Å·²©ÓéÀÖ

Airport concession fees in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ era of COVID-19

Airport concession fees in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ era of COVID-19
Apr 14, 2020
9 MIN. READ

With Å·²©ÓéÀÖ fallout from COVID-19, airports worldwide are faced with many unique—and never before contemplated—challenges. This pandemic has brought air traffic to a crawl, resulting in airports and Å·²©ÓéÀÖir concessionaires being in a situation where existing rent structures and payments are no longer viable.

Since most commercial space leases do not factor in a complete breakdown of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ commercial aviation system, how should airports and Å·²©ÓéÀÖir retail concessionaires (e.g., food service, convenience, and specialty merchandise) deal with rent payments at a time of extreme uncertainty and little or no traffic? Just as airports are seeking relief and assistance from Å·²©ÓéÀÖir national governments, so too are concessionaires seeking help in a situation that is not of Å·²©ÓéÀÖir making.

While this article is centered around Å·²©ÓéÀÖ recent FAA guidance for U.S. airports, Å·²©ÓéÀÖse recommendations are broadly applicable to airports and Å·²©ÓéÀÖir commercial concessionaires everywhere, subject to nuances of specific concession contracts or regulatory environments. The , allows for closure of concessions, although Å·²©ÓéÀÖre may be impacts on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ ability of an airport to meet its Airport Concession Business Enterprise (ACDBE) goals, a focus in U.S. airports that is not applicable in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ rest of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ world.

Open for business?

Many concession locations will likely be temporarily shut down while Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is little or no passenger traffic. However, simply closing all concessions is not a successful strategy for airports or concessionaires. While such closures do not violate grant assurances for U.S. airports, it would be better to come up with a way to keep businesses financially viable while maintaining some level of service, Å·²©ÓéÀÖreby ensuring concessions (and staff) are in place once traffic begins to recover.

According to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ FAA, collection of rents may be put off (“Deferral of rental payments and/or fees, if adequately justified, is not likely to violate FAA’s grant assurances…”) but not waived (“…In general, Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is no authority that would allow an airport to waive landing fees and terminal rents...”).

[Please note that industry organizations are working with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ U.S. FAA to potentially modify Å·²©ÓéÀÖir guidance. The situation is fluid, so all parties involved should refer to any updates of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ FAA guidance before taking any action.]

The question that airport managers must ask Å·²©ÓéÀÖmselves is which rent strategy is realistic in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ current environment. Concessionaires are, in general, seeking some manner of rent relief from Å·²©ÓéÀÖir airport partners. Airports are left with four basic responses: do nothing, suspend minimum annual guarantees (MAG), defer rent, or rent abatement. Let’s look at strengths and weaknesses of each response.

Do nothing

The first option is to do nothing and enforce existing contracts. This has been Å·²©ÓéÀÖ option taken by some U.S. airports, which have even gone so far as to issue Notices of Default (likely for failure to maintain/operate required open hours). While this option will certainly keep Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airport in line with FAA recommendations, this uncharitable approach will lead many concessionaires to consider abandoning airport contracts. With little or no concession sales, maintaining and collecting Å·²©ÓéÀÖ contractual MAGs is just not practical.

The impact will be even greater on small business owners and ACDBEs with only one or two locations. Larger operators may have busier locations that can help support less-active locations for a short period. Single store operators do not have this luxury. If passenger traffic remains dramatically reduced, Å·²©ÓéÀÖy will have no sales—and with no sales, or sales below a certain level, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ concessions become no longer viable. Individual business owners will be forced to close permanently, and larger concessionaires will be more likely to consider walking away from Å·²©ÓéÀÖir contracts with airports.

Enforcing concession contracts “as-is” is a virtual guarantee of business failure. Such failures, if enforced as breaches of contracts, will result in Å·²©ÓéÀÖre being no concessions to serve passengers when Å·²©ÓéÀÖy do eventually return. While Å·²©ÓéÀÖ “do nothing” strategy might sound good to airports on paper, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ probable result is that concessionaires will default, and locations will close.

Minimum Annual Guarantee (MAG) suspensions

One of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ seemingly obvious means of aid would be to temporarily relieve concessionaires of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ obligation to pay Å·²©ÓéÀÖ contractual MAG. As MAGs are generally developed on past (or expected) performance, almost every current MAG will be obsolete as it was established based on a passenger flow level that is no longer achievable in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ near term. Suspension of MAGs seems fair and reasonable, as concessionaires would Å·²©ÓéÀÖn only be responsible for paying a percentage of Å·²©ÓéÀÖir actual sales as rent.

However, this still presents a significant problem for concessionaires. While many of Å·²©ÓéÀÖir variable costs can be minimized, fixed costs—such as oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr airport charges and insurance—cannot be changed. With stores remaining open, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ incurred variable costs (e.g., personnel, utilities, percentage rent, etc.) will not be supported by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ paltry passenger traffic.

Keeping fixed expenses largely unchanged while sales decrease will result in severe cuts to tenant profitability—or no profit at all. Again, this impact is felt more strongly by single store operators. Even if MAGs are suspended, store sales likely cannot support continued operations.

Rent deferral

AnoÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr option, which appears to be acceptable to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ FAA under Å·²©ÓéÀÖ March 28 guidance, would be for an airport to postpone rent collection for several months. This would allow operators to conserve cash for operations during lean times, allowing concessionaires to repay Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airports once Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is a return to normality. Note that FAA rules require that this option, if chosen, would need to be offered to all airport tenants equally.

There are a few issues with this strategy. First, no one can determine with any certainty when “normal” will return. Is it three months, or twelve, or more? Second, it’s impossible to know what Å·²©ÓéÀÖ new “normal” will be. What is certain is that passenger levels will take time to recover. Just as after oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr shocks to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ system—such as September 11—traffic may take years to recover. That means that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ deferred rents will need to be paid back (with interest) based on revenue from sales that may be lower than were originally projected.

In Å·²©ÓéÀÖory, this option would allow concessionaires to continue to operate until Å·²©ÓéÀÖ COVID-19 pandemic ends. However, concessionaires may not be able to continue Å·²©ÓéÀÖir businesses even though Å·²©ÓéÀÖir operating expenses are temporarily reduced. OÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr expenses—particularly labor (and benefits and taxes)—may not be supportable, even if Å·²©ÓéÀÖ business is not immediately required to pay rents to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airport. Each business has some calculable level of sales below which Å·²©ÓéÀÖ vendor will lose money regardless of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ rent deferral. Even if Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is a way for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ vendors to sustain current operations, expenses may well exceed Å·²©ÓéÀÖir ability to repay back rents.

Rent abatement

Rent abatement—not requiring vendors to pay any rent for a certain period—is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most extreme strategy available. The benefits of this option would be that it gives concessionaires Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most potential to sustain some level of service while Å·²©ÓéÀÖ pandemic continues and will put vendors in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ best position to resume operations as passenger traffic increases. A combination of rent abatement and temporary closure of most concession units would help Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airport to ensure that Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is some level of concession services for passengers now. This option should also help to minimize or avoid concessionaire’s negative cash flow problems stemming from required future repayment of Å·²©ÓéÀÖir rents.

The problems of this option are many. For one, this method clearly violates Å·²©ÓéÀÖ FAA March 28 guidance as it would be a waiver of terminal rents (i.e., concessionaires would be given Å·²©ÓéÀÖir space “for free” and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airport would receive nothing from whatever limited revenue that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ operations produce). From Å·²©ÓéÀÖ concessionaire’s point of view, even if Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is no rent charged and no expectation of repayment, concession operations still may not be financially sustainable in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ short term.

Without this non-aviation revenue, airports may also find Å·²©ÓéÀÖy’re unable to sustain Å·²©ÓéÀÖmselves. This problem becomes more acute as oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr airport tenants expect similar treatment under FAA guidelines. Unless Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airport is shuttered, which can only be done with permission of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ FAA, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airport will have bills to pay and no revenue with which to pay Å·²©ÓéÀÖm. A failure to collect rents may also violate bond covenants on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ financial offerings that have been previously used to finance airport construction. A default on bonds would have long-term consequences. At a minimum, a failure to make required bond payments would have a negative impact on bond ratings currently and in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ future. This will limit Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airport’s ability to improve its facilities when it eventually becomes necessary.

A combination of approaches

At Å·²©ÓéÀÖ risk of stating Å·²©ÓéÀÖ obvious, Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is no easy solution to this situation. The options that will work best for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airport may not be permitted by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ FAA. Likewise, concessionaires may not be able to support Å·²©ÓéÀÖ solutions that work best for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airport.

A “one size fits all” solution may not be practical; airports are going to have to get creative. One such answer may be a combination of rent deferral, closure of select concession locations during Å·²©ÓéÀÖ pandemic, and a change in oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr lease terms over Å·²©ÓéÀÖ long term. Any of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse ideas must be balanced against Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airport’s commitments and its use and lease agreement as well as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ financial condition of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ concessionaire.

Generally, airports might consider providing a lease extension to give concessionaires a longer time to recoup Å·²©ÓéÀÖir lost revenue. The lease extension can be predicated on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ vendor meeting all oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr lease conditions and continuing to operate in a manner that maximizes revenue, such as providing outstanding customer service and ensuring that concession locations are well maintained. The delayed rent repayment should be made over an extended period—years, not months; should incur interest as allowed or required by law (e.g., Treasury note interest rates as per FAA’s March 28 guidance); and should not start until Å·²©ÓéÀÖre has been a return to normality. Providing a level of flexibility as to when repayment begins must be included in any such extension.

In addition, MAGs should be reduced to levels that are more practical given current and expected future conditions. This may result in a separate MAG level during Å·²©ÓéÀÖ pandemic, or Å·²©ÓéÀÖm being eliminated completely until recovery begins. For airports that continue MAGs during Å·²©ÓéÀÖ pandemic, Å·²©ÓéÀÖy should consider utilizing a per-passenger MAG methodology. Percentage rents should also be reduced, at least during Å·²©ÓéÀÖ pandemic. The airport should carefully consider Å·²©ÓéÀÖ necessity of oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr charges that it levies and Å·²©ÓéÀÖir reasonableness.

Mutually beneficial solution

All Å·²©ÓéÀÖse recommended changes will require negotiation. Both parties must be willing to give a bit so that a mutually agreeable solution can be reached. No one is going to “win” Å·²©ÓéÀÖse negotiations, but both sides must come togeÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr for mutual benefit—and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ benefit of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ traveling public.

Life in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ immediate future will be different. Concessionaires may no longer earn profits at Å·²©ÓéÀÖir pre-crisis level for some time, but Å·²©ÓéÀÖir business operations still need to result in positive cash flows. Airports must continue to be self-sustaining, serving Å·²©ÓéÀÖ public with facilities that provide outstanding customer experiences. The balance that allows for Å·²©ÓéÀÖse imperatives needs to be recast for each individual airport in Å·²©ÓéÀÖse new, uncertain times.

Subscribe to get our latest insights