that 100% of Airport employees
who took part in the survey believe that from an economic perspective, aviation growth is very
important.
100%
100%
100%
76% 19% 5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Board of GovernorsMember
Airport ManagementEmployee
Non-Management AirportEmployee
Regional Executive,Airport Stakeholder orNon-Airport Employee
What is your perception of Lehigh Valley International Airport?
A valuable economic asset Just another mode of transportation No opinion An unnecessary asset
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-6
Figure 2.4- Results of Question 3
Figure 2.5- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 3
73% 27%
100%
100%
71% 29%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Board of GovernorsMember
Airport ManagementEmployee
Non-Management AirportEmployee
Regional Executive,Airport Stakeholder orNon-Airport Employee
From an economic perspective, how would you rate the importance of aviation growth in the city/county?
Very important Somewhat important Not important
79%
21%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Very important
Somewhat important
Not important
From an economic perspective, how would you rate the importance of aviation growth in the city/county?
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-7
The next two survey questions related to the Airports organizational/management structure and the
effectiveness of the Airport Authority in satisfying its primary mission, which is, To develop and
operate facilities to serve the short and long term needs of the travelling public, air cargo shippers, general aviation
community and the economic development of Lehigh Valley.
Question 4
Figure 2.6 below indicates that more than 54% of all survey respondents fully understand the
Airports organizational /management structure.
Figure 2.6- Response to Question 4
A cross tabulation of these results is shown in Figure 2.7. The chart indicates that the 8% of
respondents that do not understand the organizational structure were either, Board of Governors
members, Regional Executives, Airport Stakeholders, or Non-Management Airport Employees. This
cross-tab analysis also demonstrated to the Study Team that the more removed the person is from
Airport Management or the day-to-day operation of the Airport, the less likely they are to
understand the organizational structure. 40% of Non-Management employees as well as 14% of
Airport Management employees do not fully understand the Airports organizational structure.
54%
38%
8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
I fully understand it
Somewhat understand it
I do not understand it atall
How well do you understand the airport organizational/management structure?
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-8
Figure 2.7- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 4
A review of the comments on Question 4 indicated that some respondents feel the management
structure is overly complicated in the sense that there exist too many tiers of management.
Respondents also stated that there may be opportunities for management to integrate more closely
with Non-Management employees.
Question 5
Survey question 5 addressed whether or not the Airport Authority is effective in satisfying its core
mission. As the figure on the following page shows, over 42% of all respondents believe that the
Authority is effective in satisfying the mission, while 10% believe that the Authority is ineffective in
satisfying the mission.
67% 27% 7%
86% 14%
60% 40%
33% 52% 14%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Board of GovernorsMember
Airport ManagementEmployee
Non-Management AirportEmployee
Regional Executive,Airport Stakeholder orNon-Airport Employee
How well do you understand the airport organizational/management structure?
I fully understand it Somewhat understand it I do not understand it at all
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-9
Figure 2.8- Response to Question 5
The cross tabulation analysis shows that the 100% of individuals who believe that the Authority is
ineffective in satisfying the mission are either, Regional Executives, Airport Stakeholders or Non-
Airport Employees. Two percent of the respondents said that they didnt have enough involvement
or exposure allowing them to respond.
42%
46%
10%
2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
The Authority is effective insatisfying the mission
The Authority is onlysomewhat effective insatisfying the mission
The Authority is ineffectivein satisfying the mission
I do not have enoughinvolvement or exposureallowing me to respond
The primary mission of the Airport Authority is to develop and operate facilities to serve the short and long term needs of the travelling public, air cargo shippers,
general aviation community, and the economic devlopment of Lehigh Valley. How well do you feel the Authority satisfies this mission?
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-10
Figure 2.9- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 5
The next few questions in the survey focused on passenger use of the Airport, the specific years that
respondents used the Airport for air travel, their frequency of use, typical destination airports and
the adequacy of the Airport in meeting their travel needs.
Question 6 and 7
Of all respondents, over 90% have used the Airport for business or leisure travel over the last 5
years. Of all respondents who have used the Airport over the last 5 years, the following chart depicts
a breakdown of the percentage of those who used the Airport in a specific year. The chart shows a
gradual increase in travel from 2005 through 2007. Due to the survey closeout date of October 31,
2008, the 52% of respondents that indicated they travelled in 2008 does not include the months of
November and December. Historic industry travel data has shown that due to the holidays of
Thanksgiving and Christmas, the months of November and December tend to be busy travel
months. Consequently, one can assume that the trend between 2005 and 2007 would continue
through 2008 if the respondents considered all 12 calendar months.
47% 47% 7%
86% 14%
80% 20%
14% 62% 24%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Board of GovernorsMember
Airport ManagementEmployee
Non-Management AirportEmployee
Regional ExecutiveAirport Stakeholder orNon-Airport Employee
The Authority is effective in satisfying the missionThe Authority is only somewhat effective in satisfying the missionThe Authority is ineffective in satisfying the missionI do not have enough involvement or exposure allowing me to respond
The primary mission of the Airport Authority is to develop and operate facilities to serve the short and long term needs of the travelling public, air cargo shippers, general aviation
community, and the economic devlopment of Lehigh Valley. How well do you feel the Authority satisfies this mission?
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-11
Figure 2.10- Response to Question 7
Question 8
Figure 2.11 on the following page depicts the frequency of travel among those respondents that
have used Lehigh Valley for their air travel needs over the last five years. Nearly 70% of all
respondents have used the Airport less than ten times and almost 15% of all respondents have used
the Airport over 30 times. While we do not know the exact number of times those who have used
the Airport less than 10, it can be said that the nearly 15% who have used the Airport more than
thirty times in the last five years, use it an average of at least 6 times a year.
52%
80%
73%
64%
68%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
When did you travel?
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-12
Figure 2.11- Response to Question 8
Question 9
The survey requested that those respondents who have used the Airport in the last 5 years provide
some typical destination airports. The most common destination airports provided by respondents
included:
Atlanta, GA Chicago, IL Charlotte, NC Cleveland, OH Columbus, OH Denver, CO
Las Vegas, NV Los Angeles, CA Orlando, FL Pittsburgh, PA San Francisco, CA
Question 10
The next chart, Figure 2.12 depicts the responses on how well the Lehigh Valley International
Airport meets air travelers needs. Thirty three percent of respondents indicated that the Airport
meets all of their air travel needs well. Two percent of respondents (one individual) indicated that
Lehigh Valley was not used for air travel needs.
68%
18%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Less than 10
10-30
More than 30
How often did you use the airport in the last five years?
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-13
Figure 2.12- Response to Question 10
Comments provided in response to this question suggest that respondents feel that Philadelphia and
Newark provide cheaper, more direct flights. However, there was consensus among travelers, noting
satisfaction with the convenience provided at Lehigh Valley. Regarding the level of service, some
indicated through comment that the level of service at Lehigh Valley exceeds that of Philadelphia
and Newark.
Question 11
Survey question 11 asked the opinion of the state of air service at Lehigh Valley since 2004. As
shown in the results of the next question in Figure 2.13, in comparison to previous years, over 50%
of respondents feel that since 2004, the state of air service has worsened. Twenty one percent feel
that air service has improved while 26% of respondents believe that the state of air service at Lehigh
Valley is unchanged in recent years.
33%
44%
21%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Meets all my air travelneeds very well
Meets some of my needsbut the airport needs
improvement to satisfythem all
Does not meet my needsvery well
I do not use Lehigh Valleyfor my air travel needs
As an airport user, how well does Lehigh Valley International Airport meet your air travel needs?
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-14
Figure 2.13- Response to Question 11
When asked what may be some contributing factors to a reduction of the state of service at Lehigh
Valley, common responses were.
Too few airline options Higher ticket prices than Philadelphia or Newark Too few destination airports Poor economy/industry trends
The two final survey questions addressed the issue of communication and the relationship between
the Airport Authority and Airport Stakeholders. First, whether or not they believe that the Authority
has established effective communications with the business community and the general public in a
manner that is proactive and one which shows dedication to serving the publics interest. Secondly,
the respondents were asked whether they believed the relationship between the Authority and
Stakeholders is positive enough as to show dedication in promoting good working relationships.
26%
21%
52%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Unchananged inrecent years
Air service hasimproved
Air service hasworsened
Since the year 2004, how would you rate the state of the air service at Lehigh Valley?
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-15
Question 12
As shown in Figure 2.14, thirty-eight percent of respondents believe that the relationships between
the Airport Authority and stakeholders are in fact positive and promote good working relationships.
Forty-two percent feel that the relationships are somewhat positive but believe that more effort is
needed in this area to more effectively promote good working relationships. Twenty percent believe
that the relationships between the Authority and Airport Stakeholders are negative.
Figure 2.14- Response to Question 12
38%
20%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
Somewhat, but moreeffort is needed in
this area
In your opinion, are the relationships between the Airport Authority and Stakeholders positive so as to promote good working
relationships?
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-16
In Figure 2.15, a cross tabulation of respondents, shows that 89% of those who believe the
relationships are not positive have classified themselves as either Airport Stakeholders, or Non-
Airport Employees or Regional Executives.
Figure 2.15- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 12
Question 13
This question asked: What do you like/dislike about the current state of communications between
the Community and/or Region and the Airport Authority?
Some of the comments received indicated the perception that the Airport Authority has very little
communication with the community or the region, while others highlighted the Authoritys effort to
communicate with the community through various news publications, press releases, and public
meetings, as well as an airport website and 24 hour call center available to the public.
Overall, there were varying opinions that provided insight into the effectiveness of communication
between the Airport Authority and the community or the region. This information will be utilized as
a context in the organizational analysis.
5 (29%) 1 (11%) 7 (37%)
6 (35%)
3 (18%) 2 (11%)
3 (18%) 8 (89%) 10 (53%)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Board of GovernorsMember
Airport ManagementEmployee
Non-Management AirportEmployee
Regional Executive,Airport Stakeholder orNon-Airport Employee
In your opinion, are the working relationships between the Airport Authority and Stakeholders positive so as to promote good working
relationships?
Yes No Somewhat, but moreeffort is needed in this area
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-17
Question 14
Regarding communications and the Authoritys establishment of effective communications that are
proactive and show dedication to serving the publics interests, 40% of all respondents believe that
the Authority has established communications that show dedication to the public. Combined, almost
60% believe that the Authority has been only somewhat effective in establishing such
communication or that the Authority has not been effective in doing so.
Figure 2.16- Response to Question 14
Of the 30% of respondents who believe that the Authority has not been effective in establishing
effective communication, 80% of those respondents, as shown in Figure 2.17 on the next page, are
either Regional Executives, Stakeholders, or Non-Airport Employees. Of those who believe that the
Authority has established effective communication, the majority are either Airport Management
Employees or Non-Management Airport Employees.
40%
31%
29%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
Somewhat, butmore effort is
needed in this area
In your opinion has the Airport Authority established effective communications with the business community/general public in a manner that is proactive and
shows dedication to serving the public's interest?
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-18
Figure 2.17- Cross Tab Analysis of Question 14
Question 15
The last question of the survey asked: Given your exposure to the Airport, what improvements are
needed at the Airport to improve its efficiency and effectiveness?
In general, comments to improve air service included: the need for more destination airports,
competitive pricing, and an increase in the choice of airlines. A general suggestion to improve
management and organization included possibly reducing the levels of management which may
encourage better communication between management, stakeholders, airport employees, and the
travelling public.
5 (26%) 2 (13%) 8 (57%)
6 (32%) 1 (7%)
3 (16%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%)
5 (26%) 12 (80%) 4 (29%)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Board of GovernorsMember
Airport ManagementEmployee
Non-Management AirportEmployee
Regional Executive,Airport Stakeholder orNon-Airport Employee
In your opinion has the Airport Authority established effective communications with the business community/general public in a manner that is proactive and
shows dedication to serving the public's interest?
Yes No Somewhat, but more effort is needed in this area
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-19
2.2 Survey Summary
The Airport survey was sent to a list of 92 possible respondents, of which 48 completed surveys
were received for a 52% response rate. Ninety percent of respondents believe that the Airport serves
as a valuable economic asset. More importantly, 80% of all respondents believe that aviation growth
in Lehigh Valley is very important while the remaining 20% believe aviation growth is somewhat
important to the area.
A review of overall survey comments shows consistency in sentiment. Overall, the improvements
needed at the Airport to improve its efficiency and effectiveness include the following:
More airlines; Cheaper airfare; More destination airports; More non-stop flights and; Improved communication and public outreach initiatives.
To supplement the survey results, Study Team members met with various stakeholders to conduct
interviews. The interviewee was asked to describe their background and their familiarity with the
reporting structure at LVIA. In addition, they were also asked to provide their opinion on the
general efficiency and effectiveness of the Airport and their Department, challenges faced by the
Airport and suggestions for Airport improvement.
The Study Team has thoroughly assessed all survey and interview findings and has considered them
within the organizational evaluation, findings and recommendations section of this report.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Stakeholder Survey Page 2-20
This page intentionally left blank.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-1
3.0 COMPARABLE AIRPORTS ANALYSIS
In an effort to better correlate current practices relating to airport management with the Lehigh
Northampton Airport Authority (LNAA), an analysis was performed comparing several key aspects
of LNAA and Lehigh Valley International Airport (LVIA) with similar airports throughout the
Region and the United States.
The following sections: (1) describe the approach employed to determine the list of comparable
airports; (2) provide an overview of the selected comparable airports in the context of an
organizational, management, and operational framework; (3) compare human resources data and
practices; and (4) provide an overview of comparable airport trends.
3.1 Comparable Airports Data Collection, Screening and Selection
The screening process to determine comparable airports began with collecting passenger boarding
data, also called enplanements, from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Data from 2006
was used as it was the last complete year for which this data set was available at the time this study
was commenced. The data set was imported into Excel spreadsheet format and included
information for all domestic airports that had scheduled air carrier service. This data included:
Rank (based on enplanements); City and State; Three-letter airport code (e.g. ABE); Airport name; Service level; FAA hub classification; 2006 enplanements; 2005 enplanements; and Percentage change in enplanements between 2005 and 2006
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-2
This data was then organized first by each airports 2006 enplanements (passenger boardings), then
by service level; and lastly by hub type to remove from the list airports that are not comparable to
LVIA. Upon removing the identified non-comparable airports from the data, only airports meeting
the following criteria from the remaining data were kept to consider:
Proximity to a large hub airports (e.g. Philadelphia International Airport); Serves as a regional airport; Operates a system of airports; and Governance/Management structure (Authority, Board, County, Municipal, etc.).
The data set remaining for further analysis consisted of sixteen (16) airports chosen by the Study
Team that met some or all of the above criteria. An airport was not required to meet all criteria, but
rather provide examples of different governance structures from similar situated airports. For
example, the Study Team considered other airports in Pennsylvania that have an Authority and were
formed under the same municipal authorities act as LNAA; others were considered as a result of
their County governance model; and others were looked at because of their Authority type
governance structure formed outside of Pennsylvania, both large and small scale.
The five (5) comparable airports chosen to be included in this analysis are a mix of the criteria
discussed above, providing the Study Team with a cross representation of comparable airport
information. These airports are identified in Table 3.1.
Detailed information obtained from these airports is presented later in this Section of the report.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-3
3.1 Comparable Airports Matrix
U.S. Rank
FAA Loc. ID
City
State
Airport Name
Hub Type
CY 06
Enplanements
CY 05
Enplanements
%
Change
Lg. Hub
Competitor
Dis
t.
to
Lar
ge
Hu
b
(mi)
Governance
Structure
System of
Airports/#
134
ABE
A
llent
own
PA
Lehi
gh V
alley
In
tern
atio
nal
S 39
7,60
3 41
9,12
2 -5
.13%
Ph
ilade
lphi
a
New
ark
72 78
Aut
horit
y Y
es /
3
49
MK
E
Milw
auke
e W
I G
ener
al M
itche
ll In
tern
atio
nal
M
3,63
0,09
8 3,
602,
536
16.7
6%
Chic
ago
OH
are
73
Coun
ty
Yes
/ 2
92
SFB
Sanf
ord
FL
Orla
ndo
Sanf
ord
Inte
rnat
iona
l S
915,
135
789,
795
15.8
7%
Orla
ndo
33
Aut
horit
y N
o /
0
60
PVD
Pr
ovid
ence
RI
Th
eodo
re
Fran
cis G
reen
A
irpor
t M
2,
588,
992
2,84
6,00
2 -9
.03%
Bo
ston
Log
an
62
Qua
si-St
ate
Yes
/ 6
108
MD
T H
arris
burg
PA
H
arris
burg
In
tern
atio
nal
S 57
7,55
9 64
7,46
8 -1
0.80
%
Ph
ilade
lphi
a
Ba
ltim
ore
Was
hing
ton
Lehi
gh V
alley
110 97 92
Aut
horit
y Y
es /
2
194
SWF
New
burg
N
Y
Stew
art
Inte
rnat
iona
l N
15
6,63
8 19
9,74
1 -2
1.58
%
N
ewar
k
JF K
enne
dy
La
Gua
rdia
A
lban
y
72 79 69 98
Aut
horit
y Y
es /
6
Source: Federal Aviation Administration and Yahoo Maps. Note: Hub Type is FAAs Airport Classification: M = Medium Hub; S = Small Hub; N = Non-Hub.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-4
3.2 Comparable Airports Overview
When making comparisons between airports, it is most useful to balance quantitative metrics, those
things capable of being expressed numerically, and qualitative metrics, those things described in
terms of quality or character. In an airport environment there are both numerous quantitative and
qualitative metrics that can be considered. For this study, a framework was developed for use when
contacting representatives of the comparable airports that included questions related to both
qualitative and quantitative metrics in three key contexts:
Organizational; Management; and Operational.
A copy of this framework is provided in the Appendix. Contact information for key personnel
including the Airport Directors and Human Resources Directors from each comparable airport was
compiled and is also found in the Appendix. Initial and follow-up telephone interviews with each
key person identified were conducted between August 15 and December 1, 2008. All five airports
that were contacted were willing to participate and included the following airports:
General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee, WI); Orlando Sanford Airport (Sanford, FL); Theodore Francis Green Airport (Providence, RI); Harrisburg International Airport (Harrisburg, PA); and Stewart International Airport (Newburgh, NY).
The information garnered from the interviews is presented below within the three contexts of the
framework identified previously (organizational, management, and operational). Organizational
charts provided by each of the airports contacted are found at the end of this section.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-5
3.2.1 Organizational Context
The Organizational Context is comprised of those aspects of the airport which directly relate to
organizational structure and size, governing body, financing, etc.
Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh Valley International Airport (LVIA) is a FAA-designated regional commercial service airport
to the Lehigh Valley area and it is part of a multi-airport system that includes two general aviation
airports (Queen City Airport and Braden Airpark). LVIA is owned by both Lehigh and
Northampton Counties, and is operated by the Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority (LNAA).
The LNAA, which is an autonomous, independent agency, was established under the Pennsylvania
Authorities Act and employs approximately 129 staff. Primary financing for Lehigh Valley
International comes from a mix of Passenger Facility Charges (PFC), (currently at the maximum
allowable $4.50), Authority-Issued Bonds, and user fees.
The Authority is directed by a Board of Governors, who is charged with making policy, approving
budgets, setting criteria for contracts, and approving any contract or procurement item for more
than $15,000. The Board consists of 19 members; 10 members are appointed from Lehigh County
and 9 members are appointed from Northampton County and serve 5 year terms with no term
limits. The Executive Director of Lehigh Valley International is hired by the Board and is a contract
employee. While the terms of the contract may vary, it generally consists of a 4-year term with at
least one automatic one-year renewal.
General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee, Wisconsin)
General Mitchell International Airport (Milwaukee) serves the commercial air service needs of the
greater Milwaukee area in Wisconsin. It is part of a multi-airport system consisting of one
commercial and one general aviation airport, Timmerman Airport.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-6
Milwaukee is owned and operated by Milwaukee County, with an approximate staff of 200
personnel. Financing for CIP projects comes from a mix of user fees and AIP entitlement funds.
The Airport is overseen by a 19-member County Board who are elected officials from the
community at-large. The Board is responsible for setting policy and budget approval.
The Airport Director is an at-will employee of the County who is hired by the Director of Public
Works, who then must get approval from the County Executive and then the County Board. The
Airport Director must go through a performance review and approval from the County Board every
4 years.
Orlando Sanford International Airport (Sanford, Florida)
Orlando Sanford International Airport (Sanford) serves as a commercial reliever airport to Orlando
International Airport, with a high percentage of its passengers coming from the leisure traffic
market. It is a single airport that is owned by the City of Sanford financed primarily through AIP
entitlement funds and user fees.
Orlando Sanford International is operated by the Sanford Airport Authority, which includes a staff
of 55 people and a 9-member Board of Directors who are appointed by the Sanford City
Commission to 4 year terms with no term limits. The Board is responsible for setting policy, budget
approval, and the employment/hiring of the Airport CEO. The CEO is hired directly by the
Authority, and is a contract employee of the Authority with a contract term of 3 years.
Theodore Francis Green Airport (Providence, Rhode Island)
Theodore Francis Green Airport (Providence) serves the commercial service needs of the state of
Rhode Island, eastern Connecticut and northeastern Massachusetts, and is part of a multi-airport
system that includes Providence and five general aviation airports: Block Island State Airport,
North Central State Airport, Quonset State Airport, Westerly State Airport, and Newport State
Airport/Robert F. Wood Airpark.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-7
Providence is owned and operated by the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC), a quasi-
independent agency, and is overseen by an Airport Board. RIAC employs 185 full and part time
employees. Financing is through AIP and user fees.
The Airport Board consists of seven (7) members and is charged with setting policy, budget
approval, and the hiring of the CEO. One Board member is appointed by the Mayor of Warwick,
and six by the Governor of Rhode Island. The CEO is hired by the Board and is a contract
employee of the Board.
Harrisburg International Airport (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania)
Harrisburg International Airport (Harrisburg) serves as a FAA-designated regional commercial
service airport as a part of a multi-airport system that includes one commercial service airport and
three general aviation airports: Capital City Airport, Franklin County Regional Airport, and
Gettysburg Regional Airport, all serving central Pennsylvania.
Harrisburg is owned and operated by the Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority (SARAA),
and is financed through AIP, Airport Revenue Bonds, and user fees. The Airport has 120 full and
part-time staff. The SARAA Board consists of 15 members that are appointed by the respective
elected officials for the counties of Dauphin, York, and Cumberland, and the townships of Fairview
and Lower Swatara. Board members are responsible for setting policy, budget approval, and the
hiring of the Executive Director. The Executive Director is an at-will employee of the Board, and
is subject to annual performance reviews.
Stewart International Airport (Newburg, New York)
Stewart International Airport (Stewart) serves as one of four commercial service airports owned by
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ). The system of airports owned by the
PANJNY also includes Teterboro Airport, which serves as a general aviation reliever airport. This
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-8
system of airports serves the needs of southern New York, southwestern Connecticut and northern
New Jersey (New York Metropolitan Area).
Financing for Stewart comes from a mix of AIP, PFC, and user fees. The Airport has a staff of
approximately 54 full time staff, which is a mix of PANYNJ staff, private management and
consultants. The PANYNJ Board of Commissioners consists of 12 members. Both New York and
New Jersey appoint 6 members, which are subject to state Senate approval, with members serving 6-
year overlapping terms. The Commissioners serve as public officials, are responsible for setting
policy and budget approval for all of the transportation services that are covered by the PANYNJ.
The General Manager is a direct at-will employee of the PANYNJ.
A summary table of the comparable airports organizational comparison can be found in Table 3.2
below and the airports organizational charts can be found on the following pages.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-9
Table 3.2 Comparable Airports Organizational Context
Airports
Leh
igh
Vall
ey
Inte
rnat
iona
l
Gen
eral
Mitc
hell
Inte
rnat
iona
l
Orla
ndo
Sanf
ord
Inte
rnat
iona
l
T.F.
Gre
en
(Pro
vide
nce)
Har
risbu
rg
Inte
rnat
iona
l
Stew
art
Inte
rnat
iona
l
Single or Multi
Airport System
Multi-Airport
Multi-Airport
Single Airport
Multi- Airport
Multi- Airport
Multi-Airport
Number Of
Full Time Staff
129 200 55 185 120 54
Governing Body
Airport Authority
County Board
Airport Authority
Airport Board
Airport Board
Board of Com-
missioners
Number Of
Governing Officials
19 19 9 7 15 12
Official Selection
Appoint- ment by County
Executives
Elected by the Public
Appoint- ment by City Commission
Appoint- ment by Warwick Mayor &
RI Governor
Appoint- ment by
Counties & Townships
Appoint-ment by States
Term Length 5 Years 5 Years 4 Years 5 Years 5 Years 6 Years
Term Limits No No No No No No
orga
niz
atio
n
Primary Financing
User Fees, PFC,
Authority Issued Bonds
User Fees AIP
Entitlement
Bonds PFC AIP
Entitlement
User Fees AIP
Entitlement
User Fees Bonds AIP
Entitlement
PFC Investments
AIP Entitlement
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-10
Line
Te
chs
Cou
r. H
gras
st
Lehi
gh V
alle
y In
tern
atio
nal A
irpor
tLe
high
Nor
tham
pton
Airp
ort A
utho
rity
Boa
rd o
f Gov
erno
rs
Exec
utiv
e D
irect
or
Dire
ctor
of
Publ
ic S
afet
yD
irect
or o
f Fin
ance
&
Bud
gets
Seni
or P
roje
ct
Man
ager
Dire
ctor
of
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Adm
inis
trativ
e A
ssis
tant
Lega
l Cou
nsel S
peci
al A
ssis
tant
to th
e E
xecu
tive
Dire
ctor
Airp
ort
Pl
anne
r
Dep
uty
Exec
utiv
e D
irec
tor Assi
stan
t to
the
Dep
uty
Exe
cutiv
e D
irect
orB
rade
n A
irpar
k
Dire
ctor
of
Bus
. Dev
lpm
tSu
perin
tend
ent
of M
aint
enan
ceD
irect
or o
f LVI
A
Avi
atio
n Se
rvic
esSy
stem
s D
irect
or
Prop
ertie
s M
anag
er
Park
ing
Atte
ndan
ts
Pas
seng
er
Serv
ices
(25)
Pas
seng
er S
ervi
ces
Coo
rd.
Land
Aqu
i. Sp
ecia
listH.R
. Acc
t. G
ener
alis
t
Acco
untin
g C
lerk
Plan
ner
Eng
inee
rP
roje
ct
Engi
neer
Adm
in A
sst.
Cle
rk
Com
mC
ente
rFi
re D
ivis
ion
Polic
e D
ivis
ion
Bus
ines
s D
ev.
Coo
rd
Bus
ines
s D
ev.
Mgr
.
Ass
ista
nt
Sup
erin
tend
ent o
f M
aint
enan
ce
Mai
nten
ance
(25)
Cus
todi
al S
uper
viso
r
Cus
todi
ans
(18)
Sys
tem
s Te
ch.
Airl
ine
Serv
ices
M
anag
er
FBO
Lin
eOps
Mgr
.
Airl
ine
Serv
ices
M
anag
er
ATO
stat
ion
Mgm
t
Cle
rk
Des
k R
eps
Cle
rk
Supe
rinte
nden
t G
roun
d Tr
ans.
Te
rmin
al S
rvcs
Supe
rvis
orPa
ssen
ger
Serv
ices
FBO
Lin
eOps
Mgr
.
Acc
ount
ing
Mgr
.
QC
Lin
eOps
Mgr
.Li
ne
Tech
sLine
Tech
s C
our.
Hgr
asst
Lehi
gh V
alle
y In
tern
atio
nal A
irpor
tLe
high
Nor
tham
pton
Airp
ort A
utho
rity
Boa
rd o
f Gov
erno
rs
Exec
utiv
e D
irect
or
Dire
ctor
of
Publ
ic S
afet
yD
irect
or o
f Fin
ance
&
Bud
gets
Seni
or P
roje
ct
Man
ager
Dire
ctor
of
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Adm
inis
trativ
e A
ssis
tant
Lega
l Cou
nsel S
peci
al A
ssis
tant
to th
e E
xecu
tive
Dire
ctor
Airp
ort
Pl
anne
r
Dep
uty
Exec
utiv
e D
irec
tor Assi
stan
t to
the
Dep
uty
Exe
cutiv
e D
irect
orB
rade
n A
irpar
k
Dire
ctor
of
Bus
. Dev
lpm
tSu
perin
tend
ent
of M
aint
enan
ceD
irect
or o
f LVI
A
Avi
atio
n Se
rvic
esSy
stem
s D
irect
or
Prop
ertie
s M
anag
er
Park
ing
Atte
ndan
ts
Pas
seng
er
Serv
ices
(25)
Pas
seng
er S
ervi
ces
Coo
rd.
Land
Aqu
i. Sp
ecia
listH.R
. Acc
t. G
ener
alis
t
Acco
untin
g C
lerk
Plan
ner
Eng
inee
rP
roje
ct
Engi
neer
Adm
in A
sst.
Cle
rk
Com
mC
ente
rFi
re D
ivis
ion
Polic
e D
ivis
ion
Bus
ines
s D
ev.
Coo
rd
Bus
ines
s D
ev.
Mgr
.
Ass
ista
nt
Sup
erin
tend
ent o
f M
aint
enan
ce
Mai
nten
ance
(25)
Cus
todi
al S
uper
viso
r
Cus
todi
ans
(18)
Sys
tem
s Te
ch.
Airl
ine
Serv
ices
M
anag
er
FBO
Lin
eOps
Mgr
.
Airl
ine
Serv
ices
M
anag
er
ATO
stat
ion
Mgm
t
Cle
rk
Des
k R
eps
Cle
rk
Supe
rinte
nden
t G
roun
d Tr
ans.
Te
rmin
al S
rvcs
Supe
rvis
orPa
ssen
ger
Serv
ices
FBO
Lin
eOps
Mgr
.
Acc
ount
ing
Mgr
.
QC
Lin
eOps
Mgr
.Li
ne
Tech
s
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-11
G
ener
al M
itche
ll In
tern
atio
nal A
irpor
t
Milw
auke
e C
ount
y
Exec
utiv
e D
irect
or
Man
ager
Mar
ketin
g/Pu
blic
Rel
atio
ns
2 A
irpor
t Int
erns
Gen
eral
Cou
nsel
Noi
se A
bate
men
tG
IS S
peci
alis
t
.
.
Law
Enfo
rcem
ent
(8)
Adm
inis
trat
ion
2 St
uden
t Int
erns
Air
port
Eng
inee
rsA
irpo
rt P
lann
er
Dep
uty
Dir
ecto
rFi
nanc
e/A
dmin
Gro
und
Tra
nspo
rt&
Par
king
Man
ager
Acc
ount
ing
Secr
etar
yPr
oper
ties M
ngr
Prop
ertie
s Spc
Con
tract
s
Dep
uty
Dir
ecto
rO
ps/M
aint
enan
ce
Ope
ratio
ns M
ngr
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mng
rA
dmin
. Ass
t.M
aint
enan
ce M
ngr
Ope
ratio
nsSt
aff
Mai
nten
ance
Staf
f
Safe
ty &
Tr
aini
ng
Spec
ialis
t(Non
-Air
port
) (N
on-A
irpo
rt)
(Non
-Air
port
)
Gen
eral
Mitc
hell
Inte
rnat
iona
l Airp
ort
Milw
auke
e C
ount
y
Exec
utiv
e D
irect
or
Man
ager
Mar
ketin
g/Pu
blic
Rel
atio
ns
2 A
irpor
t Int
erns
Gen
eral
Cou
nsel
Noi
se A
bate
men
tG
IS S
peci
alis
t
.
.
Law
Enfo
rcem
ent
(8)
Adm
inis
trat
ion
2 St
uden
t Int
erns
Air
port
Eng
inee
rsA
irpo
rt P
lann
er
Dep
uty
Dir
ecto
rFi
nanc
e/A
dmin
Gro
und
Tra
nspo
rt&
Par
king
Man
ager
Acc
ount
ing
Secr
etar
yPr
oper
ties M
ngr
Prop
ertie
s Spc
Con
tract
s
Dep
uty
Dir
ecto
rO
ps/M
aint
enan
ce
Ope
ratio
ns M
ngr
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mng
rA
dmin
. Ass
t.M
aint
enan
ce M
ngr
Ope
ratio
nsSt
aff
Mai
nten
ance
Staf
f
Safe
ty &
Tr
aini
ng
Spec
ialis
t(Non
-Air
port
) (N
on-A
irpo
rt)
(Non
-Air
port
)
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-12
O
rland
o Sa
nfor
d A
irpor
t Aut
horit
y
City
of S
anfo
rdM
ayor
and
City
Com
mis
sion
Sanf
ord
Airp
ort A
utho
rity
Boa
rd o
f Dire
ctor
s
Pres
iden
t and
Chi
ef E
xecu
tive
Offi
cer
Inci
dent
Com
man
der/L
aw E
nfor
cem
ent
Con
stru
ctio
n
Man
agem
ent
Vice
Pre
side
nt o
f Fin
ance
/CFO
&
Air
port
Chi
ef o
f Pol
ice
Vice
Pre
side
nt o
f
Ope
ratio
nsVi
ce P
resi
dent
of
A
dmin
istr
atio
n
Pro
perti
es
Hum
an R
esou
rces
Offi
ce A
dmin
istra
tion
Bui
ldin
g M
aint
enan
ce
Publ
ic In
form
atio
n O
ffice
r
Airp
ort P
olic
e &
Dis
patc
h
Fina
nce
& A
ccou
ntin
g
Info
rmat
ion
Tech
nolo
gy
Gra
nt A
dmin
istra
tion
Airf
ield
Mai
nten
ance
Airp
ort O
pera
tions
& S
afet
y
Airp
ort S
ecur
ity C
ompl
ianc
e &
Acc
ess
Con
trol
Airc
raft
Res
cue/
Fire
fight
ing
(AR
FF
Hor
izon
tal
Ver
tical
Ren
ovat
ion
Rem
odel
ing
Dire
ctor
of S
peci
al A
ffairs
Gen
eral
Cou
nsel
Orla
ndo
Sanf
ord
Airp
ort A
utho
rity
City
of S
anfo
rdM
ayor
and
City
Com
mis
sion
Sanf
ord
Airp
ort A
utho
rity
Boa
rd o
f Dire
ctor
s
Pres
iden
t and
Chi
ef E
xecu
tive
Offi
cer
Inci
dent
Com
man
der/L
aw E
nfor
cem
ent
Con
stru
ctio
n
Man
agem
ent
Vice
Pre
side
nt o
f Fin
ance
/CFO
&
Air
port
Chi
ef o
f Pol
ice
Vice
Pre
side
nt o
f
Ope
ratio
nsVi
ce P
resi
dent
of
A
dmin
istr
atio
n
Pro
perti
es
Hum
an R
esou
rces
Offi
ce A
dmin
istra
tion
Bui
ldin
g M
aint
enan
ce
Publ
ic In
form
atio
n O
ffice
r
Airp
ort P
olic
e &
Dis
patc
h
Fina
nce
& A
ccou
ntin
g
Info
rmat
ion
Tech
nolo
gy
Gra
nt A
dmin
istra
tion
Airf
ield
Mai
nten
ance
Airp
ort O
pera
tions
& S
afet
y
Airp
ort S
ecur
ity C
ompl
ianc
e &
Acc
ess
Con
trol
Airc
raft
Res
cue/
Fire
fight
ing
(AR
FF
Hor
izon
tal
Ver
tical
Ren
ovat
ion
Rem
odel
ing
Dire
ctor
of S
peci
al A
ffairs
Gen
eral
Cou
nsel
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-13
Boar
d of
Dire
ctor
s
Chief
Aud
itor
& Fi
nanc
ial A
nalys
tMa
nage
r of E
xec.
Supp
ort S
ervic
es
Dire
ctor
Hum
an R
esou
rces
VP P
ublic
Affa
irs&
Air S
ervic
e Mar
ketin
g
Para
legal
VP
Com
mer
cial
Prog
ram
sCo
rp.
Cont
rolle
r
Proc
. Sp
ecial
ist
Fina
nce M
gr.
Proj
. Con
t. Mg
r/DBE
Liais
on O
ff.Gr
ants
/Con
tract
s
Proj
ect A
cct
Mana
ger
Eng.
Mana
ger
Plng
.VP
Env
Mgm
t Sy
s
TSS
Proj
Mgr
.
Proj
Mgr
.
CADD
Op
P/T
Airp
ort
Plan
ner
Fire
Chi
ef
Chief
of P
olice
GA
(Lan
dmar
k)AV
P Op
s &
Main
tena
nce
Aero
naut
ics
Ins. Ca
ptain
Mgr O
ps
Mgr A
irfiel
d
AVP
Build
ings
Lts
(4)
Insp
ecto
r
Depu
ty
Capt
ains (
4)
AVP
Com
m.
Prog
.
Cont
r. Mg
r Ad
m.
Mgr P
arkin
g/Gr
ound
Tr
ans.
Com
mun
ity
Relat
ions
TSS
Air S
ervic
e Mkt
gAn
alyst
HR M
anag
erPa
yrol
l Man
ager
Rece
ptio
nist
Sr A
dmin
As
st.
Gene
ral C
ouns
el
Mana
ger
Audi
tMa
nage
r Au
dit
Oper
atio
ns an
d Ma
inte
nanc
e
Plan
ning
, En
gine
erin
g, an
d En
viron
men
tal
TSS
IISr
. VP.
Fin
ance
and
Adm
in
Badg
e Coo
rd
P/T
TSS
Snr T
SS
TSS
Mgr
Build
ings
Mgr E
nv P
rog
Adm
in A
sst.
Acco
untin
g
Acco
untin
gAc
coun
ting
TSS
TSS
Capi
tal
Prog
ram
Mana
ger
Airp
ort
Plan
ner
Badg
e Coo
rd
Emer
g. R
esp.
Coor
dina
tor
Lawy
er
Pres
iden
t & C
EO
Envn
Proj
Mgr
TSS
Noise
Pro
gMg
r
Chief
Tec
h.
Offic
er
Seni
or IT
An
alyst
IT A
nalys
t
IT A
nalys
t
IT A
nalys
tAc
coun
ting
T.F.
Gre
en A
irpor
tBo
ard
ofDi
rect
ors
Chief
Aud
itor
& Fi
nanc
ial A
nalys
tMa
nage
r of E
xec.
Supp
ort S
ervic
es
Dire
ctor
Hum
an R
esou
rces
VP P
ublic
Affa
irs&
Air S
ervic
e Mar
ketin
g
Para
legal
VP
Com
mer
cial
Prog
ram
sCo
rp.
Cont
rolle
r
Proc
. Sp
ecial
ist
Fina
nce M
gr.
Proj
. Con
t. Mg
r/DBE
Liais
on O
ff.Gr
ants
/Con
tract
s
Proj
ect A
cct
Mana
ger
Eng.
Mana
ger
Plng
.VP
Env
Mgm
t Sy
s
TSS
Proj
Mgr
.
Proj
Mgr
.
CADD
Op
P/T
Airp
ort
Plan
ner
Fire
Chi
ef
Chief
of P
olice
GA
(Lan
dmar
k)AV
P Op
s &
Main
tena
nce
Aero
naut
ics
Ins. Ca
ptain
Mgr O
ps
Mgr A
irfiel
d
AVP
Build
ings
Lts
(4)
Insp
ecto
r
Depu
ty
Capt
ains (
4)
AVP
Com
m.
Prog
.
Cont
r. Mg
r Ad
m.
Mgr P
arkin
g/Gr
ound
Tr
ans.
Com
mun
ity
Relat
ions
TSS
Air S
ervic
e Mkt
gAn
alyst
HR M
anag
erPa
yrol
l Man
ager
Rece
ptio
nist
Sr A
dmin
As
st.
Gene
ral C
ouns
el
Mana
ger
Audi
tMa
nage
r Au
dit
Oper
atio
ns an
d Ma
inte
nanc
e
Plan
ning
, En
gine
erin
g, an
d En
viron
men
tal
TSS
IISr
. VP.
Fin
ance
and
Adm
in
Badg
e Coo
rd
P/T
TSS
Snr T
SS
TSS
Mgr
Build
ings
Mgr E
nv P
rog
Adm
in A
sst.
Acco
untin
g
Acco
untin
gAc
coun
ting
TSS
TSS
Capi
tal
Prog
ram
Mana
ger
Airp
ort
Plan
ner
Badg
e Coo
rd
Emer
g. R
esp.
Coor
dina
tor
Lawy
er
Pres
iden
t & C
EO
Envn
Proj
Mgr
TSS
Noise
Pro
gMg
r
Chief
Tec
h.
Offic
er
Seni
or IT
An
alyst
IT A
nalys
t
IT A
nalys
t
IT A
nalys
tAc
coun
ting
T.F.
Gre
en A
irpor
t
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Final Report Airport Management Study Lehigh Valley International Airport
Lehigh & Northampton Counties February 6, 2009 Comparable Airports Analysis Page 3-14
Tech
s
Har
risbu
rg In
tern
atio
nal A
irpor
tSu
sque
hann
a A
rea
Reg
iona
lA
irpor
t Aut
hori
ty
Exec
utiv
e D
irect
or
Adm
inis
trativ
e A
ssis
tant
Dep
uty
Exec
utiv
e D
irect
or
H.R
. Ass
ista
nt
H.R
. Man
ager
M
anag
er, T
erm
inal
Faci
litie
s, P
arki
ng,
& G
T
& A
dmin
istr
atio
nD
eput
y D
irect
or o
f Fin
ance
D
eput
y D
irect
or o
f PR
&
Mar
ketin
gD
eput
y D
irect
or o
f Pla
nnin
g &
Eng
inee
ring
Dep
uty
Dire
ctor
, Sec
urity
O
ps, &
Pub
lic S
afet
y
Acco
untin
gM
anag
er
Par
t Tim
eA
ccou
ntan
t
AR
/AP
Spec
ialis
t
Pro
perty
Man
ager
Purc
hasi
ngA
gent
Mar
ketin
g &
Cus
tom
er S
vcM
anag
er
Cus
tom
er In
fo/
Sus
queh
anna
Clu
b
Rec
eptio
nist
Adve
rtisi
ng&
Mar
ketin
g
Util
ities
,W
ater
,/ Se
wer
Man