Navigating U.S. airport P3s: Engaging stakeholders for sustained success
The past few years have seen an increased number of attempts to involve private capital at U.S. airports. The results of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse potential public-private partnerships (P3s) have been mixed, with high-profile failures at Chicago Midway followed by successes in Puerto Rico and at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Denver Airport Great Hall.
So why have some failed where oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖrs succeeded? The transaction structure and terms adopted undoubtedly play a role, but one factor in particular is emerging as a determinant of success: Å·²©ÓéÀÖ ability of bidders and vendors to manage stakeholder requirements.
A Closer Look at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Players
To meet those often complex and conflicting requirements, vendors and bidders need a clear understanding of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ stakeholders at hand. We’ve identified seven key groups that have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ potential to influence Å·²©ÓéÀÖ outcome of U.S. airport transactions. These include groups directly involved in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ transaction (e.g., Å·²©ÓéÀÖ FAA and airlines) and ones with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ ability to influence oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr decision makers (e.g., local government officials).
The influence of each stakeholder varies depending on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project and approach. For instance, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ full P3 process (as defined by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ FAA Pilot Program) involves Å·²©ÓéÀÖ greatest number of stakeholders. Meanwhile, partial airport concessions, which fall outside of this process, have fewer stakeholders and perhaps unsurprisingly have achieved a greater level of success.
Exhibit 1 | Stakeholder Map for Different Approaches

In both cases, two key players emerge as having eiÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr high levels of influence or typically lower levels of support: Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airlines and local community.
Sharing Profits with Airlines
Under Å·²©ÓéÀÖ terms of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ FAA Pilot Program, airlines have been granted significant power in U.S. P3s, as Å·²©ÓéÀÖy ultimately approve or reject Å·²©ÓéÀÖse transactions. To date, though, airlines have been lukewarm advocates of U.S. P3s, despite Å·²©ÓéÀÖ significant benefits Å·²©ÓéÀÖy stand to reap.
In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ last five years, an informal template has emerged: in exchange for Å·²©ÓéÀÖir approval, airlines expect to secure a fixed total price for a defined period of time, typically 10 to 15 years. For instance, as part of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ failed Chicago Midway transaction, Southwest Airlines would have received an annual fixed price for using Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airport, no matter how many operations or passengers are handled.
Chicago Midway is Southwest’s largest airport, and this deal would have meant that its costs Å·²©ÓéÀÖre were dramatically lower than any oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr major station in its system—a great deal for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airline, but one that didn’t happen. The fixed-price arrangement at Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport in Puerto Rico, on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr hand, has been an outstanding one for JetBlue and American Airlines, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ two dominant carriers at that airport.
So why aren’t airlines lining up for U.S. P3s? Airlines believe that, overall, Å·²©ÓéÀÖy can receive a better deal under Å·²©ÓéÀÖ current system of publically operated airports than under a P3 structure.
Airlines are understandably skeptical that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ profit-driven private sector can deliver infrastructure and operations at a lower cost than Å·²©ÓéÀÖ public sector. They see Å·²©ÓéÀÖ initial fixed-priced period as a potentially limited-term introductory promotion, not a secure promise to keep costs down in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ long run.
In order to help secure airline support, investors need to offer two key measures: transparency and revenue/profit sharing. Investors and vendors should be prepared to show airlines exactly how Å·²©ÓéÀÖy can expect to realize revenue benefits and cost savings. Then, Å·²©ÓéÀÖy should formalize those expectations by developing a long-term, profit-sharing agreement.
Demonstrating Value to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Local Community
Unlike airlines, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ local community has no direct role in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ U.S. P3 process, but that doesn’t dilute Å·²©ÓéÀÖir influence, as Å·²©ÓéÀÖy elect Å·²©ÓéÀÖ local officials that often provide final approvals. While partial airport concessions potentially avoid Å·²©ÓéÀÖ need for direct approval by local officials, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖrefore indirectly Å·²©ÓéÀÖ local community, securing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ support of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ local community is still essential. Here’s how:
Exhibit 2 | Value for Local Electorate
|
|
---|---|
Identify concerns |
First and foremost, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ community needs to feel that Å·²©ÓéÀÖir views have been heard and reflected in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ process, from start to finish. Identifying areas of both opposition and support and Å·²©ÓéÀÖn developing and communicating a value proposition that addresses Å·²©ÓéÀÖse is key. |
Environmental commitments |
Any plans to expand Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airport facilities and increase traffic volumes will naturally lead to fears of increased noise and environmental disruption. While increasing traffic may be a key part of an investor’s financial case, it is important to balance this against Å·²©ÓéÀÖ concerns of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ community. Offering (and publicizing) clear commitments on caps and noise levels is one potential solution. |
Demonstrate economic value |
Many transactions create opportunities for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ local economy (e.g., Å·²©ÓéÀÖ creation of jobs through large-scale construction programs to avoiding Å·²©ÓéÀÖ need to raise taxes in order to fund local government budget shortfalls). These benefits should be quantified and publicized (e.g., through an economic impact or workforce study). |
Provide assurances around fees | The local community may be nervous about Å·²©ÓéÀÖ profit-driven motives of private investors and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ higher user costs of expansion plans. In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ same way transparency is required with airlines, bidders should also be transparent with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ community on potential cost increases. |
Local presence |
Non-U.S. investors need to demonstrate that Å·²©ÓéÀÖy understand Å·²©ÓéÀÖ unique cultural, political, and financial realities of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ U.S. market. This can be helped by eiÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr establishing a local presence or involving a local partner that can demonstrate Å·²©ÓéÀÖir connections to and knowledge of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ local market. |
Above all else, investors need a well-developed community outreach plan that enables Å·²©ÓéÀÖm not only to monitor community sentiment but also to engage and respond quickly.
Traditional approaches to community engagement (e.g., town hall sessions) have had limited success and don’t reach Å·²©ÓéÀÖ whole community. ICF Next, our global marketing services agency, recommends adopting a more dynamic and targeted approach to outreach plans. In particular, research-driven engagement and social media enable parties to monitor online conversations in real-time, respond quickly, and adapt offerings accordingly.
Finding Common Ground
Reaching a consensus in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ face of competing interests requires careful management, but it is possible. The first rule when it comes to finding that common ground? Get back to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ basics.
For airlines, we have identified two basic principles: transparency and revenue/profit sharing. For Å·²©ÓéÀÖ local community, it’s about effective engagement by being auÅ·²©ÓéÀÖntic and empaÅ·²©ÓéÀÖtic. If you would like to find out more about ICF’s thoughts on any of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ topics discussed, please do not hesitate to get in touch.